Debates of June 9th, 1995

Transportation

[Gordon Kirkby, Liberal, Prince Albert—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, National Transportation Week is a fitting time to recall the historical role played by transportation in the prairie provinces.

We understand the importance of an efficient and cost effective transportation system. We live surrounded by immense distances. At one time in our history we relied completely on the railway to link us with the rest of the country. Now we are served by air and road as well as by rail. What is needed is an efficient and cost effective national transportation system, not subsidies.

Western grain producers are ready to compete with the world. With the repeal of the WGTA and the proposed amendments to the National Transportation Act regarding efficiency measures, we believe they will be even better prepared for the challenges of the global economy.

The theme of this year's National Transportation Week is "Careers in Transportation: Opportunities, Training and Skills". It should remind us that the future holds opportunities as well as challenges.

If Canada is to have the transportation system it needs, we will need to start now to recruit, educate and train those who will keep the country moving in the years to come.

St. Brieux, Saskatchewan

[Georgette Sheridan, Liberal, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in praise of my home province of Saskatchewan, in particular the town of St. Brieux in the northeast corner of my riding.

St. Brieux is an extraordinary town. It is 90 minutes northeast of Saskatoon with a vigorous farm equipment manufacturing plant, lots of employment, business opportunities, schools and is bilingual. The gateway to the northern lakes, it has golf, hockey and no crime. So ran the ad in the

Toronto Sun about two weeks ago. A four bedroom house can be purchased for a mere $48,000.

If it is quality of life they are seeking, Torontonians will soon be flocking to St. Brieux, especially after last night's election results. The possibility of living in a kinder, gentler and economically robust environment should make Saskatchewan a more attractive alternative than ever.

Assisted Suicide

[Michel Daviault, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, the Prime Minister said he had no objections to letting a House committee review the recommendations made by the Senate committee on euthanasia and assisted suicide.

However, the Minister of Justice does not consider these issues to be priorities. Indeed, while he did acknowledge yesterday the importance of discussing these matters, the minister would not say when and how Parliament would be asked to review them.

Could it be that the personal opinions of the Minister of Justice might prevent Parliament from looking at these sensitive issues in the near future? Let us not forget that the minister already stated his opposition to legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide at the 1994 convention of the Liberal Party of Canada. The attitude of the Minister of Justice says a lot about the real will of this government to debate these important issues.

Justice

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, for two weeks we have heard those opposite stand and plead with the citizens of Ontario to vote Liberal in the provincial election. Their pleadings were to no avail.

Ontario has spoken and told those opposite they do not believe Liberals will provide justice for victims of crime. The people of Ontario have chosen instead the Reform ideal of putting victims first. They voted for mandated discipline and structure in the lives of young offenders as the best policy for preventing further youth crime. The people have chosen the Reform principle of holding criminals accountable for their crimes and that the best form of deterrence is swift sure punishment for criminal activity.

I am proud to say that the people chose Reform common sense and abandoned the false ideology that criminals are victims and must not be judged.

In Ontario the Liberal justice philosophy is dead. May it rest in peace. Are you now listening Mr. Justice Minister?

Dawndale Farm Supplies Ltd.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to offer congratulations to Dawndale Farm Supplies Ltd., located in Hunter River, Prince Edward Island, on the occasion of its 10th anniversary and its recent investment in new milling equipment and expansion of its business.

David and Jean Tingley have worked very hard over the past 10 years devoting their time and energy as well as money into making their business a successful one. It is this type of entrepreneurship which leads to economic prosperity, not only to communities and provinces but to the country as well. When communities thrive and prosper, everyone benefits. The Tingleys are not just working for their community and their business but they are also supporting community events like 4-H.

Congratulations to David and Jean and best wishes for continued success with this latest investment not only to their business but also to the farming communities they serve and work with so well.

Police Officers

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, every day police officers across Canada face many tough challenges.

Perhaps the most delicate challenge is balancing what is politically correct and what needs to be done to maintain law and order. Police officers put their lives on the line. Often many of them perish in the line of duty while making our communities safer.

In my experience as a community representative for the past nine years I have dealt with our local police on a number of occasions. I am proud to say that we have one of the finest police organizations anywhere in North America and perhaps in the world.

I would like to congratulate the Ottawa-Carleton police on a job well done. It is our duty and our responsibility to work with our law enforcement officers and to support them so they can continue to provide their excellent services to our communities.

