Debates of March 14th, 1994

Supply

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to applaud the government's decision to reinstate the court challenges program.

The original court challenges program began in 1978 when the Secretary of State and the Minister of Justice announced the establishment of a fund to provide financial assistance for legal expenses of litigants seeking clarification of the scope of protection afforded to official language minorities under either section 93 or 133 of the Constitution Act of 1867.

Following the proclamation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 the Secretary of State and the Minister of Justice reaffirmed and updated the court challenges program. The program was expanded to include sections 16 to 23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In 1985 section 15 of the charter came into effect and the court challenges program was expanded to include equality rights protected under that provision. At the same time, administration of the program was assigned to an arm's length organization, the Canadian Council on Social Development, which administered the program until 1990 when the responsibility was transferred to the Human Rights Research and Education Centre of the University of Ottawa.

The termination by the previous government of the court challenges program was severely criticized. It was seen by many as an attack on human rights. Former Supreme Court Justice Bertha Wilson wrote to the Minister of Justice at the time, expressing here dismay and distress over the cancellation of the program. She wrote, in part: "I have on numerous occasions publicly expressed the view that it is totally illusory to confer rights on people who do not have the means to enforce them".

The program has been commended for making the critical difference between access to charter rights and no access, and this government is committed to ensuring access for Canadians to a judicial system that would otherwise be beyond reach.

We agree with Madam Wilson that rights for people who do not have the means to enforce them are totally illusory.

The program funds precedent-making cases that are national in scope. While it subsidizes individuals and groups, it is concerned with issues that affect many Canadians. It is not a general legal aid program. To guarantee impartiality of decisions on cases with financial implications, the government has transferred responsibility for the program to independent organizations.

Since its founding, the program has been unique in Canada and has attracted praise from outside the country as well. It bears witness to the fact that enshrining rights in legislation has no impact if the people they are supposed to protect lack the means to enforce those rights.

In fact, people have been very critical of the Charter because it is not accessible to the average Canadian. In the past, the Court Challenges Program has ensured access to the courts for all individuals who want to defend their language or equality rights.

The program has made it possible for all Canadians to be full participants in the Constitution of our country. It has been instrumental in making charter rights accessible to francophone parents, aboriginal women and the disabled, to name only a few.

In addition to language and equality rights, the new court challenges program will fund test cases of national significance involving challenges to fundamental freedoms as outlined under section 2 of the charter.

These basic freedoms are as follows: freedom of conscience and religion, freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other communications media, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association.

I am also pleased to say that the program, as reinstated, will continue to provide financial support for legal tests that are national in scope and concern federal and provincial statutes covered by sections 93 and 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, section 23 of the Manitoba Act, 1870, and sections 16 to 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The program will also continue to provide financial support for court challenges of federal statutes, practices and policies, under sections 15-equality-and 28-gender equality-of the Charter, or when an argument relating to section 27 of the Charter- multiculturalism-supports arguments based on section 15.

The new program will be administered independently by a non-profit agency, whose board of directors will include representatives of the Canadian Bar Association, non-governmental organizations and universities.

Proposals and discussion papers on the new program have been received from a number of groups. Officials are reviewing these carefully as they continue to work on the modalities of the program. A number of parties have expressed an interest in working with the department to ensure the expedient reinstatement of the program.

This government recognizes and values the experience of individuals and groups involved with the former court challenges program. It is committed to seeking their views prior to making a decision on the legal structure and operating principles of the new program.

As a result of the broad range of interest, experience and expertise which will be taken into account by the government, I am confident the program will be implemented as quickly as possible in a manner accountable to the government and the people of Canada.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise once again on an opposition day.

The last time I stood on an opposition day was February 21. We were speaking on petitions. The Reform Party was advancing the notion it wanted this House to listen better. It wanted to show that we listen better to Canadians and to each other.

Interestingly enough when my time expired one of my colleagues on that side of the House moved a motion that the time be extended so I could answer some questions. Members of the Reform Party were the ones who voted against it. That is important for us to note.

In terms of dealing with this budget, one has to wonder whether the opposition perhaps is being a little sanctimonious. I say that because there was an election. We can talk all we want about petitions or referendums, but there was an election on October 25.

We went to the public with a plan. It was outlined in the red book. We said that we were going to follow that plan if we formed a government. Now that we are in government that is exactly what we are doing. We are following that plan. For members of a party that says it believes in petitions and referendums to turn around and tell us we should ignore our campaign promises to Canadians certainly is the height of cynicism and sanctimony.

