House of Commons Hansard #99 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was throne.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, if he actually said that, I would like to know whether it would be judged unacceptable. This week, we saw not only in the blues but also in Hansard that the Prime Minister said the leader of the opposition had made false statements. I want to know whether that is acceptable.
Point Of OrderOral Question Period
The Speaker
If a member is not directly accused of having used the word "lied" or something like that. Usually, when someone says that, according to a newspaper, a statement was made in which someone said etc., in that case, it is not always necessary for me to intervene.
I will go back and check the blues and check what was said. If necessary, I will come back to the House to provide clarification.
Jan Brown Reform Calgary Southeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege pursuant to Standing Order 48(1). The privilege in question is one that is both the least questioned and the most fundamental right of any member of Parliament, freedom of speech.
The breach of freedom of speech, as I will state, involves the inability of me as a member of Parliament and others to participate in debate on government legislation or to be an active member of House committees.
I am aware that we as parliamentarians are bound by the rules and orders of the House with respect to participation in debate. However, as we have seen in the past, the status quo regarding parliamentary reform has been challenged. It is my intention today
to stand to challenge the status quo respecting the freedom of speech of individual members of Parliament.
The question I raise asks for the Speaker to give additional recognition to the members of Parliament who do not have party status in matters of debate and committee representation. I would like to point out that when I refer to members who are without party status and currently sitting in the House, I am referring to those members who are not officially recognized by the House of Commons due in part to the 12 member party threshold to which we as parliamentarians are currently bound through the 1963 statute that is embodied in the Parliament of Canada Act.
We are currently sitting in the 35th session of Parliament with a high number of MPs without party status representing constituents all across Canada. It is now time that the House recognize this as a significant deficit in terms of opinion and representation in debate. Without these voices the constituents in 15 ridings are quiet.
There have been a number of important debates in which those members have been unable to participate, and Bill C-41 is one of those in which many of us would very much like to participate.
Under current parliamentary rules and practice the opportunities for members with non-party status are limited in committee work. Political parties dominate the ever increasing role of the House and it is extremely difficult for members who do not belong to a party to have the same influence or to participate as fully as members who are party members.
Freedom of speech is a fundamental parliamentary privilege. Professor W.F. Dawson of the University of Alberta said in a 1959 article:
The privilege of freedom of speech is probably the most important and least questioned of all privileges enjoyed by the House. In its most elementary form this privilege was stated in the Bill of Rights which declared that `the freedom of speech and debates of proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place outside of Parliament'. Today, it is one of the privileges requested by the Speaker at the beginning of every Parliament.
Freedom of speech means that the members have the right to speak freely in the Chamber without fear of intimidation or challenge. What they say is privileged, protected or immune from being questioned outside of Parliament.
Joseph Maingot, former law clerk and parliamentary counsel of the House of Commons, has said:
The privilege of freedom of speech, though of a personal nature, is not so much intended to protect the members against prosecutions for their individual advantage but to support the right of people by enabling their representatives to execute the functions of their office without fear either of civil or criminal prosecution.
Freedom to speak freely is not the sole element of this privilege. Members must also be free to speak. This means that they have to have opportunities to participate in debate and to participate fully in the proceedings of Parliament, including parliamentary committees. Even if members are not inhibited in terms of what they say in the House, they are still inhibited in not being given opportunities to speak. The right to say whatever they want is meaningless if there is no chance to speak in any case.
Freedom of speech does not mean that members have an unlimited or unrestrained right to speak on every issue. The rules of the House impose limits on the participation of members and it is the duty of the Speaker to restrain those who abuse the rules.
It is clear that no member of the House can speak whenever he or she wishes. It is the role of the Speaker to recognize members and to preserve order and decorum. The democratic rights of an elected member are diminished when they do not possess the same opportunities as other members.
The rights of members and through them of their constituents must be respected. I speak from my heart for Calgary Southeast. The Speaker must be assured that the rights of all members of the House are protected. This is an ongoing process and must be reviewed afresh from time to time. The question must be asked whether independent or non-affiliated party members are being allowed to fully participate in the proceedings of the House and its committees. The privileges of these members, their freedom of speech and the fundamental tenants of parliamentary democracy must be satisfied.
Mr. Speaker, if you find that I have a prima facie case of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion, seconded by the member for Kamloops.
I appreciate the time to speak.
Herb Gray LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made an eloquent case for a prima facie case of privilege being established. I hope she will not take it as being too negative if I bring some other considerations to the attention of the House and to you, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of which is to urge you to reach the conclusion that there is no prima facie case of privilege.
