Debates of May 9th, 1994

Canada Petroleum Resources Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent for this proposal?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 6.04 p.m.)

(The House resumed at 6.13 p.m.)

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

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of pay equity affects a large number of women in Canada and Quebec. The issue is one of equity and equality between men and women. Through pay equity, an employer, which includes governments, recognizes the equal value of work done by men and women and, in so doing, enables female employees to reach a standing of living comparable to that of male employees.

However, this government apparently does not want to move on this issue. I have risen in my seat several times to condemn the government's failure to act in this respect. Twice, I asked the president of Treasury Board how he intended to correct the pay inequity existing in Canada's public service. I also asked when the government intended to pay its female workforce the amounts it was granted under a judgment by the Human Rights Tribunal. I was given reassurances but no firm commitment.

On January 20, at the beginning of this Parliament, I was told that this government was most committed to the matter of pay equity and had made a formal commitment to public service employees that it would set an example in this respect. I may recall this was back in mid-January.

On March 8, International Women's Day, I twice condemned the government's failure to act on the issue of pay equity. In reply, the Secretary of State responsible for the Status of Women said: "Women must have a place in the job world, receive equal pay for work of equal value and contribute their fair share to our collective wealth".

She went on to say: "I feel privileged to be part of a government which is determined to accelerate the advancement of economic opportunities for women".

With all her eloquence, the Secretary of State was carefully avoiding mentioning any concrete projects aimed at achieving this goal.

Finally, on April 19, I again tried to get a real answer from the government. At the time, the media had announced that an agreement had been reached by the Government of Quebec with its employees, under which the employer was committed to pay $115 million in various forms of salary adjustments for certain employment categories. I took this opportunity to encourage the Liberal government to follow Quebec's example but to no avail.

The President of the Treasury Board gave me a very brief answer: he used the fact that legal procedures were in process not to answer.

I rise this evening to remind the government how important pay equity is for women. I want to remind the government of its campaign promises. I want to ask this government why it relentlessly carries on legal proceedings which cost $2 million a year according to the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

I want to ask the government when it will stop this shameless squandering of money in the courts and when it will give these amounts to those who need it the most, that is the female employees of the Public Service of Canada.

I want to ask this government when it plans to respect the court orders and to pay back the salaries it owes its employees.

I ask this government to let us know what schedule it has established for honouring its moral and legal obligations towards its employees.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to answer the question of the hon. member, a question I asked in the House often from a seat very near to where she is sitting at this moment to the previous government.

I want to point out to her and to others who may be listening that pay equity is not simply a matter that affects women, but women and men working in groups that are dominated by females in any employment situation.

Since the proclamation of the Canadian Human Rights Act in 1978 by a Liberal government and the enshrinement of the principle of equal pay for work of equal value within section 11 of the act, the government, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, unions and employees have all worked in different ways to try to make it a reality.

Between 1985 and 1990, for instance, the government of the day sponsored a joint union-management study to actively seek out sex based disparities in salary. When this process collapsed the previous government unilaterally determined to pay over 70,000 employees retroactive payments of approximately $317 million and ongoing annual salary adjustments of roughly $81 million. As of March 1994 the government had paid over $700 million to affected employees.

The unions, however, believed that these payments were inadequate and submitted five new or revised equal pay complaints covering nine predominantly female occupational groups and asked for the appointment of a human rights tribunal.

Notwithstanding the assumption of the member's question, this tribunal has not yet rendered a decision. Another human rights tribunal did render a decision three years ago. This decision applied only to employees in the hospital services group. This decision has been implemented at a cost of approximately $32 million.

This government is interested in results and wants to achieve the important goal of economic equality for women in the public service. We have, therefore, already invited a dialogue with the unions. There has been one meeting and there are others planned with the purpose of reaching a mutually agreed upon negotiated settlement of the pay equity issue that is now before the human rights tribunal.

In fact, the government wishes to build ties of co-operation and confidence with the unions representing federal public servants. As for the agreements at the provincial level, the Quebec Government and the unions representing its workers are continuing their negotiations. There is no agreement yet.

In Ontario, the law requires specific measures according to a predetermined schedule. We fully intend to continue the implementation of pay equity as provided for by federal law.

The Canadian Human Rights Act was passed by a Liberal government and the present government is committed to this act, including the section dealing with pay equity.

[Chris Axworthy, NDP, Saskatoon—Clark's Crossing, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on March 7, I raised with the Minister of Human Resources Development the concern that Canadians have at the breakneck speed with which social security reform is taking place in Canada.

I am pleased to see that the provincial governments have put a break on that breakneck speed and have slowed the process down to give people in Canada more of an opportunity to look at the implications.