Reform Party

[Judy Bethel, Liberal, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my outrage with recent developments in the Reform Party of western Canada's tactics in this Chamber. Its new American style smear campaigning reflects the Reform Party's underlying approach: no principles unless they are politically expedient for the moment.

The Reform Party sends different messages to different regions of the country on issues of importance to Canadians. Take for example the recent comments by the Reform member for Fraser Valley West who has been telling the people of Atlantic Canada that the Reform Party opposes tolls on highways. However, his boss, the leader of the third party, in speeches delivered as recently as May 25 in New York City, said that the rebuilding of roads will include everything from privatization of publicly owned infrastructure to user pay systems and public-private ventures.

What is the Reform policy? Who is telling the truth? Why the mixed-

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Laval East.

Ethics

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during this past week, political events have shown how quickly ethical issues, so dear to the heart of the Liberal government, are being sidetracked.

When the members of the party in power formed the official opposition, they called for a stricter code of political conduct and an end to Conservative patronage. However, now that their party is in power, the government has been quick to adopt the system cherished with such enthusiasm by its predecessors. Unlike the Conservative government, however, the Prime Minister did not ask his Minister of Canadian Heritage to resign and he turned a blind eye to the minister's benefit dinners, attended by guests who a few months later just happened to be awarded major contracts.

The Prime Minister will not admit that the lobbyist and political organizer who made the arrangements was also awarded contracts and represents associations that receive money under government programs. This government's code of ethics is obviously just a smoke screen.

Government Policies

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform principles we ran on in 1993 have once again been embraced by the voters in Ontario in their overwhelming support of the Mike Harris common sense revolution.

Once again, the voters have shown they are miles ahead of the politicians who still practise the top down, we know best politics of the 1970s and 1980s. The common sense of the common people as outlined in the Reform blue book will not be denied and the common sense revolution responded to that.

It is ironic that yesterday, while the Ontario voter was rejecting undefined sexual orientation, gold plated pensions and gun registration, this government was introducing closure to ram legislation dealing with each of those through this House.

The Liberals did not win in 1993; the Tories were thrown out. Yesterday this government provided the voters in Ontario with three very good reasons to throw them out in 1997 and elect a government that is listening and responding to their concerns, the Reform Party.

Children

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for some time now I have been speaking in the House of the importance of direct parental care for preschool children.

Research done by the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research and the National Foundation for Family Research and Education has shown clearly that poor quality care means a higher likelihood of problems in the health, social and criminal justice areas.

In 1961, 65 per cent of families with preschool children had one parent in the home. That figure reduced to only 12 per cent in 1991. What is the impact of reduced parental care? One example is that the suicide rate for youth between the ages of 15 and 19 has increased by 600 per cent over the same period of time.

We must invest in our children. An investment in our children today is an investment in the future of all Canadians.

Transportation

[Marlene Cowling, Liberal, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, farmers in my Dauphin-Swan River riding rely on the ribbon of steel that unites our country from east to west to move their high quality commodities to market. Therefore it is crucial that shippers from Dauphin-Swan River and across the prairies have access to a rail system that moves their commodity quickly and at competitive rates.

It is fitting that National Transportation Week comes at a time when the Liberal government is making massive improvements to our national rail system. These measures will increase competition and lead to greater efficiency. It is crucial that these efficiencies are passed along to prairie farmers, the highest volume shippers in Canada.

I strongly encourage the Minister of Transport to ensure that the interests of prairie farmers are at the forefront of all decisions made regarding the future of our rail system.

Ontario Election

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last night the Liberals got yet another taste of how quickly they can go from the top of the heap to official opposition. Despite a commanding lead at the beginning of the campaign, Ontario Liberals finished a distant second. That makes three provinces which have provincially stated: "We do not like the example the federal Liberals are giving us".

As for the resurgence of the PCs, look at the federal Tory policies and then look at the Reform policies. Tell me whose platform Ralph Klein and Mike Harris are really following.

On the subject of mergers, the leader of the federal PCs should merge not with Reform but with the Liberals with whom he has much more in common, especially since Liberal cabinet ministers started to follow the corrupt patronage practices of the former Tory government.

I am not one to wish my life away, but I am looking forward to 1997.

Children's Hospital Of Eastern Ontario

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last Saturday I had the great pleasure of manning the telephones for two hours to raise money for the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario. Once again the people of this region proved their generosity as volunteers and hundreds came out.

