Debates of Feb. 9th, 1995

Committees Of The House

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, I compliment my colleague from Scarborough-Rouge River who gave us an opportunity to witness a very complex and complicated issue in three very simple and very easy to understand formulae.

First he addressed the process that involves the House of Commons and something to which every member of the Chamber ought to adhere and applaud. The committee has given Parliament, the House, an opportunity to appreciate what members can do and ought to do.

On the basis of process, not only the way the committee works but the way it arrived at a decision, I compliment him and the other committee members who put the proposal forward. I urge all members to support it. I also compliment him on the way he outlined the basics of the content.

The content addresses a very important principle in the House, that is how we work for our constituents and how Canada will be reflected in the Chamber. We cannot do that simply by cutting the number of seats or by increasing the number of seats willy-nilly, in a very whimsical fashion.

By pointing out the process for establishing the kinds of representations we would like to see evolve for the House he has done us a great credit. Most important, the member has done something that all other speakers and interveners have unfortunately neglected, that is he gave an indication of the reasons or the philosophy behind this proposal.

That basic philosophy recognizes that the House always has a very difficult time getting a singular view. There is a very important reason for this, that the country as diverse and as large as it is cannot possibly have a single homogeneous view on the basis of a partisan perspective.

I compliment the committee for recognizing that very integral difficulty in governing a country like ours and in making provision in the rationale and the motivations for redistribution so that members can bring forth many important views that differ not only in content but in motivation.

I compliment the member for Scarborough-Rouge River. He has given members of the House an opportunity to take a look at the issue in a very dispassionate, non-partisan and yet forward looking fashion.

I encourage all members on both sides of the House not only to agree with his position but to applaud the efforts of the committee and vote in unison on the issue.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his remarks.

On the suggestion of the member opposite that we really should have tried to do something to cap the number of MPs, or even reduce the number of MPs in the House, I would say that if there were a motion on the floor of the House of Commons to cap, reduce or deal with unending growth of the House of Commons I would vote for it. He should get a motion introduced and I will vote for it.

However the member must be aware that after the motion passes, after he articulates his good wishes, he still has to go through all the constitutional reform procedures and deliver a formula that will be accepted from coast to coast to coast. That is the challenge.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's remarks but I would point out to him that my colleague from Calgary West suggested constitutional changes that can be determined within this body and without agreement of the provinces because it did not affect the senatorial floors and so on.

He did not appear to support these moves, even though he had the opportunity. In fact he changed his mind.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would ask the hon. member whether his home province of Saskatchewan would be willing to give up seats to accommodate the proposed cap that his colleague put forward.

I hear otherwise. It might be worth a look and when it comes up I will be on side and in favour of ending the unending growth of the House of Commons.

[Réginald Bélair, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Madam Speaker, of course I have considerable interest in speaking today, because my riding of Cochrane-Superior is in northern Ontario, and its survival is at stake.

I would first like to pay tribute to the committee chairman and to all of my colleagues who helped draft this report, which I would call apolitical. I attended a few meetings, and I must say in all sincerity that they have done a tremendous job. It was, however, a job that had to be done; it was inevitable, given the situation. First, the act dates from 1964; it bears no resemblance to the way Canada's current electoral map looks today.

On issues of representation, the report focuses significantly on the quotient, the variance of 25 per cent. This remains something that is very important for me, for the simple reason that, because of this quotient, large rural ridings in Canada will never be safe and will never have equal representation here in the House. I need only point out how far we have to travel to serve our constituents. This is our prime function, to serve people.

For example, if a riding like mine were abolished, according to the recommendation of the September report, the four surrounding ridings would simply become bigger. It would therefore simply increase the already excessive demands on each of these members, or rather on their resources, energy and ability to reach remote communities.

If I may be permitted to speak specifically about remote communities, my riding of Cochrane-Superior includes 21 Indian communities, 16 of which are north of the 49th parallel. For the most part, there are no roads leading to these communities, which means that when I want to go there, make myself available to them, I must charter a flight, which is extremely expensive but must be done. This then contradicts the Reform Party's argument that it is too expensive to have a great number of members in the House. This argument verges on being absurd.

What good will it do to increase, to double the population of such a riding while retaining the same member without giving him the resources, both human and financial, to carry out his work?

And what purpose will it serve to do away with many rural ridings only to increase the size of so-called urban ridings and thereby, as stated, make demands exceeding the members' resources and energy. More importantly, should this come about, it would be a direct attack on democracy, here in Canada, because all Canadians, wherever they live, have the right to be equally represented in the House of Commons.

I would of course like to reserve my main comments for the third reading of the bill once it is tabled.