Let us look at what was contained in the budget. We talked about what we would do in the fiscal framework of present day realities.

It is in the budget that there are $5 of spending cuts for every $1 of revenue increase. Over 80 per cent of the net fiscal improvements achieved by the government through 1996-97 comes through spending cuts. The net savings of $17 billion achieved in spending cuts come after paying for our new initiatives.

Some $6.7 billion in current federal program spending is being reallocated to encourage growth, create jobs and find new priorities. Those same programs are criticized in this motion.

We are talking about the infrastructure program that was the subject of such debate in the last election. In my riding of Waterloo the Reform candidate ran in the previous municipal election. When I won the seat to represent the Waterloo federal riding in this House, my seat on council became vacant. During the course of the campaign the Reform candidate was saying that the infrastructure program was pork barrelling. It was a make work project and had no redeeming value.

The Reform candidate now occupies my seat on Waterloo municipal council. And guess what? Last week they laid out the infrastructure program for the city of Waterloo. Waterloo is spending all its allocation. What happened with the Reform candidate who spoke so strongly against it? The Reform candidate voted in favour of the infrastructure program. It was unanimous.

I raise that because just like every other new Liberal member and I am sure most other members of this House I honestly and truly wanted to believe this Parliament was going to be different. We wanted to believe we would not be playing sanctimonious games, that we would be working together to improve the operation of this House.

That is not the reality. And it saddens me because every new member on my side of the House is a reformer and they are acting a lot different from the Reformers. We have to keep that in mind.

Staying with the infrastructure program, they say it is a make work project. One of the infrastructure programs deals with the inventory and repair of failing sewer lines throughout the city. Sewer lines are pretty important to any municipality. As a matter of fact, sewer lines make us a civilized country, along with water and other infrastructure. It is the elimination of inflow infiltration to the sewer lines.

Another program is to extend the Northland 4 industrial subdivision pumping station. There are sewers, water mains and road construction projects. They are doing that so they can have new industry locate. New industry will generate jobs and pay taxes.

Tell me the last time private enterprise built a sewage treatment plant. Clearly that is something government has to do. It is a responsibility belonging to government.

Infrastructure: Look around the world at countries that do not have infrastructure and you are looking at countries in the Third World. Look at the G-7 countries and the money they spend on infrastructure. They are spending it because they are investing in the future of their countries. We are investing in the future of our country. We as Liberals believe in that.

Prior to the tabling of the budget many Reform members and I had occasion to attend a workshop by the Fraser Institute. Do you know what was said? It was said that our proposal to get our goal of 3 per cent of the GDP in terms of reducing the debt within three years was a responsible approach. It was a rational approach.

We all knew that the deficit was going to be $32 billion this year. The previous regime told us that. The reality is we are looking at a much higher deficit this year.

The Reform Party in the last campaign said it was going to eliminate the deficit in three years. What Reform members say and how they act impacts on all of us and on the legitimacy of this Chamber. For the sake of their own credibility and that of this House I would love to see them stand in this House and present to us how they would eliminate the deficit. I put to this House that they could not do it. I challenge them to stand up-which they will not-and say they were wrong and they cannot do it.

One of this country's tragedies is what is happening to our youth. In 1992, 100,000 young people who graduated from high school were qualified to attend college or university but there was no place for them in our educational institutions. Reform Party members would chop out the youth services corps which is meant to address the drastically and shamefully high unemployment rate among our youth. To see their opposition to this corps has to sadden every member who cares about those neglected youth who are part of our constituencies.

My friend made a very able presentation on the court challenges program. Since I have been in this House I have listened to Reform members tell us they are in touch with the needs of minority groups. I can only say after listening to them for four months that I find them compassionately challenged when it comes to those issues.

What does the residential rehabilitation assistance program mean? It means those seniors who are unable to make repairs to their houses and move on to costlier institutions would be assisted so they could stay in their homes and thus maintain their dignity. How anyone could oppose that is incredible.

There is the engineering program. The University of Waterloo in my riding is the biggest supplier of workers to Microsoft in the United States. This has to be a brain drain. We want to keep our brightest graduates in whom we have invested so much in Canada. This will afford us an opportunity to do that.

In wrapping this up, I was looking forward to this motion today but I find it is very much challenged in terms of reality. I can only say I am very proud of the budget and the responsible plan we came down with in presenting that budget.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Richelieu has the floor, very briefly please.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Very briefly as usual, Mr. Speaker. I always follow your precious advice.

