Debates of June 9th, 1994

Social Program Reform

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in a backgrounder to the budget concerning proposed changes to the Unemployment Insurance Program, we read, and I quote: "The Minister of Human Resources Development will present an

action plan for reform in April, and the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development will soon begin public hearings, culminating in a report to Parliament in the fall. New legislation will be introduced before the end of 1994".

Considering the delay in releasing his action plan and fierce opposition from the provinces to his social security reform, does the Minister of Human Resources Development still intend to table changes in the legislation before the end of 1994, as he promised when the budget was brought down?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I confess I do not share the same crystal ball as the hon. member.

He talks about strong opposition of the provinces to a plan which has not yet been tabled. How does he know? They have not seen it. He has not seen it. We have not tabled it yet.

I can tell the hon. member, going all the way back to last December at the meeting of all provincial premiers, that they were the ones who asked for major changes to our programs. We have been working closely with them and talking with them during January, February and the spring. We will be talking with them further before we table the report.

For the hon. member to try to speculate there will be major opposition once again simply shows that the interest of the Bloc Quebecois is not in having a serious debate. The interest of the Bloc Quebecois is in trying to stall the process.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how can the minister say he will be able to be on schedule as planned, when at that time Quebec will be in the middle of an election campaign and many provinces, I may recall, are strongly opposed to his social security reform strategy?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I realize the hon. member has not been in the House for a very long period of time. He should understand that we do not set agendas here according to provincial elections. We set them according to what is right for Canadians and how we can get Canadians back to work. That is what we had a mandate to do last October.

One of the key elements in doing that is to make sure that we have more effective employment programs and more effective social security programs. I believe we will have a willingness on behalf of all Canadians in all regions to work with us to obtain that objective.

I keep coming back: the only group that consistently, perpetually and continually says it does not want any reform, any change, or any improvement is the Bloc Quebecois.

Government Expenditures

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

Over the past six months both the House and the committees have scrutinized the spending estimates. Numerous proposals have been put forward to reduce spending estimates even further than contained in the minister's budget. Yet none of these proposals for reducing spending have been supported by government members. In fact last night even a modest proposal to reduce by $20,000 was defeated.

Would the minister please stand in the House today and tell all hon. members, those to the left of him, those to the right of him, those behind him, those in front of him, that it is okay to vote in favour of reductions in spending that go beyond his budget, that this is the nineties and not the seventies, and that he would welcome action by his colleagues to reduce spending levels below those contained in the budget?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development -Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, government members of the House fully understand and share the views that it is necessary to cut the deficit, that it is necessary to cut government spending in order to do so, and, as we have said on many occasions, that it is very important to get Canadians back to work because that is the best way to cut the deficit.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if members wanted to demonstrate that, the way is not through words but by supporting some of the motions to reduce spending below budget levels.

My supplementary question is for the minister. Earlier this year the government changed the standing orders to allow committees to make recommendations on next year's spending provided it was done before June 23.

Will the minister assure the House that he welcomes such recommendations and that he is predisposed to support them, including proposals to reduce spending below those that the departments may desire?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development -Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, I have said on numerous occasions in the House, in response to questions from the other side, that we are very open to legitimate suggestions for cutting spending or for making government more efficient.

I would also remind the hon. member that I hope members on that side of the House will support the government upon the completion of the very thorough, line by line, program by program, review which is being undertaken by the Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal.

Young Offenders

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-37 on young offenders created quite a stir among Quebec experts in juvenile crime.

Yesterday, in the National Assembly, the Quebec Minister of Justice asked his federal counterpart to withdraw his bill, a move he indicated would be extremely satisfying for Quebec and perfectly in line with the wishes of the people.

Does the Minister of Justice intend to accede to the Quebec government's request that he withdraw his bill?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the government intends to proceed with the bill to amend the Young Offenders Act in what we believe is in the interests of Canadians and the justice system generally.

I am sensitive to the observations made by my counterpart in Quebec. I have listened with care to the points that were made at the conference in March when I met with Mr. Lefebvre and with my counterparts across the country.

We believe the amendments which we propose in Bill C-37 reflect important improvements in the juvenile justice system while remaining flexible for the administration by each province in its own jurisdiction in accordance with provincial objectives.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the face of unanimous opposition from stakeholders in Quebec, is the minister at least prepared to resist the minority repressive body of public opinion in English Canada expressed mostly in the West.

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the amendments we introduced last week are not intended for Canadians in the west or for Canadians in the maritimes. They are intended as improvements to the juvenile justice system in Canada.

May I emphasize that a very significant part of those amendments are intended to enhance the very rehabilitative, community based and restorative penalties that are very commonly found in the Quebec administration of the statute and are intended to strengthen juvenile justice in the province of Quebec as well.

Immigration

[Sharon Hayes, Reform, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

The minister has said on numerous occasions that he intends to consult the public before devising a 10-year immigration plan. However the minister has also repeatedly pledged to carry out the red book promise to increase immigration to an annual rate of 1 per cent of the population.

