Debates of May 24th, 1994

High-Speed Train

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)( a ) I have been requested by the Chief Government Whip to defer the division. Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)( a ) the division on the question now before the House stands deferred until 5.30 p.m. tomorrow at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.

I wonder if I might have some indication from members as to proceeding to the adjournment motion.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Yes.

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

I will second that.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on a question I asked of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport a few weeks ago regarding, of all things, the future of passenger rail in Canada and particularly along the Windsor to Quebec corridor.

The people in my riding spoke out very vociferously against the cuts in 1990. Now they find themselves in a position in which their limited but very important passenger rail service is yet again in jeopardy.

Just by way of interest, the other day I was down on the platform in Brantford and saw 40 men and women prepared to board the train to Toronto and points eastward. There were men and women on their way to work in the city of Toronto and young adults on their way to university in Toronto. Seniors find the train service very accommodating and easy to access, and there were two going into the city to visit with medical specialists, friends and neighbours, and to go to the theatre. As well there were two families that had been visiting in southwestern Ontario and were on their way home to Quebec City.

As the parliamentary secretary knows, the line that runs between London and Brantford and goes on to Toronto is the least subsidized of all the VIA lines. I cannot see that it would make any sense to further cut the service along that section of the corridor.

Beyond that I would like to say I have listened to the parliamentary secretary and the minister talk about how they view VIA's initiatives in terms of managing continued federal government funding cuts, that they will be looking at managerial restructuring and efficiencies, that they will be working to upgrade, modify and update their very outdated labour contracts, and finally that they will be rationalizing unused infrastructure.

I would say to the government that it must insist VIA is successful in all three of these approaches. Beyond that I would like to suggest and believe that the government should prepare a comprehensive multimodal transportation strategy for Canada that would include an individual comprehensive mandate for VIA setting out its mission, its roles, its goals and the expectations by which its success can be measured.

I think in that mandate it will become clear to us that in places like southwestern Ontario the VIA infrastructure is most commonly used as a commuter service. I am not sure that I as a member from southwestern Ontario feel comfortable asking the rest of Canada to support that specific use of the infrastructure, just as I expect those in Alberta are necessarily anxious to ask those of us in Ontario and further east to support the VIA service to help them build their tourist industry.

While we as a national government should continue to support this very important passenger rail infrastructure, we should also encourage VIA to work very closely with our provincial counterparts to ensure that the use of the infrastructure is effective and very useful to the particular region in mind.

These are important things our government could do. In fact debate should be held in the House of Commons and a loud and clear direction should be given to VIA to be again a successful and useful mode of passenger rail transportation in the country.

[Joe Fontana, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I want first to congratulate the member for Brant on her hard work in promoting the needs of her area, especially the transportation needs of the people of the riding of Brant and elsewhere.

I can also say that we share a common vision with regard to the role that passenger rail service should play in the country. Some of the suggestions she put forward are obviously ones that the government and the minister are considering.

I should point out, though, with respect to her specific question that it is premature for the government to look at specific service cutbacks or service routes at this time. I believe the member alluded to the fact that VIA is currently conducting some negotiations with its workforce. Those negotiations hopefully will be fruitful so that in fact VIA can meets its fiscal requirements as mandated by the government and essentially be able to maintain a viable passenger rail network across the country.

I should also point out that not only are the workers part of the solution. We have always said in the House that passengers must be part of the solution. As well as other interested parties, municipalities and provincial governments, passengers need to be part of the solution for a new invigorated VIA.

People have to use trains. People talk about the value of trains. They want high speed trains. They want to use train services. The reality is that they jump in their cars usually by themselves and travel from point a to point b . We have to do much more to encourage people to use this mode of transportation. That is very fundamental.