I was very surprised to hear the previous speaker, a member of the Liberal Party, express astonishment that a member of the Reform Party may have changed his mind or acted differently after an election. It is a distinctive feature of the Liberal Party to say one thing during the election campaign and something different after the campaign. The most conclusive evidence is the budget tabled by the Minister of Finance, which is exactly the kind of budget tabled by former Tory ministers.

I was surprised to hear the hon. member talk about contradictions as, when the Liberals were in opposition and the Conservatives dealt with unemployment through Bill C-113, I was also in opposition as a member of the Bloc Quebecois and I heard Liberal members cry out against that change. The last budget is doing worse things to the unemployed but they have not said a word. In closing, I am very surprised to see that when they were in opposition, they attacked the changes to old age pensions proposed by the Tory government, but now that they are in office, they do not hesitate to assail old age pensions.

I was very surprised when I heard the hon. member say that sewers are the solution in Canada and the distinctive characteristic of civilized countries. I thought it was culture, respect for young people, the right to work, and a finance minister who made the right decisions.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, may I say that on Friday with a number of my colleagues I had the opportunity to look at the social programs in my riding. Everyone who participated came up with very good suggestions about our social programs and how we have to reform them as we head into the next decade.

Everyone who came from the baby-boom generation would have some concern about old age pensions. We are going to have the biggest revolution when the baby boomers become senior citizens. Demographically it is going to be like everything else. When the boomers got to university, the university education system exploded. Therefore, we have to plan for that.

I really regret that the Bloc Quebecois would not want to look at this to make sure that in the future we will have a pension system that is supportable, viable and will be there for people in need. There has been absolutely no talk about cutting pensions.

In terms of sewers and infrastructure, even this Chamber has to have sewage service, probably more than most other places. Any building, whether it is a university building or an industrial building has to have a sewage system and a water system. Those systems are very important in protecting our environment as well.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The debate is over at 6.23. I wonder if the two members from the Reform Party want to cut into the time of their own members, two of whom are the next speakers. Assuming not, the next speaker is the hon. member for Simcoe Centre.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against the budget and in support of our motion to do something about the current deficit and debt that we face as a country.

I do not know if members have ever heard a million dollar speech, but I am about to give one. Members may not agree it is worth that much, but the fact remains that by the time I conclude, with our current debt accumulating at $78,000 per minute, we will have slipped another million dollars into debt. This is the ticking time bomb we are sitting on.

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Victoria—Haliburton, ON]

That is enough to make you lose your hair.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

I cannot afford to do that. I appreciate that this is a two part budget and nothing in the first part will correct the problem. Given the track record on promises for the future on the second stage I have no optimism.

We have been living beyond our means for over 20 years and over that same period each budget would acknowledge how serious the problem was, yet we still overspent and the debt continued to grow.

In spite of this history of year after year of failed budgets we continue to go down the same road. Apparently no one is asking the question: "What are we doing wrong? Why have our plans not worked"? The problem to me is the fact that we place all of our emphasis on those things that we have little control over; interest payments and growth in the economy.

The one area where we do have complete control is spending and yet we ignore it in the hope that we can grow our way out with optimistic growth projections and pray that interest rates will remain low. The government has a spending problem. There is no other variable available that we can control.

If we are serious about eliminating our deficit and then reducing our debt we must attack spending. Make no mistake about it, this is a war of Canada's survival. I am not talking about nibbling around the edges like this budget. I am talking about serious spending cuts, not next year or the year after but now.

From my background in small business I know how important the bottom line is. If you want to stay in business and employ people you must make a profit or at least break even. As a manager of that business if you fail to make a profit you fail the employees who lose their jobs. The bottom line is profit for people. Government is a business, not a business for profit but a break even business and the government is failing our people.

You cannot lose money year after year. You can borrow to a point. However, governments have gone far beyond the point of good business sense. Our lenders do us no favours by allowing us to go deeper and deeper into an abyss of debt. The pain and suffering that will come will not be any easier as we delay the inevitable as the budget does.

During the first few days of the 35th Parliament I heard the phrase "lean but not mean" many times. In some ways those are meaningless words of comfort. You cannot be lean but not mean. You are speaking with a forked tongue. To those who are going to be affected by your decisions to cut or reduce you are mean. To the 16,000 military personnel in the defence cuts plus the thousands of jobs lost in the cancellation of the EH-101 contract without debating the merits of those decisions, you were mean.

