House of Commons Hansard #97 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was industry.
Peter Milliken Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43(2), I wish to advise Your Honour that henceforth the members speaking on the government side will divide their time into two 10-minute periods with five minutes for questions and comments.
Jean Landry Bloc Lotbinière, QC
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate being allowed to speak today on the government's Bill C-46. At first glance, this bill only confirms the organizational changes made by the previous government in the summer of 1993. Caution, however, teaches us to read between the lines, and it is precisely between the lines that we see the reasons for opposing this bill.
In fact, the government should have put a stop to duplication and overlap by giving Quebec exclusive control over its economic development. Instead, the government is giving the Department of Industry authority over regional development in Quebec and in Ontario, contrary to what is happening in the West and in the Maritimes.
The Federal Office of Regional Development for Quebec is a Quebec regional development agency and is not created under the specific legislation. It on took an order in council to transfer the regional development responsibilities of the Minister of Industry to the Minister of Finance. Nothing, however, guarantees that this order in council will be issued. It worries me that one day Quebec's regional development will fall into the hands of a minister from another province, as happened in 1991. Regional development could become lost in the administrative structure of the Department of Industry, and, I repeat, this worries me.
Bill C-46, Mr. Speaker, is the result of the previous government's wish to rationalize the machinery of government. In going ahead and implementing it, the Liberal government must give proof that it will effectively reduce government waste. And this will be far from conclusive, when one looks at the unnecessary and costly expenditures resulting from duplication and
overlap within the federal government and between the Canadian and Quebec governments.
Since the study by Germain Julien and Marcel Proulx, who made public the overlapping of federal programs with certain provincial programs, just from the point of view of co-ordination, civil servants must meet close to 1,000 times a year to see if they are not offering the same services, to harmonize program objectives and to ensure that they are not incompatible.
The Bélanger-Campeau Commission was clear on this point. If Quebec took charge of existing federal programs and provided the same services, we would save $233 millions in transportation and communication expenditures, $250 million in labour expenditures and $289 million in expenses associated with the collection of duties and taxes.
How efficient are measures implemented by two levels of government? More often than not, they cancel each other out because of competition and even conflict arising between the federal and provincial government. Program co-ordination is made difficult since neither government is prepared to make serious concessions on objectives or priorities. Even the famous infrastructure program had some hiccups. Did the former Minister of Municipal Affairs in Quebec not receive a letter of reprimand from the minister responsible for the program?
Just to know what services and financial assistance programs are available and to comply with laws and regulations, our constituents are forced to make multiple inquiries to keep abreast of programs and services. This is quite a burden, even more so when the programs and services are overlapping. Businesses have to assign employees to gathering this information and eventually taxpayers and consumers are affected.
In addition, there are people who do not use certain services because they do not know about them and program duplication does nothing to help. In fact, it even complicates the matter further. The people have little control over the way they are governed because of the confusion caused by overlapping. Such fragmentation of action makes it impossible for any one level of government to influence the course of things and, to make things even worse, they pass the puck to each other.
The provinces do have the right to opt out of federal programs. They do get financial compensation, but only for joint programs, which account for only five per cent of all overlapping. For these reasons, I seriously question the capacity of the Department of Industry to prevent such squandering. The bill before us provides rather for the status quo with regards to the mandate of the amalgamated departments. Is this another instance of semblance of change? Divisions are indeed changing names, but are we merging and blending the players? Nothing in this bill points that way. Nevertheless, the people gave a mandate to reduce waste in the federal government.
The Liberal government talks about "one-stop shopping" as a way to rationalize its internal operations. We all agree that this is a step in the right direction. But be careful: a mere merger that increases the size of an organization also reduces its productivity and efficiency. As a result, the bureaucracy is even more cumbersome. The Liberals have not yet shown that savings will be made with this "single window" concept.
The one in Montreal for business people saves the government no money. Customer service is improved, but what about the promised streamlining? We are entitled to demand that the Liberal government carry out all the restructuring of the federal machinery presented in this House in various bills that were intended to save money. The Bloc Quebecois demands it on behalf of all Canadians and Quebecers.
This bill also confirms existing overlap in regional development. Why let the Department of Industry meddle in our territory? For years Quebec has demanded control in this area. We have a very particular view of our requirements in this field. The decentralization of funding and authority begun by the new government in Quebec is the response which the regions were waiting for to take charge of their own communities.