Let me point out to members that there is a unique opportunity for all parties to work together toward a solution, including the municipalities and provinces, as they have between Brantford and Toronto. They have helped subsidize that particular route. That is an opportunity for everyone to work together to ensure that we can maintain a passenger rail service in the country.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, following my comments of April 14 last, in this House, regarding certain allegations made by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration concerning COFIs, centres for the integration of immigrants into the French community, may I remind the minister that the fact that the federal government reinvests taxpayers' money in these centres does not give it the right to interfere with Quebec's rights.

As a matter of fact, the jurisdictional limits of both levels of government were defined in the federal-provincial agreement known as the Cullen-Couture agreement, which was signed in 1978, and later broadened and confirmed by the MacDougall-Gagnon-Tremblay agreement. The terms of the agreement are very clear. They give Quebec total jurisdiction over immigrant services and social integration of immigrants through the COFIs.

Fortunately, the Quebec Minister of International Relations and Cultural Communities, Mr. Ciaccia, called his federal counterpart to order and suggested that he should mind his own business, just as the Bloc Quebecois did in this House.

The statement by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration criticizing the lack of enthusiasm shown by the COFIs in presenting the Canadian reality is indeed a case of unacceptable meddling in Quebec affairs.

I would remind the minister that it is not for nothing that Quebec has been demanding, and finally got, some powers regarding immigration. In fact, the repatriation of every power in this area amounts to nothing less for the Quebec society than its own survival and the preservation of the French language on its territory. The integration of newcomers into the French community has always been essential to our survival as a nation.

I take this opportunity to congratulate COFI instructors for their excellent work in making refugees and immigrants feel welcomed and in helping them get integrated into our society.

I would point out to the minister that COFIs are not supposed to give immigrants courses on federalism, but rather to give them basic instruments which will help them cope with their new environment, that is Quebec and especially Montreal, where over 80 per cent of the immigrants are found.

Lessons on day to day living informs newcomers about front-line services such as transport, housing, welfare, health insurance or education. As you can see, all those services are under Quebec's jurisdiction.

The minister should know that out of approximately 45,000 immigrants to Quebec, only a small fraction can take advantage of the COFIs' integration services. A large majority of them must manage by themselves to find information and adapt to their new environment.

As we can see, the situation is far from reflecting the minister's description. Instead of asking COFIs to praise Canadian federalism, the minister should give them the financial means to offer all newcomers the services they need for harmonious integration into our society.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has already stated unequivocally on the floor of this House that there is no disagreement between himself and his colleague from the province of Quebec vis-à-vis their respective roles in helping new immigrants successfully integrate.

Settlement programs and services in every province in this country help newcomers access services in their new community and participate in local life. Much of the information provided relates quite specifically to the communities and province in which the immigrants live.

For immigrants destined to the province of Quebec the Canada-Quebec accord recognizes Quebec's exclusive responsibility for settlement and integration services for which there is federal compensation.

Not only is there no problem but the federal government appreciates that understanding and appreciation of Quebec culture and society is vital in helping immigrants in Quebec adapt to their new surroundings.

The minister has told his Quebec counterpart and stated in this House that he thinks that Quebec has a first rate settlement program for its immigrants.

Conversely, the Quebec government understands the role of the federal government in promoting awareness of Canada. In its responsibility for citizenship, the minister is committed to promoting what he has called a strong, exciting patriotism and love of Canada. This is the essence of the citizenship review that he recently announced.

Immigrants throughout Canada have the opportunity to seek Canadian citizenship. It is the mandate of this ministry to provide information and assistance to Canadians seeking information about citizenship and particularly to immigrants preparing for citizenship.

I am pleased to report that the federal-provincial committee responsible for the Canada-Quebec accord met on April 29. It considered the questions raised in the media about the integration of immigrants in Quebec. At this meeting Quebec representatives tabled a copy of their linguistic integration program highlighting that its purpose is to provide immigrants with the basic tools necessary for integration into Quebec society.

The Quebec program is not designed as an introduction to citizenship, the latter being a federal responsibility.