I also raised with him the concern that one in three Canadians have that the main aim of his social policy reform is to in fact cut social program expenditures. He responded that the objective of reform was to get programs to meet needs. This is a noble goal but one which the government is falling far short on because we have in Canada 1.3 million children living in poverty. We have 1.6 million Canadians on unemployment insurance, 2.4 million Canadians on social assistance and who knows how many Canadians underemployed, working part time when they want to work full time, not making full use of their qualifications.

We have a crisis in unemployment in this country which the government is sitting back and watching, preferring instead to focus on social policy reform and not dealing with the matter at its core which is to make this economy function effectively for, as I say, those over four million Canadians who are without work and who want work.

It is clear, as everyone in this House will know, that the best social policy is a job. Yet we are still seeing unemployment rates hovering over 11 per cent. Recent studies show that if half a million more Canadians were working full time, provincial and federal governments between them would collect approximately $12 billion in additional revenue on top of savings to unemployment insurance. Clearly if we get Canada working again the problems about social programs become much less significant.

Even dealing with some of the government's successes in terms of providing 80,000 young Canadians with job opportunities, that still leaves over 320,000 unable to find work; 320,000 of our future, our young people in Canada not able to find work.

There are other ways the government seems to refuse to pursue. For example, there are opportunities to raise tax dollars from the richest in our country and from corporations. Indeed, over $140 billion in corporate profits have gone untaxed in the last nine years. If Exxon in Canada had paid its 1992-93 deferred taxes $600,000 child care spaces would have been created. Imagine what we could have done about getting Canadians back to work through that process.

We know that half the government's debt is due to tax breaks and loopholes for wealthy Canadians. Statistics Canada has told us that. We know that 44 per cent is due to high interest rates. Only 6 per cent is due to program spending and only half of that from social program spending.

However, the government attacks just 3 per cent social program spending rather than attacking the core problem which is that Canada does not work for 4.5 million Canadians.

Also we could look at a wealth taxes, we could look at more effective tax auditing and we could even look at lowering the limits for RRSPs if we were looking to balance some of the problems that Canadians face and if we were looking to respond with adequate social programs.

We now have confusion within the government. Once the Prime Minister said that there would be no more need for budget cuts, now he has agreed with his finance minister that there will be need for budget cuts. They look to be severe budget cuts in order to respond to the way this government is looking at dealing with the deficit which is the same way all Conservative and Liberal governments across the country have dealt with it, which is to attack the most vulnerable in society.

I think what we should do is slow down the speed. We should give those who support the least well off in society the opportunity to develop adequate-

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry, the time is up. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that programs introduced in the fifties and the sixties are no longer adequate. They simply do not meet the challenges that we as individual Canadians face in our society.

It is for this reason that the Liberal government under the leadership of the Minister of Human Resources Development on January 31 this year outlined a three stage process to bring about positive change in the lives of Canadians.

We are looking at the whole issue of child care, unemployment insurance, support for families, social services, social assistance and other forms of income support. This initiative is comprehensive in nature. It will through the redesigning of the programs give Canadians the type of social security system that they have been certainly calling for for decades.

This government has seen the need and certainly has the political will and courage to address those concerns. We will in the coming weeks be releasing an action plan which will provide direction and options for reform for Canadians.

This process will be extensive, open and will engage Canadians from coast to coast so that when we are speaking about modernizing, when we are speaking about restructuring Canada's social security system, when we are speaking about giving our young people, our older workers and the working population the types of skills required to face the challenges of the 21st century, Canadians will be given that by this government.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On March 25, I asked the Minister of Finance the following question, after reminding him that we had just learned that for the next two years, unemployment insurance cuts would amount to $630 million a year in the maritimes, and $535 million in Quebec. We do not know what they will be this year, and it appears that Employment and Immigration does not know either.

My question was: Is the Minister of Finance prepared to defer cutbacks in the unemployment insurance system at least long enough to put in place a real job creation strategy to help the jobless find work instead of forcing them onto welfare? Six hundred and thirty million dollars a year in Atlantic Canada and $535 million in Quebec, and I am not mentioning cuts in Ontario and western Canada because cuts in Quebec and the maritimes represent 60 per cent of the total whereas they only have 33 per cent of the Canadian population.

Such cuts will have a devastating impact on the economy and yet, the government went ahead and announced these cuts without further consideration. That is why I am asking today if it is prepared to defer its decision at least long enough for these cuts to be preceded by a real job creation program. I will keep on asking the same question as long as Bill C-17 has not been passed, hoping that the minister will change his mind.