These are the points I wanted to make at this time. I have not addressed the true substance of the report. I will wait for the bill to be tabled. At that time, I will be able to provide the statistics to back up what I have just said.

This report is not acceptable for northern Ontario, not at all. It is not acceptable at this time. I will therefore certainly table an amendment in the House, first and foremost to restore the schedule of ridings called "special" because of their geography. That has been removed from the report. I definitely intend to attempt to have it included again. I hope my colleagues will appreciate my purpose and will support me in this matter.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, I commend the member for identifying a very real problem in our Constitution. We have a real anomaly. If we were to be honest we would have to say a constitutional change is in order.

If Canada's population remains constant but Quebec's population goes down, we need more members in the House of Commons for that reason, by our present rules. That does not make sense in anybody's thinking. Therefore we do need to have a change in this regard. There ought to be a formula that recognizes geography, the area of a constituency, because it is a very real factor in any area away from the more densely populated areas.

The member who just spoke was right on the button when he said that we need to change the rules so it is possible for an MP to do his work. As far as the numbers are concerned, I think Canadians would have no trouble at all with supporting their members of Parliament.

[The Speaker]

It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5) the House will now proceed to Statements by Members, pursuant to Standing Order 31.

The Budget

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the constituents of my riding have given me a clear message to pass on to the Minister of Finance for the budget.

Eliminate waste in government. In particular, stop the rip-off of taxpayers' dollars by the military, by their inefficient management of government moves, and implement the government's own reports and contract out move management.

Stop double dipping by MPs and civil servants. Reform MPs' pensions. Deal effectively with the deficit to get Canada's fiscal house in order.

We must also reaffirm our commitment to our internationally renowned system of higher education, maintaining accessibility through an income contingent loan repayment scheme and support for our federal granting councils to sustain university research efforts in Canada. We need strategic long run investment in wealth creation through university research funding.

The University of Waterloo, Wilfrid Laurier University and Conestoga College in my riding are existing testimonials of wealth creation for all Canadians through support for research and higher education.

Post-Secondary Education

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in several cities in Quebec, the province's student associations have indignantly protested social program reform, especially changes to the funding of post-secondary education.

They have all said that the proposals are unacceptable and that they will have the negative effect of causing an unprecedented increase in tuition fees, which in turn will bring student debt to dizzying heights.

Lucienne Robillard, the Liberal Party's candidate in the riding of Saint-Henri-Westmount, surely agrees with the students' criticisms. In fact, on May 29, 1991, she said in the Quebec National Assembly that she had to insist that the federal government was completely out of touch with today's world of education.

Need I say more?

Income Tax

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate a Liberal MP backbencher today. I was at a meeting in a constituency not so long ago. With the press in attendance this powerful MP made an amazing promise. He promised that he would not vote with the government on the budget if the budget raised more taxes than a gasoline tax and a lottery tax.

Reformers say that no taxes should be raised, but this powerful MP made that promise. Everyone was there to hear him. Think of it. No more cattle herding by cabinet solidarity; free MPs to vote their constituents' wishes.

I would like to congratulate the member for Cambridge. His constituents will remember the promise and we will watch carefully whether or not that support is forthcoming. Congratulations.

Eating Disorder Awareness Week

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind members of the House and Canadians that February 6 to 12 is Eating Disorder Awareness Week.

The theme is: "Breaking free: Celebrating our natural sizes". The goal is to increase awareness of the social factors which contribute to the development of anorexia, bulimia and weight preoccupation, and to prevent them.

Anorexia and bulimia are more common among women between the ages of 13 and 25 and is increasing rapidly in a society that glorifies thinness.

During this week, the National Eating Disorder Information Centre will provide messages consistent with Health Canada's vitality program, promoting healthy weights. The vitality program pinpoints our society's preoccupation with weight and unrealistic body size and responds by building self-esteem and a positive body image.

Healthy bodies come in a variety of shapes and sizes. A good weight is a healthy weight, not just a low weight. Dispelling the myth about weight and directing Canadians to appropriate resources is only the start in correcting this insidious disease that devastates our young women.

International Development Week

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this week, International Development Week, is a time for Canadians to become more aware of the challenges facing people of developing countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean. It is also time to recognize the effectiveness of the Canadian international development programs that support sustainable development and alleviate poverty in developing countries.

With assistance programs, more than 80 per cent of the world's children have been immunized, sanitation and water quality have improved, more people are living longer and healthier lives, food production has tripled, and there is greater literacy in the world.

Co-operation between governments, the private sector, the United Nations, international banks and other organizations has and will continue to bring immeasurable benefits to the global community. During International Development Week we should keep in mind that we do after all share one world and a common future.