The federal government would be well advised to do away with its centralizing attitude and instead implement this democratic vision of regional development. To say that regional development is neglected in Quebec is stating the obvious. Let me just mention the much publicised federal-provincial agreements on regional development in 1987 and 1988. I will admit that these agreements work very well in the western provinces and in the Maritimes. Indeed, since these agreements were signed, $1.2 billion was spent in Atlantic Canada, $630 million in the western provinces, and $165 million in Quebec.
Our regions suffer from the multiple interventions in regional development and from a lack of consistency of government policies. Let me give you an example. Would you believe that the government subsidizes an industry through the Federal Office of Regional Development, the only Canadian industry in its sector, while also allowing one of its departments to buy equipment from a competing American company? Yet this is what is happening to an industry in my riding.
This is unacceptable. If you believe in a product and subsidize the related research and development efforts, should you not also promote its marketing? Not so with this government, it seems. That situation should be corrected as soon as possible.
In its report, the interdepartmental work group on regional development set up by the Quebec government in 1991 looked at the issue of multiple interventions in regional development and concluded that: "In the present context, we can see the following negative results linked to the interventions of the two levels of government: confusion in terms of the regional sense of belonging, since the federal regions do not correspond to the administrative regions in Quebec; duplication of structures, regional consulting organizations and economic development agencies, as well as setting up of management committees and programs to reconcile various types of interventions; duplication of activities which results in high operation costs, given the actual budgets invested in regional development; too many government stakeholders, a situation which frequently results in confusion at the regional level".
May I remind hon. members that these comments were taken from the final report of the interdepartmental task force on regional development, published by the Government of Quebec in 1991. Quebecers are sick and tired of seeing their money used for the regional development of other provinces. This money should go to help small businesses and create small businesses and jobs in Quebec. Quebec does not want regional development that is based on the strictly industrial vision of the Minister of Industry in Ottawa. Quebec has had enough of the federal government's meddling and inconsistencies. Long ago, Quebec realized that only regional players understood the real needs of their environment. Enough of these projects, one-shot interventions and political decisions that siphon off funding from projects that are working perfectly well.
This bill is unlikely to end the uncertainty that is rife within the regional development agency. The Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec may be very anxious to harmonize its activities with Quebec's, but so far, it has not been successful. According to the Minister of Finance responsible for the office, it has not yet been able to harmonize its mandate with that of the Quebec government's business development centres, which means the centres are still at the mercy of unilateral decisions by Ottawa. For instance, the federal government is planning to merge the BDCs and CFCs, which are now the responsibility of the Department of Human Resources Development, and have a single agency that would come under the Federal Office of Regional Development. Representatives of these agencies in my region talked to me about their concerns. The very future of the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec is in jeopardy. Despite all the promises in the red book that regional development could be a high priority, the office's budget is shrinking.
In 1993-94, the office's budget was $232 million, which is expected to drop by $70 million over the next three years. After these cuts, the budget for the Federal Office of Regional Development will be down to $162 million, compared with $200 million for the West and $214 million for the Maritimes.
The concerns of the agencies responsible for regional development are quite understandable, considering the way the Federal Office of Regional Development operates. The office has failed to harmonize its activities with the comprehensive vision of local development established by the BDCs and the CFCs.
Programs designed in Ottawa and implemented in our regions do not always respond to the real needs of the people. The money is spread around without any real input from the community. The federal government should consider the strategic planning priorities of Quebec's regional municipalities and regions, in order to maximize the impact of activities by regional agencies responsible for local development.
As long as decision-making and budgeting remain centralized in Ottawa, the regions will not be able to establish the base they need for continuing development. Geographic isolation is one thing, but it is nothing compared with the remoteness of the decision-making process.
The Bélanger-Campeau Commission realized that the future of regional development in Quebec depended on the regions controlling the levers of development. I wish the government would do something and admit it is not on the right track with regional development in Quebec. The fact is that the economic base is foundering, the social fabric is disintegrating, the rural exodus has not been stemmed and young people are still the first ones to leave.
Remote areas are crying out for help and with good reason. Federal funding to Quebec regions has increased by 50 per cent since 1983, whereas during the same period it has increased by 300 per cent in western Canada and by 250 per cent in the Maritimes.
On a per capita basis, the results are even more catastrophic. In 1987, per capita federal spending was $431 in the Maritimes, $259 in western Canada and $64 in Quebec.