Unfortunately due to excessive spending by former governments there is no painless way out of the current mess. The budget has only delayed the day and continues to play a cruel hoax on Canadians by pretending there is an easy way out. There is not. We have 20 years of history to prove it.

It is ironic that on the first day of this Parliament the federal budget reached half a trillion dollars, a national disgrace for a country of 27 million people, a personal debt of $74,000 for each family of four living in the country, $18,000 of debt for every man, woman and child.

As shocking as these numbers are, the government is prepared to add almost $40 billion this year toward an additional $100 billion over the next three years to a total of $600 billion or $22,000 per person by 1996. It is madness. We cannot afford the programs we have and yet we are prepared to add more.

The 35th Parliament set three targets. The first is the largest deficit in our history, the largest number of new members, and the largest debt ever. What a great opportunity with so many new faces with fresh ideas to turn this place around and leave it in four years a better place than we found it, fiscally responsible and economically sound.

In 22 years of Liberal governments the debt soared from about $25 billion to $180 billion with an absolute freefall starting in 1975-1976. After losing to the Conservatives in 1984 the debt plunged to a record $500 billion in 1993, almost triple in nine short years. This in spite of the fact that each and every budget announced the intention of attacking the deficit and the debt.

Where is the credibility? We have had 20 years of failed budgets, 20 years of broken promises, 20 years of tax increases, and 20 years of declining services. Is there any wonder that Canadians have lost faith in their politicians?

There is a frightening similarity between overfishing and overspending. For years we were warned that our fish stocks were in danger and that continued fishing at current rates would deplete them, costing thousands of jobs. We ignored that advice at our peril. We have the same scenario today in out of control government spending. We have been warned it cannot continue yet we ignore the warnings.

With our situation deteriorating by the minute as it has done for the past 20 years no one is asking why. What are we doing wrong? How do we stop this addiction to spending? Like drugs or alcohol in many ways it is an addiction. Like an addiction the first step toward a cure is acknowledgement that we have a problem.

This budget fails that test. Much worse, it says very clearly that our finance minister does not understand.

Unless we face and solve these problems now nothing else matters, not health care, not education and not our ability to compete.

The headline on the cover of this week's Maclean's magazine asks the question: ``Are we cheating our kids?'' While the story deals with education, the same question applies to this generation's overspending and the terrible debt load we are leaving on their young shoulders.

The reason I am here today is my deep concern for my children and my grandchildren. I am ashamed of my part in this spending binge that has mortgaged their future. Sitting back was not good enough. I had to get involved and do what I could to save their future, and in saving their future we would be saving Canada from the terrible prospects of bankruptcy.

Some politicians will say that deficit and debt are a problem but not to worry. Those politicians are burying their heads in the sand. We have been told for 20 years that things are going to get better, yet our situation has never been worse.

In the next three years we will add $100 billion more debt and we will still be overspending by $25 billion.

For 20 years I ran a small business in Barrie providing employment for some 20 people. Each month and each year I worried that we would maintain a profit or at least break even so I could protect their jobs and mine. It is no different from any other business, large or small. It is no different than the taxpayers across this great country making ends meet, living within their means.

Why is it that governments think they can do otherwise? A big part of the answer is the fact that governments have been able to come back to us for more taxes, never cutting spending, just increasing taxes. The day of tax increases being productive is over.

My constituents told me very clearly they have no more to give. Any further attempts at a tax grab would ignite a tax revolt. Many of our citizens have expressed their disgust in past increases and broken promises by joining the underground economy which is costing honest taxpayers billions of dollars.

As part of our zero in three plan we outlined a savings of $500 million in subsidies to special interest groups that have been living off all taxpayers when they should have been getting funding from those they supposedly represent. We are doing a further study on this issue.

Governments do not create jobs. The private sector does. The $6 billion infrastructure program outlined in the budget to kick start our economy was described by Sir Roger Douglas, former finance minister of New Zealand, as taking a feather duster to the Eiffel Tower. Those few jobs will disappear after the funding runs out and we will be a further $6 billion in debt.

The private sector will create the long term jobs our children and grandchildren need. The private sector is not looking for government handouts. It is looking for governments to get off of its back and out of its pockets and out of the pockets of its customers.

The reduction in UI premiums is a step in the right direction and I applaud the government for that.