In the words of Alain Dubuc, a La Presse columnist with whom the Official Opposition does not always agree, ``Finance Minister Axworthy is mistaken, because the cuts can be found in the budget. He is cutting before helping people''. Not only is he going ahead with the cuts, he is targeting the regions which will be deprived of substantial sums of money. This money, when awarded, usually goes to pay rent, buy food and pay for goods which are not only essential to people's survival but also help keep the local economy humming.

Therefore, before depriving these regions whose industries have already been hard hit from a structural standpoint, why does the minister not postpone his decision so that a true program can be implemented, one that will restore hope. Hope is what the people want, but instead, the government has fostered a climate of despair.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, measures in the February 22 budget affecting the unemployment insurance program are intended first and foremost to protect the jobs of workers across Canada.

These changes will result in lower costs for Canadian employers, contributing to an increase in exports and helping Canadian products to offer stiffer competition to imports. In fact, the UI premium reduction will lead to the preservation or creation of some 40,000 jobs.

In addition and to clarify some of the statistics mentioned by the hon. member for Mercier, the impact of these changes will be distributed fairly across all regions of the country. Even after all budget measures are implemented, workers in Quebec will continue to receive more than 31 per cent of all UI benefits paid

out in spite of the fact that Quebec only has one quarter of Canada's population.

In fact, last year Quebec received approximately $1.5 billion more in UI benefits than it paid in UI premiums.

The member for Mercier implied that changes will have a significant impact on welfare numbers. In fact, most UI recipients go from UI to a job. Three quarters of all people on UI do not use all of the weeks of benefits to which they are legally entitled. Not many of the people who use up the UI end up on welfare. It has been estimated to be about 10 per cent of those who run out of UI or about 2 per cent of 3 per cent of all UI recipients.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on May 3 last I asked the Minister of Industry if he would be waiting until after the Quebec election to repeal Bill C-91, the Drug Patent Act, or if he would act in the best interests of all Canadians who use prescription drugs and repeal Bill C-91 now.

This bill costs Canadians between $1 billion and $2 billion a year in extra drug costs.

In question period today the member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie asked the Prime Minister again if he would be reviewing the legislation. He claimed that any review of this legislation brought instability to Quebec. This accusation is of course outrageous in the context of his party's goal to break up Canada.

My sense is that the government will not do anything until after the Quebec election or even until after the referendum in 1995. Why is this government caving in to this pressure from the official opposition?

I was particularly shocked by the Prime Minister's response today when he said that the Minister of Industry would not review the legislation if he was satisfied that the pharmaceutical manufacturers were spending money on research. This is contradictory to comments made by the Minister of Industry in April. The minister stated at that time that a review was imminent. Why is this government now stalling? Why is there this disagreement?

I have a quote here from the Kitchener-Waterloo Record of Saturday, April 30, 1994 and I quote: Foreign Affairs Minister Andre Ouellet admitted that this Bill C-91 will cost the country billions in higher pharmaceutical prices by granting 20 years of patent protection to brand name drugs''. He is now saying:We are not going to review it because we don't want to rock the boat''.

Bill C-91 has caused grief to Canadian consumers. There should be no further delays in repealing this legislation. We have some prescription drugs which have increased by up to 120 per cent since Bill C-91 was passed. Bloc members have made a great deal of noise about how upset they would be if the government made any changes to that bill. They voted in favour of the bill when it was passed in the House in the last session when they were Tories.

It is strange that Bloc members, who take pride about representing Quebecers, could be so out of touch with their constituents. In a recent survey conducted by the Canadian Drug Manufacturers Association, 79 per cent of drug consumers said that the costs of prescription drugs were too high. This is 16 per cent higher than the national average outside Quebec.

Many Liberal candidates including the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister campaigned on repealing Bill C-91. They knew that Canadians were angry at how expensive their drugs had become. They spoke about repealing the bill with respect to prescription drugs. They knew what Canadians wanted and now is the time to follow through on their promise. By delaying to make changes in this legislation is to say to Canadians that this is no longer a priority. It is a betrayal to Canadians. It is a flip-flop.

The Liberals are saying they are not serious about the issue. They are having second thoughts about making changes to Bill C-91. That would truly be dishonourable, if that were to be the case. However it is not much different from the former Tories: Liberal, Tory, same old story.

The Minister of Industry mentioned in his response to me that he was looking into the implications of changes to this bill under GATT. I remind the government there was a clause in GATT for "reasonable exceptions" under which the old system of compulsory licensing could be introduced. Canadians should not be surprised that the Liberals have a change of heart. After all, it is not the first time we have seen Liberals campaign on one side of an issue only to change their position later on after the campaign. For some people who have forgotten, NAFTA is an example, as is cruise missile testing.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry to interrupt but the member's four minutes are up.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying to the member for Regina-Lumsden that we are not running away from our election commitment. We are committed to reviewing this legislation. We are not having second thoughts.