How can we bring some balance back? The federal government must reduce expenditures, eliminate tax breaks for family trusts as well as waste resulting from overlapping and duplication due mainly to infringement upon provincial jurisdictions. The billions of dollars saved this way could be used to bring some fairness back into federal funding of Quebec regional development.
In the last budget speech, the federal government announced that it would not renew subsidiary agreements respecting forestry and mining. And yet it is in these two areas that subsidiary agreements have been the most beneficial for Quebec. The Eastern Quebec Development Plan, which will no longer be funded, is a case in point. Close to 6,000 woodlot owners are extremely worried. In other areas, the government is reluctant to renew its agreements. Federal subsidies to farming amount to $225 million, $25.5 million of which, only 10 per cent of the envelope, goes to Quebec. For transportation, Quebec gets only $165 million, or 13 per cent, out of a total of $1.1 billion, slim pickings indeed.
Let us settle the matter once and for all by repatriating this money-in the form of tax points-so that it can be managed by Quebec. Regional development will be a winner. This is what we are all hoping for.
All kinds of small steps can help us get out of this mess. Nowhere in the red book is it suggested that investors be allowed to pump federally guaranteed venture capital into local businesses. And yet, this is the kind of solution people are offering to help their region.
The new Quebec government has developed a real regional development policy. The Parti Quebecois wants to promote in that respect the assumption of responsibility by the stakeholders, in a context of freer trade which eliminates some trade barriers and opens the regional economy up to stiff competition.
Let me quote some of the objectives of this positive policy which could serve as a model: high level of employment, competitive export-oriented economy based on sustainable development, continuity and high added value, better quality of life in large communities, viable land use and many more.
No consensus can be achieved at the federal level regarding regional development because priorities vary from province to province and from region to region. That is why we are stressing the need to decentralize budgets and decision-making powers. The future calls for a decentralization of powers towards decision-making units, that is to say the regions, these being in a better position to assess their own situation. This bill should be rejected because it does not provide Quebec with exclusive control over regional development.
Ian McClelland Reform Edmonton Southwest, AB
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's discourse regarding this bill.
Of particular interest was the concern about overlap. It is a concern many members on all sides of the House share based on the concept that we should get as many efficiencies into government as we possibly can.
My question for the hon. member would follow that if we were to simply remove the federal government from this debate, we would be left with the provincial governments which would then have an overlap problem with the municipalities. Would it not be better for us, as a national government, to set priorities nationally? Then to the best degree possible we could devolve responsibility for managing these programs to that order of government closest to the people being served.
Jean Landry Bloc Lotbinière, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to answer this question because I know that, like us, our colleagues from the other party on this side are here to cut public spending and also to try and put some degree of order back in our fiscal house.
To answer my hon. colleague's question, with respect to duplication and overlapping, let me tell you that when we look at the statistics, precise figures-not my own but rather extremely precise figures provided by economists-and see a government reducing its activities and hear people say: "Look, we might as well let the federal government run it all", I for one cannot believe my ears.
When a problem arises in a community, a province or a country, I have a rule of thumb that goes like this: who is in the best position to resolve the problem? It may be the municipal, provincial or federal government. I think this is the basis for taking our problems in our own hands because we are the ones who are in the best position to assess the problem. Look, we know that savings would be achieved. We know that. It was established beyond any doubt.
These savings could be used, as I said repeatedly, to create jobs and put Canada back to work. Then we would be truly entitled to tell the people watching us and listening to us: "We have done something for the people of Canada and Quebec". And that is what I strive to do in this House to work and plead so that something is really done for all Canadians and Quebecers.
Yves Rocheleau Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague from Lotbinière for his speech on Bill C-46. I would also like to comment on the remarks of my Reform colleague whose question seems very relevant in the political and economic debate Quebecers and Canadians are now engaged in, because he presents the problem in appropriate terms.
Regional development is one of the main reasons why there are sovereignists in Quebec. Some Quebecers want Quebec to take its destiny into its own hands because the federal government's priorities will never coincide with those of Quebecers and their government. That is not necessarily the case in the rest of Canada as such. Given Canadians' sense of belonging compared with that of Quebecers, we know that Canada can develop its own internal logic in terms of development because there seems to be a strong consensus.
As my colleague just said, the federal government can set Canadian standards from the Pacific to some point in the East, but the Government of Quebec and Quebecers themselves will always be opposed to Canadian standards that would apply to Quebec.
Therefore, I congratulate the hon. member for asking a relevant question that is at the heart of the constitutional debate that concerns us and keeps us busy, Mr. Speaker.