The Budget

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, lately there has been much speculation about the imminent federal budget. The previous government raised taxes 39 times under the guise of deficit reduction, but the deficit continued to swell uncontrollably.

I frequently said during the election campaign and again in the House that we need more people paying taxes, not people paying more taxes. I believe Canadians are generally fair-minded about taxes, but I am certain they will accept only changes that make the system more equitable.

During recent weeks the leader of the Reform Party and others in his party have been talking a lot about a taxpayers' revolt. This negative rhetoric is not constructive and does not reflect the new way of doing politics which the Reform Party so frequently espoused before coming to Ottawa.

It is also unnecessary. The government and indeed very member of Parliament knows that middle class Canadians cannot bear a greater tax burden. In fact, the Liberal members addressed this problem head on during the last election campaign.

Social Program Reform

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during the consultations on social program reform, the following message came across loud and clear: the main problem is lack of jobs, and students and the jobless should not have to shoulder all of the deficit reduction measures, because social program budgets have already been squeezed enough over the past 10 years.

However, despite the opinion of the majority of witnesses who spoke before the committee on the proposed reforms, the ministers of finance and human resources development appear poised to revisit last year's budget this winter, by heaping most of the budget cuts on the most needy and the middle class.

What is the Prime Minister waiting for to make the two ministers see reason? Any effort to get our financial house in order should target those who are best off, the rich who are still able to avoid paying taxes.

Electronic Voting

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, governments around the world are introducing new direct democracy initiatives while our Liberal government refuses to even consider modifying our outdated parliamentary system.

New Zealand, the first country to have universal suffrage, passed the Citizens' Initiative and Referendum Act in 1993. The state of Montana recently authorized the use of electronic voting in school board elections.

Elections Canada has been closely observing the use of touch tone telephone voting in our country and I am confident that it will use an electronic voting system in a byelection before the turn of the century.

Of course it is the Reform Party which is the leader in this field. We are involved in two more electronic town halls on February 12 and February 19 at 8 p.m. eastern time as part of our commitment to enhance and develop the use of this technology.

I urge all members to tune into their local cable television stations on Sunday to witness the making of the new democracy right before their eyes.

The Environment

[Beth Phinney, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last November it was announced in the House that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment will chair an international meeting of environment ministers from the group of seven industrialized nations.

I am pleased to inform the House that this important meeting will take place in Hamilton at McMaster University from April 29 to May 1. We will demonstrate Canada's leadership in working on solutions to difficult global challenges such as climate change, biological diversity, the management of toxic substances and the international mechanisms that we use to tackle these issues.

The government's recent actions to get our own house in order, greening our operations and policies, will also be shared with G-7 colleagues. Invitations have been sent to environment ministers from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States as well as the European Union and the executive director of the United Nations environment program.

All Canadians will welcome these efforts to address global environmental problems.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the CBC has made an application to televise the proceedings of the Paul Bernardo trial, a motion that is strongly opposed by the families of the innocent victims, Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy.

One must question the motives. Ratings, sensationalism and profit quickly come to mind. We have open court rooms. We have a jury of our peers to represent society. Surely this is enough.

The people of Niagara knew these victims and we know their families. These two unfortunate teenagers have become children of our nation. Let us protect their dignity in death.

It is time to deal with this situation in a judicial and responsible manner and to respect the rights of the victims not to be exploited further. There is no need to glorify these tragic events. There is no need to satisfy the perversion of tabloid journalism. There is no need to bring the O. J. Simpson circus to Canada.

I implore the CBC to withdraw its application. It is simply not the Canadian way.

Human Resources

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development is to be applauded for considering a ban on replacement workers in the event of a strike. Such measure would mirror legislation already existing in Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia.

The banning of replacement workers has not harmed the economies of these provinces. On the contrary, such legislation would help to motivate labour and management to begin early the collective bargaining process, thus averting costly work stoppages.

As emotion often runs high during a strike, this measure would help prevent tragic events such as those recently witnessed at Yellowknife's Giant gold mine.

Liberals look forward to passing such legislation.

Mining

[Bernard Deshaies, Bloc, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, while the Minister of Finance is preparing his budget, I hope that the federal government gave due consideration to the recommendations contained in the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. As you may recall, these recommendations were made in light of the evidence given by all those who took the trouble of appearing before our committee to describe the situation in the mining sector.

I especially want to remind you of the second recommendation in the report, namely that the federal government should include in its February 1995 budget tax measures to stimulate mining exploration in Canada. It has been demonstrated that mining exploration is an investment rather than an expenditure.