This year they were helped by a marvellous group of young people. Over half the pages of the House of Commons were out volunteering for the telethon for the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario.

I had the great pleasure of having one of them bring me a message and as I looked down I saw the message was coming from another two pages down there answering phones and scribbling out pledge forms.

On behalf of all the people of this region, I thank the pages who come to our community, often from far away, and who start fitting right in and making a contribution.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Council For Canadian Unity

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs stated that during the referendum campaign in Quebec, the

federal government would comply with Quebec's referendum legislation as it did in 1980, which is not very reassuring, when we consider the contempt shown for this legislation by the Trudeau government and its Quebec lieutenant, the present Prime Minister of Canada, who spent millions of dollars and ignored the spending limits imposed on the "yes"and "no" umbrella committees.

Are we to conclude from yesterday's statements by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs that in 1995, the federal Liberals, like Trudeau did in 1980, intend to ignore the letter and the intent of Quebec's referendum legislation, which sets democratic rules for all such campaigns in Quebec?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I made it very clear that we complied with the legislation in 1980 and intend to comply with the letter and the intent of the legislation in 1995.

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

Mr. Speaker, the following figures will illustrate the extent of this compliance. In 1980, the federal government spent at least $17 million, although the spending ceiling for umbrella committees was set at $2.7 million. It was slightly out of line here. And according to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the federal government intends to repeat this exercise during the next referendum campaign.

Should we conclude that the Trudeau government's behaviour during the 1980 campaign was a model of good faith and transparency, which the present federal government intends to follow during the next referendum campaign in Quebec?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of compliance, I may remind the members of the opposition that they made a promise there would be a referendum, and they should keep that promise.

They promised it would be held in the first half of 1995, in May or June, but they did not keep their promise. Now they promise it will be in the fall. I hope that promise will be kept.

When I look at the money their big brother, the Parti Quebecois, spends on regional commissions to sell sovereignty, I think they should show some respect for the democratic system in the province and for the spirit of the law, in addition to making people abide by this legislation, which in fact we do.

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

Mr. Speaker, we said it would be in 1995. For the minister's information, there are twelve months in 1995, and the year ends on December 31.

Speaking of big brothers, what about those subsidies to big brother, to Power Corporation, the real big brother of the Liberal Party?

While the Government of Quebec acts openly, the federal government acts behind the scenes by handing out subsidies that are directly related to the referendum campaign. A few examples: $35 million for tourism advertising, in addition to the $15 million already budgeted; $6 million for the unity operation; $1.1 million to celebrate the 30th birthday of the Canadian flag; $2.2 million for the Charles Bronfman Foundation, friends of the government. This plus the other hidden costs.

Is that what the federal government means by complying with the spirit of Quebec's referendum legislation?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I think that we on this side will refrain from mentioning the advertising in the Montreal subway, the Commission on Quebec's sovereignty and the regional commissions.

We will refrain, because we already abide by the law and intend to comply with the spirit of the referendum legislation. However, what this country needs is for the referendum to be held as soon as possible, with a clear question, so that we will be able to deal with this problem once and for all and can start dealing with the real issues: creating jobs in Canada, including Quebec, and reducing poverty in Canada and Quebec.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. The federal government gave $32 million to the Council for Canadian Unity last year for its prereferendum campaign and the government has pledged funding again for the coming year. In addition, the Department of National Revenue has granted it charitable status, and its number is 0333054-59.

Can the minister explain to us how the Council for Canadian Unity can be considered a charity?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I have explained to the House a number of times how the charitable status for organizations is given out. It is given out on the basis of court decisions. There is no legislation. It is not decision of the minister but a series of court decisions which has determined that various areas of activity

considered to be in the public interest should be permitted charitable status to encourage that. It has resulted in substantial improvements in Canadian living standards, in health and in all sorts of other areas.

I am afraid, however, with respect to the specifics of the hon. member's question I do not have in my hand the number he gave out. If he would like to give it to me I could check out that number.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister of National Revenue justify that big businesses get a tax deduction for their contributions to the Council for Canadian Unity, when charitable status is usually granted on the basis of the following criteria: relief of poverty, promotion of education or religion and other efforts to the benefit of the community like the relief of suffering or sickness?

[English]

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, once again with respect to companies as opposed to individuals the rules are quite clear. A company can make expenditures and provide money to organizations but the final line in terms of determining this, which again is in the courts and not in the hands of the department, is whether it advances the business interests of the company involved.