Jean Landry Bloc Lotbinière, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to add something. The relationship between the federal and provincial governments reminds me a little of a family where, one day, the son tells his father: "Dad, I would like to start a business." So the father answers: "No, son, stay with me, am I not taking good care of you?" The father stands in the way of the son's development, prevents him from spreading his wings instead of saying, "Look, son, you are old enough to leave the nest." That is what we are asking for. We want to leave the nest so we can take control of our own destiny and continue to negotiate the same thing.
We keep on explaining that we do not want borders and barriers. What we want is good communications but we must get back what we are entitled to. For example, when we were talking about manpower training earlier, they said they wanted to save $250 million. If you want to throw away that $250 million, go ahead, but I myself would like to save it because money is important to me and I would like to re-invest it in my province, in small businesses and all that.
Department Of Industry ActGovernment Orders
The Speaker
It being 2 p.m., the House will now proceed to Statements by Members, pursuant to Standing Order 31.
John Richardson Liberal Perth—Wellington—Waterloo, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce the opening of Castle Kilbride, Canada's newest heritage site.
On Sunday, September 25, thousands of local citizens gathered to commemorate this important occasion. It was my honour to present the certificate on behalf of the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada to the mayor of Wilmot to be placed in a time capsule. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage did an excellent job in representing the minister on this occasion.
Castle Kilbride, situated in Baden, Ontario, was built in 1877 as a showpiece of the Livingstone family. This stately home, Italianate in design, incorporates many unique features, including fresco paintings on the ceiling which are unrivalled in Canada, as well as many other beautiful original fixtures.
Most important, it provides us and generations to come with a fascinating look at the past. None of this would have been possible without the co-operation of all levels of government, as well as the tireless efforts of the mayor and the council of the township of Wilmot, supported by an army of volunteers from Wilmot township in Waterloo county.
Pierrette Venne Bloc Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Speaker, on hearing what some Liberal members are saying, I wonder if the Minister of Justice is not giving in to pressure from the gun lobby. The great majority of Canadians and Quebecers favour stricter gun control, especially for military weapons and handguns.
Given the consensus on this issue in Quebec, I would like to remind the minister that if the (Quebec) National Assembly had exclusive jurisdiction over the Criminal Code, effective gun control legislation would have been passed long ago. How many lives would have been saved if Quebec already had such legislation in force?
Representatives of associations of women, victims of violent crime, emergency physicians and big-city police from Quebec and Canada are all in favour of better gun control. Is the Minister of Justice listening to the people?
Paul Forseth Reform New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Speaker, on Sunday in Coquitlam, British Columbia, a march and rally were held to display the public's dissatisfaction with the current Young Offenders Act. This rally was the largest anti-crime rally ever staged in British Columbia, with over 3,000 residents attending.
The Reform member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, who was a catalyst behind the rally, remarked that the most frequently heard phrase was that the Young Offenders Act is a joke. Another comment often heard from the crowd was that the courts are more concerned with the rights and protection of the offender as opposed to the rights and protection of the victim.
Those at the rally presented several clear messages: lower the age of the young offender, instil harsher penalties and publicize the names of offenders in order that the community will be better protected.
The clearest message of all was for the Minister of Justice to step out of his glass office and respect the pleas of the majority
of Canadians who want an act that represents mainstream Canadian values, and they do not mean Bill C-37.
Len Taylor NDP The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK
Mr. Speaker, this weekend I had the privilege of attending the annual general assembly of the Canadian Environmental Network. I commend this organization for once again bringing together Canada's most active environmentalists for several days of thought provoking discussion.
I listened carefully during the weekend and in addition to the sharing of information I heard the general frustration expressed with regard to how the Liberal government is responding to critical environmental issues.
For example, the government has been in office almost 12 months and still has not proclaimed Bill C-13, the Environmental Assessment Act. Second, the government is responsible for the environmental assessment of low level military flight training in Labrador and has been most unfair to the Innu during this assessment process.
The federal government is considering funding cuts to the so-called interest groups such as the Canadian Environmental Network, the very groups that by their efforts have the ability to save governments money in the long run.
My congratulations to CEN on this year's annual general assembly.
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the P.E.I potato industry on the implementation of its five-year plan aimed at expanding the facilities and services at the Elite Seed Farm on Fox Island, P.E.I.