On April 14 the minister announced his plans to develop a new Citizenship Act for a renewed and reinvigorated citizenship for all Canadians. The Canada-Quebec accord clearly gives the Government of Canada sole authority in citizenship matters.

Most eligible immigrants apply for and receive Canadian citizenship. Any measure to promote citizenship will of course address their needs as well. Members of the federal-provincial committee or comité mixte exchange information as required. That is its mandate and the minister believes in letting the committee carry out its mandate.

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on April 27, I put a question to the Minister of Justice asking him what action he would take to ban handguns as a result of a meeting he had earlier that week with a group which made that proposal to him. The group in question consisted of representatives from Concordia University, the Canadian Safety Council, the Canadian Bar Association, the Ottawa chief of police and others.

In answer to my question the minister said that the government is committed toward more effective gun control, but he was not able to give me much detail at that time in his answer. As a result I am putting the question once again today.

Since that time several important things have happened. We have had two drive-by shootings in this area recently, one by a group of minors who were able to obtain weapons, guns and ammunition illegally and without much difficulty.

The second happening was a very important resolution passed by the Liberal convention here in Ottawa just a few weeks ago. In that resolution which was passed by an overwhelming majority of the convention delegates, among other things they asked that the private possession and ownership of handguns be severely restricted.

As many have pointed out and as I have pointed out in this House before, handguns are not used for hunting. They have no legitimate purpose with private individuals and therefore should be banned or at least severely restricted. They are now restricted weapons but they are still available too loosely and much can be done to tighten that up.

Among the other subclauses of that resolution is one which would ban the sale and ownership of ammunition to those under 18 years of age. The sale of such ammunition would only be made to adults if they were in possession of the appropriate documentation.

For years I have been proposing that no one should be permitted to buy ammunition unless they present the firearms acquisition certificate. In this way all those who want to use and/or own weapons would have to get a firearms acquisition certificate because in order to shoot the gun and to be effective in one's shooting of the gun, one needs both the gun and the ammunition.

If we can put more obstacles in the way of those who want to use weapons in a criminal way or illegally, the better off we are and the better chance we have of reducing crime with guns. To oblige people to have a firearms acquisition certificate or other appropriate documentation, as the resolution points out, the better chance we have of preventing incidents such as happened in Ottawa and other incidents across the country where people have committed crimes with guns.

I repeat over and over again that there is considerable evidence from Canada and around the world that where guns are less available and where ammunition is less available there are fewer crimes with guns. That is an absolute fact that has been shown over and over again.

Once again I want to thank the Minister of Justice for his answer to me and also the response of the Prime Minister following the convention. If the parliamentary secretary could give us more details with respect to this important matter, we would appreciate it very much.

[Russell MacLellan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice recently indicated in this House that the government is committed to enacting more effective gun control legislation.

He has said that the government is looking at all of its options and that it will be introducing measures in this House in due course.

I speak for many members of this House when I say that I am concerned about the levels of violent crime in this country. Canadians are afraid of violence and they want their government to take strong measures not only to stem the growth of violence but also to reduce it. They are afraid that values in other countries where citizens are allowed easy access to firearms will take root in Canada.

The minister has indicated that the government is considering its options, one of those being more controls on handguns. There may be some legitimate use for handguns but in my view these should be the exception and not the rule. They should be carefully screened and under close control. Handguns are the most useful type of firearm for many common offences.

In the United States where they are not under the type of restrictions found in Canada, they are the most commonly used firearms in crimes such as armed robbery and homicide. In Canada, they are already under strict controls and criminal misuse is less common but it is increasing.

In previous years handgun homicides represented about one-third of all homicides from firearms. In the last year or two this has risen to about one-half of all firearms homicides. Under the circumstances, complete prohibition of handguns must be an option. If this does not prove feasible, then the government should act to make sure that only those who actually require handguns are allowed to possess them and that strict and effective controls are in place for those who do possess them.