In closing, let me say that all of the problems we face are pale by comparison. If we fail to attack this overspending, this mortgaging our children's future, we will fail Canada. We are facing a battle that is greater than any our country has faced before. Working together we can make the tough decisions to bring back fiscal responsibility.

This budget is not the answer. We cannot delay. We can pay now or we can pay much more dearly later.

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Mr. speaker, the speech was not worth a million dollars to me. He asked for $1 million.

On this motion paragraph (a) asks for a cut in the budget for the youth service corps, the court challenges program, the residential rehabilitation assistance plan, the engineers program and infrastructure program. That is one paragraph.

Paragraph (c) says that we should spend money to produce quarterly reports. We are going to spend money to produce reports but we will not spend money to create jobs. How does one explain this in the motion?

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, item (c) where we are asking that money be spent on quarterly reports on our progress ties in very nicely with a recommendation that was made in the Auditor General's report.

One problem we have faced over the years is that the Canadian public is not being kept aware of the magnitude of this program and our progress or lack of progress in solving it. Our reference to that is for information, to keep this Parliament and all Canadians aware of the progress that we are making toward attacking the deficit and the debt.

I do not think that is wasted money. It is money well spent. We will be keeping in touch with our progress in addressing this most serious concern that we face and indeed that all Canadians are going to be affected by.

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

Mr. Speaker, I realize the time is short and I will not be able to give the entire load that I intended to deliver to the House on this occasion in speaking in support of our motion put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Lethbridge.

I had intended to relate to this House the effect that I felt the federal government's budget would have on the agricultural industry. Perhaps when another day provides the opportunity I will be able to give this presentation in a little bit more detail.

I would like to make a few points in the short time that I have available, especially in light of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture is in the House. It would have been a great pleasure and a privilege to discuss agriculture at quite some length because agriculture has been an issue that has strangely been on the back burner. It has received very little attention in the House from the government side.

I know that my constituents in Kindersley-Lloydminster and Canadians in rural areas are quite concerned that the government does not have a handle on federal spending. Federal agriculture programs are not only in jeopardy but our very standard of living is in jeopardy and will affect all communities in this country as well as agriculture.

By not taking the necessary steps to deal with the deficit now the government is sacrificing the future of government services to all Canadians, including people in the agricultural field. Rather than taking these essential steps the government has decided to create more spending programs.

We would encourage the government to place a moratorium on new spending, including the new spending requirements announced in the budget namely, and we have talked about them today, the youth service corps, the court challenges program and the engineer's program but particularly the infrastructure program.

I was quite saddened to hear comments made by the Minister of Public Works mocking Reform's position that Canadians are not as excited about the infrastructure program as the government would have us believe.

The minister challenged members on this side of the House to have their constituencies refuse infrastructure funding. It seemed like a very unfair request to make in that constituents who are represented by Reform MPs are being raped and pillaged by high taxes and then are expected to give up the morsels that the government would offer by way of inadequate infrastructure programs.

More seriously, what is really the heart of the matter is that instead of having a few new programs, what is really going to happen is that we are not going to have security for the programs that Canadians rely upon including federal support for health care for those seniors that the government side seems to be so concerned about, if they have a few programs that have nice frills around the edges. However we lose the core of our health care program. What good are these programs?

If we have a youth corps program but we do not have quality education for our young people in this country, of what value is a youth corps program? Finally, if our seniors lose their old age security pensions and low income assistance, of what value are some of these frills that the government would put forward in the way of new programs?

Reformers have been talking about priorities. We have been talking about what is really important to keep this great country of ours together with a high standard of living that we can all be proud of. Whether we are people in the private sector who are small business people, farmers, whether we are seniors who have committed a great deal of effort and energy into making this a great country, or whether we are the youth of this country who would like to think they have a bright future where they can contribute to a great land and to a society that they can make better, I and many Canadians are concerned that this will not be the case in light of the fact that the government has not been able to control its spending. In fact, this debt may be a ticking time bomb that will explode on future generations and deny them the standard of living and the lifestyle that we have enjoyed as Canadians who have lived beyond our means. They will not have that same opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the short time you have allowed me to speak. As I mentioned, perhaps I will be able to unload the entire load at some future occasion.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 6.23 p.m., in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 81(16), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question!

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

And the division bells having rung:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), I have been asked by the government whip to defer the division until a later time.

Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the division on the question now before the House stands deferred until tomorrow at 6.30 p.m. at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.

Colleagues, it being 6.25 p.m. the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.25 p.m.)