I want to talk about the challenge we are facing to ensure the development of a strong pharmaceutical industry and to make patented drugs available to consumers at reasonable prices in a

manner consistent with our international obligations under GATT and NAFTA.

Multinational pharmaceutical companies have committed to reaching an R and D sales ratio of 10 per cent by 1996. They have also made investment announcements now exceeding $680 million for the 1992 to 1996 period. We want to ensure these commitments are realized.

On the price side, pharmaceutical companies cannot charge any price they want for patented medicines. Prices are regulated by the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. The increase in prices of existing patented medicines from 1987 to 1992 average 2.9 per cent versus 4.2 per cent for the CPI.

Let me close by saying that the government is committed to both a strong economy and the needs of consumers. We are not running away from our election commitment.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last week, on Wednesday, to be exact, I asked the Minister of Indian Affairs two questions about the forgotten people of Oka. Of course, the questions were based on a letter from the Kanesatake Chamber of Commerce written on April 26 to the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien, with copies to Lucien Bouchard, Claude Bachand and Ron Irwin.

In this letter, the president of the Chamber of Commerce mentions several irregularities, including the diversion of funds from the band council; that is, economic development funds were used for other purposes.

In answer to the question I asked him, the minister said that he did not have the letter, which as I just told you was dated April 26. I would really like to have an answer concerning the allegations of diversion of funds.

The second question concerned the decline in economic development in the Kanesatake community. The Chamber of Commerce represents 80 per cent of the native businesses in Kanesatake and of course all the violence, insecurity and instability in Kanesatake have led to huge economic losses.

Naturally, all businesses are facing economic decline. On that subject, the minister reminded me that it was the previous government that had brought the army out, while this government was prepared to negotiate and was bringing natives from Kanesatake to Ottawa to deal with them. In that respect, I think the hon. minister is mistaken; economic development problems in Kanesatake are due to a greater extent to mismanagement on the part of the government.

Examples abound where it has become almost indecent to see how the federal government is washing its hands of an economic situation created mainly by a small group of offenders known to everyone out there. The government must know who they are as well. So, what does the government do to solve the problem? Nothing at all.

Theft, vandalism and violence continue. It is no small task to go shopping in Kanesatake when you are greeted with machine gun fire and wonder if you are not in a western movie.

Unfortunately, reality in this case goes beyond fiction. Audio material show that night after night, there is non-stop shooting in Kanesatake. You do not have to think too long to figure out why businesses are on the decline.

People wonder what the government intends to do to curb this decline and why it does not take seriously the whole issue of public safety in Kanesatake.

Just yesterday two gas tanks blew up in Kanesatake; one in "la Pinède" in Oka, and the other one in Les Terrasses Raymond, with the result that the entire community had no sleep all night.

Every day violence breaks out. Even the children in the Kanesatake school have written the Chief to tell him this has to stop. This must be stopped because I think the children even said in their letter that they were afraid to ride their bikes and walk in the village.

People are unable to insure their homes and businesses. Mortgages are not being renewed because of the unstable climate, and nobody is doing anything. The government is acting with carelessness in this matter.

My question is this: Regarding the alleged misappropriation of funds, what is the government doing to correct the situation and, regarding economic development, what concrete measures does the government intend to take to restore public safety in Kanesatake and give businesses the help they expect from their government to overcome this crisis once and for all?

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the question raised on May 4 by the hon. member for Saint-Jean regarding the letter sent by Roger Simon, chairman of the Kanesatake chamber of commerce, dated April 26.

Mr. Simon is blaming the carelessness of the federal government particularly for the collapse of native businesses and for the alleged misappropriation of federal subsidies by the band council in an unstable situation where public security is concerned.

Public security in the Oka-Kanesatake area is the responsibility of le ministère de la sécurité publique du Québec. It is la sûreté du Québec that provides security services to all residents of this area.

The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development met on several occasions with Grand Chief Peltier to discuss properties bought by the federal government since the Oka crisis of 1990. These discussions were conducted in order to establish a unified land base.

The minister has proposed various solutions in order to settle the transfer of properties to the Mohawk Council of Kanesatake. This is a very complex file. It remains a priority and requires a mutually acceptable solution to all parties involved.

Regarding the alleged misappropriation of economic development funds, the band has flexibility to manage the funds according to the agreement signed with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development does not interfere with the day to day business of a band's operations. Such interference would be paternalistic. Band councils and chiefs are accountable to the band members who elect them.

Those economic development funds are included in the recovery plans signed between the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Mohawk Council of Kanesatake last January.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 6.45 p.m. pursuant to the order made earlier this day the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24.

(The House adjourned at 6.44 p.m.)