The minister said that he is looking at these options. I am confident that these options include measures to respond to concerns about handguns. As the hon. member well understands, the subject of gun control has a long and contentious history in this House. When the government brings forward its proposals I am sure that they will receive close scrutiny. I am sure that this House will respond to the calls of Canadians for strict and effective gun control and that the response will also be a response to the concerns raised by the hon. member.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on March 24, I asked the Minister of Human Resources Development the following question: "How can the Minister argue that his government's priority is job creation, when its only strategy is an attack on 85 per cent of the unemployed, and moreover in the poorest provinces?"

I could ask this question to the minister because I had just received the information that unemployment insurance cuts for 1994-95 and 1995-96 would amount to $735 million a year in Quebec and $630 million in each of these years in the Atlantic provinces. This adds up to $1.365 billion in cuts for Quebec and the Atlantic provinces together, where some 30 per cent of the Canadian population lives.

Before the minister made these changes to unemployment insurance that will be submitted to Parliament, was he concerned about the economic impact of these cuts? I am talking about the economic impact because claimants will receive less, because they will not have access to unemployment insurance, because they will not have accumulated as many weeks of work, because benefits will be lower. This reduction means less money circulating in Quebec and in the Atlantic provinces, money that would pay rent and buy groceries and other necessities.

When governments have laws like the Unemployment Insurance Act to give money to workers who lose their jobs, this money is immediately put in the economy. It is not used to buy luxury goods and it is not used to accumulate wealth or to speculate either. It is money that goes into the local communities and all these communities, whether they are in my riding or in the Lower St. Lawrence or in small villages in the Atlantic provinces, will be directly affected because there will be less money in circulation.

Has the minister thought of the additional burden he is imposing on the provinces because social assistance will be greatly affected? Employment and Immigration published figures showing that increased welfare caseloads are expected. For example, it predicts 14,500 new applications from people who run out of UI benefits and 4,400 from people not entitled to UI.

In Quebec alone, the minister predicted-and we can consider these figures to be conservative as well-that 14,500 more households would be on welfare at a cost of $127 million for next year; I repeat, these figures are conservative. So I repeat my question: How can the minister claim that he is working on job creation when, before helping people, he cuts what they need to eat, to live and to hang on?

[Russell MacLellan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of actual money transferred, Quebec and Atlantic Canada will still be better off than the rest of Canada. Taking into account the changes introduced on February 21, the Atlantic provinces as a whole will receive $970 in unemployment insurance per capita and Quebec $730 per capita compared with $575 per capita for all of Canada.

Historically Quebec and Atlantic Canada have each received more in benefits than they paid in premiums. On average each receives about $1 billion annually in transfers from Ontario and the western provinces.

The changes that we proposed to the unemployment insurance plan aim at putting people back to work. Small businesses asked us to give them a break and reduce unemployment insurance premiums so as to be able to create jobs for Canadians. This is what we did.

The unemployment insurance changes cannot be seen in isolation. They represent a first but interim step in giving Canadians a sense of new direction.

If in the redesigning of the social security system we find that different changes are needed, we will make them. There is no doubt that the proposed measures will impact on some unemployment insurance claimants. That is unavoidable. We have tried to make the changes in a manner that is fair and protects those with the greatest needs.

Unlike the previous government, we made sure that the changes took into account the needs of the poorest of the poor.

As we begin the shift from our current set of programs to something more comprehensive, we have decided to reintroduce a principle into unemployment insurance that was part of it for 30 years. That is we have decided to look at the needs of individuals with low incomes and with dependants and to provide more adequate coverage for these Canadians. These individuals will receive a 60 per cent benefit rate. Others will receive 55 per cent.

With the provinces and the territories we will initiate new programs targeted at the most chronically unemployed Canadians. We have dedicated $800 million over the next two years for these strategic initiatives to test out new approaches to social security.