This newly renovated facility which is owned by the primary producers now has the distinction of being the only one of its kind in Canada. The facility's new laboratory gives it the capacity to produce disease free plantlets. The new production and handling equipment will provide more efficient and environmentally safe services to producers and consumers.
It will also play a significant role in marketing P.E.I. potatoes through the use of its conference facilities that will attract trade missions from around the world. This concept of attracting trade missions and on site explanations to the industry has been used by the CIGI in Winnipeg for years.
I congratulate the government and the industry on the co-operative approach taken.
Alex Shepherd Liberal Durham, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the matter of labour training adjustment boards and how important it is to retrain our workforce so that Canada can compete in the international environment. This is the best way to deal with structural unemployment.
Labour force adjustment boards are staffed by local stakeholders in the training process. Since many of these recipients are on unemployment insurance it is important there there be some form of co-operation between Canada Employment and the boards. This is the only sensible course since it will ensure proper program delivery.
Training must have both a local and a national component to ensure the portability of newly acquired skills. We need to work together to increase the technical skills of all our labour force from sea to sea to sea.
Bob Wood Liberal Nipissing, ON
Mr. Speaker, the North Bay area is celebrating the grand opening of Rebuilt Resources Skills Development Incorporated, another example of how Environment Canada's environmental citizenship initiative is helping Canadians work together to improve the environment.
Environment Canada has invested $56,000 in this partnership through the environmental partners fund. To date this partnership has resulted in over 340 tonnes of material being diverted from the local landfill.
The collected materials are reused and recycled where possible. Other items are used to furnish homes for low income families. Often the items are repaired and sold at the warehouse, resulting in a contribution to the local economy.
As a result of the centre's effort the project is now self-sustaining. Rebuild Resources currently employs four full time staff, three part time staff, and depends on its numerous volunteers.
This project could not have been possible without the support of community partners such as the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy, the Sands Motor Inn, the Shell Environmental Fund, the Callander Lion's Club, and Employment and Immigration Canada.
Through the environmental citizenship initiative these Canadians were able to translate these environmental concerns into tangible action.
Richard Bélisle Bloc La Prairie, QC
Mr. Speaker, last week the Canadian Council on Social Development published its latest report on the alarming increase of poverty in Canada.
According to the council's report, social programs are working, but the labour market is very sluggish and is responsible for the problems of unemployment and poverty that we are experiencing. The Bloc Quebecois has been repeating this message since the minister launched his reform of social programs. The federal government should first and foremost concentrate its energy on an active employment policy.
The Liberals, however, have identified social programs as the main disincentive to work and have decided to cut them as a way to encourage beneficiaries to return to work. The government is working on the consequences of the problem and not on its causes. The minister will find plenty in the council's report to redirect his approach and give hope to all those who are excluded from the labour market.
Val Meredith Reform Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday a thousand law enforcement officers marched on Parliament Hill in the memorial for the 10 officers who were killed in the line of duty last year.
Today 51 names of prison guards, conservation officers and customs officials killed since 1967 were added.
Though all occupational deaths are tragic, the deaths of peace officers are even more so because they frequently come at the hands of someone else.
Many of these deaths could be prevented but they will only be prevented if we do our job in this House and pass the legislation necessary to get dangerous criminals off the streets of Canada.
We need an efficient removal system for our immigration department. We need gun control legislation that targets criminals and not the law-abiding Canadian public. We need to immediately revoke section 745 of the Criminal Code so that those individuals who murder police officers will have to serve the minimum 25 years that they were sentenced.
I join with the Solicitor General in calling for a memorial service next year when no new names are added to that list. Let us not forget that the decisions we make in this House may make a difference in attaining that goal.
Northern Hemisphere Distribution Alliance IncorporatedStatements By Members
September 26th, 1994 / 2:05 p.m.
Liberal
John Harvard Liberal Winnipeg—St. James, MB
Mr. Speaker, Winnipeg's future as an air transportation hub for all of North America got a much needed shot in the arm this month. Northern Hemisphere Distribution Alliance Incorporated will receive up to $620,000 in federal government funding to research opportunities and develop action plans to realize its goal.
Local firms have come together with the Winnipeg airport to develop a multimodal transportation centre to act as a transfer point for cargo between the markets of the Pacific rim, Europe and North America.
This initiative has strong potential to create 6,000 new jobs in Manitoba, generate $105 million in tax revenue for the three levels of government and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of economic activity. It shows the benefits of co-operation between the private sector and government to foster growth in Manitoba and all of Canada.