Implementing this tax recommendation will have a direct beneficial impact on job creation that will be more than welcome in my region of Abitibi, in Northern Quebec and in all mining regions of Canada.

Family Income

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

Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada's annual report on family income verifies what many Canadians have known for years: family budgets do not balance. Why? StatsCan reports that family income has actually declined by 6.7 per cent since its peak in 1989. The report calls it the longest and steepest decline in the last four decades. In fact, the average family income in 1993 was slightly lower than the level recorded in 1980.

As if that is not enough, personal per capita income and take home pay has also declined. The culprits? The PST, GST and UI premiums. We are income taxed to death.

It seems easy for the government to dismiss the grassroots tax rallies springing up across Canada. In doing so it blithely dismisses the growing economic nightmare of those individuals and families that hold our future as a nation.

The finance minister must recognize that Canadian families will not sit back and watch this trend continue with the imposition of further tax increases in its forthcoming budget.

Pulp And Paper Industry

[Stan Dromisky, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Atikokan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I note the recent announcement that the Avenor newsprint mill in Thunder Bay is planning to install a treatment system which will allow the mill to become completely effluent free.

This project represents the first mill scale development under a memorandum of understanding signed in March 1994 by the federal government and the Pulp and Paper Research Institute of Canada.

Two successful pilot tests of the process to be used have been completed and a secondary treatment system for the mill will be installed in 1995. The complete, totally effluent free process should be in place by late 1996.

The initiative shown by the pulp and paper industry and companies like Avenor is clear confirmation of the industry's commitment to the principles of environmental responsibility and sustainable development.

Installation Of Governor General

[Morris Bodnar, Liberal, Saskatoon—Dundurn, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues on this side of the House I would like to acknowledge the observers from the Reform Party who graced us with their presence at the installation of the Governor General yesterday.

For the next such ceremony that members of the Reform Party attend, my colleagues in the Liberal Party would ask that they please show some signs of life, as yesterday we were quite concerned that they had all passed away in their seats. It must have been extremely difficult for many of them to sit so quietly for so long.

After the ceremony I learned that certain members of the Reform Party had not been present. Perhaps these members could not find cabs, which of course they could have billed to their tax free allowances. Or perhaps they all got lost somewhere in Ottawa-Vanier. After all, it is difficult to read French street signs.

Liberal Party

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am submitting a refresher course on the translation of Liberal rhetoric.

When the Liberals say that they hate the GST and will try to kill it, what they really mean is they will try selling it under a different name at 8 per cent.

When they say that their interest rate projections are bang on, what they really mean is give or take 4 per cent.

When the Prime Minister says that everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die, what he really means is that they are going to raise taxes.

When the Liberals say that they are going to get tough on young offenders, what they really mean is: "We will slap you on both wrists".

When they say that western economic diversification helps thousands of western companies secure new markets, what they really mean is that re-election in Winnipeg is in the bag.

When Liberals say that they will reform our social programs at any cost, we now know they mean it, at any cost.

Finally, when the finance minister uses cliches like keeping our feet to the fire and squaring the circle, beware, Mr. Speaker. What he really means is that like the Prime Minister and because of his cabinet he just does not know. He does not know.

National Defence

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday when the Minister of National Defence answered one of our questions in the House, he said he had absolutely no knowledge of the existence of a third videotape concerning the Airborne Regiment in Petawawa.

How could the Minister of National Defence say he had no knowledge of the existence of a third videotape, when General de Chastelain specifically informed him of the existence of this third tape in a memo he sent to him personally on January 23?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Charlesbourg asked me the following question:

Can the minister promise that this new tape will not be destroyed like some of the evidence-

Also he went on to talk about the tape as being of "similar quality and horrendous nature as the one to which was referred earlier about the hazing incident". I replied that I had no such evidence of the existence of that particular tape. However I went back to the report and we sent out a clarifying release last night so that there is no misunderstanding.

In the report that came to me there was an acknowledgement of a videotape of something that was described as welcoming party, the activities at which were mostly beer drinking and other things that people do from time to time in a social context, but one where there was masticating of bread which of course we find totally abhorrent. It was described in the report to me as something that was not of a serious nature, that it was something that was not in comparison with the earlier tapes.

The interesting thing is that I have just been informed-and I want to get to the bottom of it after question period; I am sorry that question period will not wait for me-that the description of the events in the report that was given to me by the chief of defence staff two weeks ago does not corroborate with what I was given five minutes before two o'clock today.

Because I would like to get to the bottom of this I want to ask for the indulgence of hon. members so that I can come back certainly tomorrow and give some clarification of the matter.