Debates of Feb. 16th, 1995

Bill C-263

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the constituents of Okanagan-Simikameen-Merritt to remind my colleagues that Bill C-263, which I introduced in the House, will be debated today.

Bill C-263 is an act to amend the Financial Administration Act and will bring five crown corporations under part X of the act. The five corporations are the Canada Council, the Canadian Film Development Corporation, the Canadian Wheat Board, the International Development Research Centre and the National Arts Centre Corporation.

The bill intends to bring accountability to these five corporations through allowing the Auditor General to conduct special examinations, a value for money audit every five years, as the Auditor General's office does regularly with other departments in the public service.

This matter concerns accountability. It works toward reducing waste, improving requirements for planning, improving strategy and cost systems. In short, the bill will ensure that five crown corporations are following good management practices.

I encourage all members to support Bill C-263.

Transportation

[Vic Althouse, NDP, Mackenzie, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have a proposal for the Minister of Transport who says he wants to rid himself of the financial obligations for the Crow benefit. He also says he wants to get rid of the Canadian National Railway.

Since the present value of the Crow benefit obligation is somewhere between $7 billion and $9 billion, sums which the government is hard pressed to find, why does the minister not offer prairie farmers the CNR (North American) as at least a partial payment of the Crow obligation?

While CN's net worth is considerably short of the Crow obligation, it could be a start toward providing a means of connecting farm fields with sea ports in a way that satisfies both Canadian needs and international obligations under the GATT.

Such a proposal leaves farm people with some control over export costs since it allows them real choices in striking a balance between viable railways and viable farms, something the minister has not considered so far.

30Th Anniversary Of Canadian Flag

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my great honour to speak on behalf of my fellow Quebecers on this occasion of the thirtieth anniversary of the Canadian flag. Internationally, the Maple Leaf is a symbol of generosity, democracy and freedom. At home, it symbolizes strength, unity and pride.

The past thirty years have seen profound changes in Canada. Rather than passively submit to these changes, our country has shaped and adapted them to the principles and values of tolerance, justice and fairness that we hold dear.

Canadians from coast to coast proudly display our majestic red and white flag. Businesses spend thousands of dollars to develop a trademark, but Canada has the finest trademark in the world, the Maple Leaf.

Long may it fly! Long live Canada!

Literacy Action Day

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

Mr. Speaker, today is Literacy Action Day. Since 1990, the Year of International Literacy, government, business, labour and voluntary sectors have been working together to find ways to solve this problem.

The Canadian Commission for UNESCO's International Literacy Year's objective is to eradicate illiteracy by the year 2000.

Despite ongoing struggles as many as 963 million people, 26.9 per cent of the world's people, remain illiterate. Thirty-eight per cent of Canadian adults have some difficulty dealing with the reading requirements of everyday life.

I would like to pay tribute to three organizations in my riding who are fighting relentlessly against illiteracy. They are the Haitian community action and social affairs centre, the Villeray literacy centre known as La Jarnigoine, and the new immigrants' centre known as Le Centre N-A Rivé.

Education is the key to freedom. Let us continue to work together to eliminate illiteracy.

Gun Control

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, on February 4 the Ottawa Citizen reported that some hunters savagely killed their hunting dogs by slashing their throats or shooting them at point blank range because the dogs were no longer useful at the end of the hunting season.

Recently the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters responded to this article saying that the federation has advocated mandatory identification of hunting dogs for many years. The federation takes this position so that hunters would be discouraged from abandoning their responsibilities as dog owners and to ensure that lost dogs are returned to the owners.

As we begin the debate on gun control in the House of Commons, I call on the hunters who oppose any firearm registration to help us create a safer Canada and not only support registration of dogs but the registration of guns because, like dog owners, gun owners sometimes abandon their responsibilities, resulting in the loss of life. It is our responsibility as lawmakers to discourage this.

Job Creation

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on February 6, the Minister of Finance boasted that more than 438,000 jobs had been created in Canada and that this was the best performance in a decade. Unfortunately for Canadians and Quebecers, Statistics Canada's annual figures are nowhere near this level. In fact, 261,000 jobs were created in 1994.

If we compare these figures with those recorded at the end of the early 1980s recession, last year's 261,000 jobs should be compared with an average of 347,000 jobs created annually between 1985 and 1988. The minister has nothing to brag about.

Especially since, with the increase in population, 825,000 jobs would have to be created to return to prerecession employment levels.

Airborne Regiment

[Jack Frazer, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, most Canadians' sense of fair play was offended when the airborne regiment was ordered disbanded. They saw this action,

rather than being based on factual evidence, as an emotional overreaction to amateur videos.

A whole regiment laid low for the misbehaviour of a few. Humiliation for the several hundred remaining members of the airborne as well as every serving or retired member who ever saw duty with the regiment.

Families: wives, daughters, sons, who proudly associated themselves with the regiment now feel tarnished by this ignominious end to their unit. A professional, highly trained and motivated force which should be remembered for claiming the dominion of our north; for the deep respect earned while on duty in Europe and in the Middle East; and for the humanitarian relief provided across many continents. Government, attempting to appear decisive, has made an inappropriate decision.

A proud and capable regiment has been lost from the order of battle and the Canadian taxpayer burdened with a large and unnecessary expense.

Decade Of Literacy

[Dianne Brushett, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this decade of the 20th century has been declared by the United Nations as the Decade of Literacy. This is a time to raise our awareness of those Canadians who can neither read nor write.