I commend the Minister of Human Resources Development for his leadership in bringing this dream closer to reality.
Brenda Chamberlain Liberal Guelph—Wellington, ON
Mr. Speaker, the United Way touches the lives of many Canadians. The United Way in Guelph-Wellington provides benefits throughout our community.
This organization cannot survive without our generosity. Donations ensure that many agencies provide valuable service to thousands in need.
This year the United Way has set a target of $1,115,000 in Guelph-Wellington. Besides the needed financial support United Way agencies are supported by volunteers and devoted staff such as Morris Twist, executive director of the social planning council.
I urge the residents of Guelph-Wellington to continue the good work of the United Way. Our dollars go to ensuring improved social well-being for our neighbours and friends. This agency truly does care.
Andrew Telegdi Liberal Waterloo, ON
Mr. Speaker, the city of Waterloo has been experiencing a major problem with the deterioration of sewer lines in part of the city where black pipe has been used.
This is a common problem in many Canadian municipalities. To replace underground service the usual practice has been to dig a trench for the main pipe located below the road to the
residence, a practice that is expensive, unsightly and restricts traffic flow.
This problem is being met by the creation of the Centre for Advancement of Trenchless Technologies at the University of Waterloo, with initial sponsorship provided by NRC, Ontario Centre for Environmental Technology Advancement, the city of Waterloo and private industry.
Trenchless technology holds the key to effective future maintenance and rehabilitational below ground infrastructure in Canada.
I would like to congratulate all the parties involved in this most important innovation that will benefit all Canadians.
Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Health announced that centres of excellence for women's health would be created very shortly. What do we know about these centres? Not much, except that they will be geared to the particular needs of women. This is a rather vague federal initiative, where the provinces seem to have been left out of the implementation process.
Are these centres for excellence another empty shell, without authority or resources, stuck in a consultative role and remote from the decision-making centres? Medical research on women's health care needs to be re-evaluated. Considering the alarming number of women suffering from breast and lung cancer, it is a question that all women in Quebec and Canada are asking, prior to the final announcement.
Jim Silye Reform Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, the national debt of $530 billion-plus and the interest costs to service this debt are the single biggest problem facing Canada today.
Despite this fact, this government still spends $110 million more per day than it brings in. I challenge the team in red to stop hiding its head in its little red playbook, get off its benches, off the sidelines and make a real play for Canadians.
I ask the coach of the Liberal team: Who is prepared to stand up and take responsibility for this fiscal mismanagement? What serious actions is it willing to take? Where is the accountability and the spending cuts promised by the finance minister? When can Canadians expect tax relief from this government rather than tax grief? Why will no one on the other side do something about balancing the budget rather than consulting for another year?
The national debt clock today stands at $531,946,016,332.04. This Liberal government is adding to our debt at the rate of $1,473 per second. This amount keeps on ticking while the government just keeps on talking.
Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the fund raising committee of the Villa Marconi on its very successful golf tournament held to raise funds for a seniors residence for Canadians of Italian extraction.
I want to especially congratulate the winning foursome headed by the one and only unbeatable Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. While the minister may have temporarily harmed my political popularity by walking away with all the best prizes, I want to thank him for his important contribution to this great event.
It is good to know that a member of Parliament can come to this community, become part of it and participate in this kind of event to the benefit of the Italian Canadian community in the national capital.
Peter Milliken Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House of the peace officers memorial service conducted earlier today on Parliament Hill. This service honoured those persons who put their lives on the line every day, our correctional and police officers.
As the member for Kingston and the Islands, I have had the opportunity to see many of these courageous men and women in action. Our justice system relies on these people to make Canada a safe and secure place.
Today a commemorative plaque was unveiled in honour of the 51 peace officers killed in the line of duty since Confederation.
This plaque, however, should not be looked upon as a monument dedicated only to those who have lost their lives. It should be a reminder to all Canadians of the sacrifices and hard work of our peace officers that they perform on a daily basis.
On behalf of all members I applaud and thank the efforts of each and every one of Canada's peace officers. We are truly grateful.
Lucien Bouchard BlocLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, the CBC has obtained a copy of the proposed reform of our social programs that was submitted to cabinet last week by the Minister of Human Resources Development. The document says that the minister wants to centralize unemployment insurance, make enrolment in training courses compulsory for unemployment insurance recipients and make the spouse's income a factor in establishing eligibility for benefits.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Would he confirm that his government intends to centralize the administration of social programs, which today is a provincial responsibility under the Constitution?