What is the minister's plan: to let the public direct the formulation of an immigration plan or to stick to the immigration targets already set out in the red book?

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister has been very clear on what his plan is.

The minister has put in place the largest immigration consultation in the history of Canada. That consultation will culminate in a national forum in September, at which time the plan will come forward. If the member has some patience she will find out in due course.

[Sharon Hayes, Reform, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, at the Montebello meeting the president of Ekos Research, Frank Graves, reported that a majority of Canadians believed that immigration levels were already too high.

The minister's plan to increase immigration levels to 1 per cent is clearly not in line with the views of Canadians. I say this is not a consultation plan. It is a public relations plan.

Will the minister admit that the real reason he is spending $1 million Canadian is to change people's opinions rather than listen to them?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member. I guess I have to say that if we could change people's opinions with a mere $1 million, life would be a little easier for all of us in the country.

This is a very broad based consultation. It is going on in every major centre. One person that the hon. member has brought forward says that immigration levels are too high. Admittedly other people say that too, but many other people who are frontline dealers with immigration say differently.

Our promise in the red book was to keep it at 1 per cent. We are consulting with members of the public across the country.

We will continue to do so. When that consultation is finished, we will bring forward a 10-year plan.

Western Grain Transportation

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport yesterday very clearly declared that the federal government would put an end as of next July to all western grain transportation subsidies which total some $600 million.

On the other hand, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food in hearing this statement admitted very clearly that no final decision by cabinet has yet been taken. Therefore, the statement by the transport minister has, at the very least, surprised and embarrassed the minister of agriculture.

How can the Minister of Transport justify his surprising statement about putting an end to western grain freight subsidies while visibly his colleague for agriculture was not informed, being that he underlined last night and in the House today that no final decision has yet been taken by cabinet?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, just to make sure the hon. member understands what was said yesterday, I indicated, as Minister of Transport, and as the budget document did, that we were looking at reducing subsidies from the Department of Transport for various forms of transportation.

I also clearly indicated that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and others have been involved in the consultative process that has been described by the minister today with a view as to how we can continue to support the farm community in Canada.

It is prudent, in view of our international trading agreements, to make sure we give a clear signal that changes will be made on how the WGTA is paid.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport did in fact specify that as of July 1 all subsidies were to be withdrawn because of GATT. He knows or does not know that there is no direct link between the subsidies in the west and GATT.

Does the Minister of Transport not recognize he is being very insensitive regarding a program which has wide implications for both animal and grain production between the east and west? Does he not recognize that in the past such talk has always provoked violent outcries from the farming community?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am sensitive enough about the situation in the west as it relates to the Crow that I do not have to read my questions as the hon. member just did.

I want to make it very clear that when we dealt with the question of what was going to take place on July 1 next year, we were very careful in stating that the Department of Transport recognized we had to change the way these subsidies were being paid, taking into account our international agreements.

I know the hon. member's background very well. If the hon. member is not familiar with what the implications of the international trading agreements are on how we are going to have to administer these kinds of programs, then he needs to do a little bit more homework and get caught up on what he was doing 15 years ago when he thought he knew something about agriculture.

Antilymphocyte Globulin

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Saint-Denis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. Since Tuesday, the opposition has been claiming that the lives of two children were seriously endangered after the drug ALG was administered to them. As a mother of two myself, I am quite concerned.

When did this incident happen? And is it true that the lives of these two children were threatened by this drug?

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the Official Opposition's thoughtless allegations are serious indeed. First, the incident in question occurred five years ago at Sainte-Justine Hospital, in Montreal.

According to the hospital, two children out of fifty or so had a mild allergic reaction to the drug. Both were successfully treated and their transplanted kidneys were not rejected. Today, these two children are healthy. Justine Lacoste-Beaubien, who founded Saint-Justine Hospital in 1907, must have turned over in her grave hearing the Bloc talk in such a way about an institution she founded to save the lives of children in Quebec.

I am responsible to Canadians for health, Mr. Speaker, and the Official Opposition has responsibility in that area as well. It should use some of its research budget to check its facts before alarming the Canadian public needlessly. If they want to launch a political attack on me, that is one thing, but they should not use children to do so.

Criminal Code

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.

In 1991 the federal government ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Since that time a debate has been under way in Canada regarding the right of parents to spank their children. Section 43 of the Criminal Code currently

protects parents who use reasonable physical force to discipline their children.

Can the minister advise this House whether or not he is currently considering a repeal of section 43 of the Criminal Code?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am aware that like most things involving the justice system, section 43 is under review in the Department of Justice.

I can also tell the hon. member that I know of no plan at present to propose a change to the section. If the situation should alter, I can let him know.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on March 22, 1994 the Toronto Star reported that 70 per cent of Canadian parents stated they believed it is sometimes necessary for parents to use physical force to correct their children's behaviour.

We are given to understand that the federal government is currently reviewing section 43 of the Criminal Code. Can the minister advise the members of this House who is conducting the review, the cost of the review, and when members of this House can receive a copy of it?