It is a disturbing fact that nearly three million Canadians are unable to function with basic literary skills. We are now halfway through the Decade of Literacy and inroads are being made by groups like the Movement for Canadian Literacy and ABC Canada.

Learning to read is a golden key which unlocks the door to creativity and independence. One of the greatest satisfactions of my entire life was teaching an adult male to read. He trusted me enough to share his dark secret that he had been faking it. Privately we persisted and a few months later he was on his own, actually reading the daily newspaper. The joy was like the miracle of restoring sight to the blind.

I encourage anyone hearing my voice today who cannot read to take action to seek the help in learning the greatest joy in life, the joy of reading.

Francophones Outside Quebec

[Raymond Lavigne, Liberal, Verdun—Saint-Paul, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on January 19, the PQ government decided to close Quebec's office in Edmonton, thus forcing francophones in the three Prairie Provinces and the Northwest Territories to turn to the Vancouver and Toronto offices for assistance.

On May 27, 1994, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois unveiled a policy on francophone and Acadian communities, claiming that after achieving sovereignty, Quebec would strengthen the role of its offices across Canada in promoting Quebec's co-operation programs.

Who is right? The leader of the Bloc Quebecois who wants to make more assistance available or the separatist PQ government which closes offices and cuts services to francophones outside Quebec?

Federalism

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In a prereferendum speech to the Metropolitan Quebec Chamber of Commerce, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said, and I quote: "-no one in Canada is going to discuss the status quo. There will be no more status quo. There will be major changes-".

Does this statement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs mean that the Prime Minister has changed his mind and that his government will now support major changes in the way federalism operates, this after doggedly defending the status quo?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development is introducing major changes in the way unemployment insurance and social programs operate. Who is opposed to these changes? Who wants to keep the status quo?

[An hon. member]

The Bloc Quebecois.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

The Bloc Quebecois, exactly.

When the Minister of Finance suggests ways to improve our society, who wants to keep the status quo? Always the Bloc Quebecois.

Our federalism is flexible. We will make some adjustments, but we do not have to change the constitution to make those adjustments. We must be practical and tackle one problem at a time, in the best interests of all Canadians.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, seriously. The Prime Minister should take this seriously.

If it is so easy to transform Canada by signing administrative agreements and if the Prime Minister is sincere about this, could he explain why, fifteen months after his party came to power, he has yet to recognize the unanimous demands for full jurisdiction

over manpower training from all stakeholders in Quebec? All stakeholders in Quebec are asking him to withdraw from this area of jurisdiction. If it is so easy and if he is so serious about it, why has nothing been done? Why?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we have made several offers to the Government of Quebec. We have offered to simplify the system, as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said. We could not offer everything they wanted, but we offered half a loaf.

Since these people want to maintain the status quo, they will not consider accepting anything else. Right now we are signing harmonization agreements with Canada's nine other provinces, except the Government of Quebec that wants to keep the status quo. We are not maintaining the status quo. They are.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, may I remind the Prime Minister that the Quebec Premier who turned down the agreement with the Liberal government was the former Liberal Premier of Quebec, the Prime Minister's partner on the no committee for the Quebec referendum?

Will the Prime Minister admit that this manoeuvring by his Minister of Foreign Affairs was an attempted rerun of the referendum speech by Pierre Elliott Trudeau in 1980?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, Quebecers must have liked Mr. Trudeau's speech, because they voted 60 per cent in favour of staying in Canada, and this year, Quebecers will again listen to the people in Quebec who want to stay in Canada. Apparently, on the evening news tonight, we will be told that it is even better than last time. Two or three months away from the referendum, they are at least 15 points behind where they were in February 1980.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what has stuck in the mind of Quebecers about Pierre Elliot Trudeau's 1980 speech is that promises were not kept.

[An hon. member]

And unilateral patriation.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

In his speech, the Minister of Foreign Affairs announced that, from now on, the federal government would concentrate on areas of federal jurisdiction, recognizing implicitly that duplication and overlap had become common practice in Ottawa, when he said: "We will review this matter and focus on areas of federal jurisdiction."

My question is for the Prime Minister. Now that his Minister of Foreign Affairs has announced that the federal government will no longer encroach on areas of provincial responsibility, will the Prime Minister indicate from which areas Ottawa plans to withdraw?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we have offered on several occasions to withdraw from forestry agreements for example, but Bloc members would rise in this House and ask that we go on providing funds for Quebec forests. Questions were put to us on this subject.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

It is always the same thing. They want us to withdraw, but at the same time they want us to continue paying. If we withdraw, we withdraw. The problem is they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want us to collect taxes for Quebec to spend as it pleases. Well, from now on, we will spend our own money and they can spend theirs.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister wants his remarks to be taken seriously, could he clearly identify the areas from which he intends to withdraw, as well as the federal departments and agencies that will be abolished to eliminate the costly duplication referred to by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is incidentally the minister responsible for Quebec?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we are working day in and day out with the other provinces to try and eliminate duplication. In many areas, there is no duplication. Take income tax for example. In every other province, there is only one level of government collecting.

Duplication comes from Quebec deciding to have its own ministry of revenue collect personal income tax, unlike the other provinces. You know, it does not cost Ontario anything to collect its provincial income tax, because a line was added to our tax form for that purpose, while in Quebec a separate report has to be filed. Hundreds of millions are spent unnecessarily because of this. Duplication often comes from the other side.