[Jean Landry, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and again concerns the referendum on the defunct Charlottetown Accord. In 1992, this referendum cost Canada the modest sum of $145 million. The federal government paid $105 million, while Quebec paid $40 million under its election legislation. Need I recall that this means Quebec spent more than its share? In addition to the $40 million, Quebec spent one-quarter of the federal expenditures, or $26 million. So altogether, Quebec spent over $66 million, far more than any other province.

Quebec is therefore entitled to put in a claim to the federal government for reimbursement of these $26 million, its Canadian share, since it had already spent its provincial share.

As I pointed out in the House on May 4 this year, no payments have been made by the federal government to the Quebec government so far. However, the issue has been raised several times by the Government of Quebec, the Bloc québécois and the Parti québécois. Personally, I asked the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs of Canada for some explanations on May 4. I repeat, in terms of dealing with the issue, the evasive response of the minister was certainly not satisfactory.

The behaviour of the federal government certainly defies all logic. Barely a week before the federal election, on October 19, 1993, in response to a question by the Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly, the former minister responsible for Electoral Reform, Marc-Yvan Côté, who is a federalist, thank you very much, maintained that there was a commitment by the federal government to reimburse the cost of this referendum. Mr. Côté pointed out several times that he had submitted several requests to the federal government and had done so on the basis of a commitment made by the previous Conservative government to reimburse the Quebec government.

This injustice to Quebec is an issue not only for sovereigntists in Quebec but also for the federal government's federalist friends. The Quebec Government has been patient, but we have now been waiting for 18 months.

How can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs explain the fact that no decision has been made regarding the reimbursement of this amount of $26 million? It is, in fact, a legitimate request which the Quebec government has made several times. How can the minister explain the unfair decision he is making by having Quebecers pay more than their share of a referendum on the renewal of the Canadian federation?

How can the minister explain his decision given the results of the referendum which was overwhelmingly defeated, contrary to what the Liberal Party of Canada wanted to see? Are we to understand from the behaviour of the minister and his government that Quebecers must pay more dearly than the English provinces of Canada its rejection of this agreement? Everyone knows that several other Canadian provinces also rejected the

Charlottetown agreement and the situation with Quebec is still unresolved.

Finally, I come to the conclusion that for some federalists equity does not have the same meaning if it applies to English provinces or to Quebec. The longer the federal government waits before reimbursing the $26 million the Quebec government is entitled to, the more this double standard will become obvious to the Quebec population.

[John English, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, on October 26, 1992 there were two separate referendums, one in Quebec and one in the other provinces and the two territories.

Quebec held its own referendum under provincial laws while a referendum was held in the rest of the country under the federal Referendum Act. It was Quebec's own decision to hold a separate referendum subject to provincial not federal laws.

You will remember that, with Bill 150 and after the demise of the Meech Lake Accord, the Quebec government had pledged to hold a referendum on Quebec's sovereignty before October 25, 1992. Following the Charlottetown accord, Quebec changed its own bill in order to hold a referendum on the Charlottetown accord rather than on Quebec sovereignty.

Parliament has also adopted its own rules to permit the holding of a referendum under federal laws. On June 23, 1992 the federal Referendum Act received royal assent.

On September 10, 1992 after a debate the House of Commons approved the text of the referendum and the referendum question which read as follows: Do you agree that the Constitution of Canada should be renewed on the basis of the agreement reached on August 28, 1992?

On September 17, 1992 the governor in council issued by order in council an order that a proclamation do be issued directing that the opinion of the electors of nine provinces-except Quebec-and the territories be obtained on the referendum question.

The federal government did consult the electors of nine provinces and two territories on the Charlottetown accord according to the federal Referendum Act.

As for the Quebec government, it decided to hold a separate referendum on the Charlottetown accord. Quebec followed its own rules on the referendum question, the referendum process and the voting.

On October 26, 1992 there were two separate referendums subject to two different sets of rules. The question of reimbursement of the Quebec referendum costs by the federal government is now being discussed bilaterally with Quebec.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

It being 7.22 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7.22 p.m.)