What the hon. member is complaining about has been the accepted practice of the House for many years, for generations. I would suggest that if the hon. member studies the opportunities available to her as an independent private member, she will find that the opportunities she is seeking do exist. She has the same
opportunities as any other member to present petitions on behalf of her constituents. She has the same opportunity as any other member to file written questions or to file Notions of Motions for the Production of Papers.
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to speaking in debate it is you, sir, who has the ultimate authority to decide who to recognize, who to see. It is my impression, based on some years experience here, that if a member wishes to speak in a debate, while they may not get the floor at the exact time they would like to have it, if they make their interest known to Chair they will be recognized to speak in that debate.
Furthermore, with respect to committees our rules are clear. One does not have to be a formal member of a committee to attend committee meetings and to take part in discussions. It is true the person will not have the right to vote in the committee, but in terms of being heard the rules are clear. I repeat, one does not have to be a member of a committee in order to attend the meetings and take part in discussion.
The hon. member concedes that freedom of speech, being very important, has to have some reasonable limit. I think the reasonable limits which have been established both by our rules and by the custom of the House are an effort to make sure that the limited time available in any day for debate and discussion is distributed in a reasonably equitable fashion among members. I think this is a reasonable limitation on what she considers her freedom of speech.
Finally, I would say that the comments she has made regarding freedom of speech refer to the right of someone once they have the floor to speak freely without sanction outside the House. The right of freedom of speech as I understand it does not mean that any member can speak any time whenever they want, perhaps in a way that is not equitable with respect to the equal rights of other members, including those who work together as an organized party.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made an eloquent statement. I understand her concerns but I would suggest that in consultation with you, with the Clerk of the House, with members who perhaps may have been here a little longer than she, she could well get advice which would help her to participate more fully even as an independent member than she has been able to do up to now.
That being the case, I respectfully submit that she has not made a prima facie case to enable her to put a motion of privilege.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with what was said by the government house leader. We have discussed this question on several occasions, both before 1993 and since then.
I know that the Bloc Quebecois raised the matter when we had only eight members, and we had to live with the rules of the House. So I think that was settled. There is only one remedy and that is to take full advantage of other opportunities that may arise, in questions and comments, in committees, presenting petitions, and so forth.
I would say that the best way is to belong to a party that fields candidates in elections and wins enough seats so its has even more opportunities to express its views here in the House. That is how the British parliamentary system works. Even with our own sovereignist option, as far as we are concerned, we fully agree with this kind of system. I would ask you to reject the question of privilege.
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley East, BC
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments and I share some of the opinions that have already been expressed here on behalf of the government.
I would like to tell the hon. member that I have signed a sheet, along with the government whip and the whip of the official opposition, to allow the member to be an associate member of the committees of her choice. If there are other committees she would like to be an associate member of, I would be willing and happy to do that as well.
I encourage the member for Kamloops, who did get a question today in question period, to realize that there is a rotation. Mr. Speaker, I know you consider the independents to be under the protection of the Chair and you want to ensure they have the opportunity to get on the floor as much as possible.
At times I have substituted members of the NDP or other independent members when our members had to catch a plane or something. This allows them to get their speeches in if it had been difficult for them to do so. But obviously I have to look after the needs of my own party first. I will try to be accommodating. I do not want to see the hon. member not being able to get her point of view heard. If there are ways that can be dovetailed into the House life, that should be done.
PrivilegeOral Question Period
The Speaker
I thank the hon. member for Calgary Southeast for bringing up this point. She pinpointed that she was talking specifically about freedom of speech. I am going to come to that point in a second but before I do, I thank the hon. government House leader for his intervention as well as the House leader for the Bloc and the whip of the Reform Party.
The hon. member for Calgary Southeast will remember that early in this Parliament in 1994, possibly as early as May 1994, the
hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona argued very eloquently that independent members should be given more leeway in the procedures of this House. At that time in my response I mentioned to him that in the magnanimity of the House usually we could make some adjustments so that members who wanted to be heard on a particular issue could be heard.
I would point out to the hon. member for Calgary Southeast that now it is taken for granted that at least one and sometimes two independent members will have statements prior to our question period and we have tried as much as possible to get at least one independent member on in every question period every day. We have not always succeeded but to the extent that we have been able to get them on, I would suggest that the House as a family has been successful.
Many times members will come to me on a particular issue where they have to ask a question on that specific date, for example, if there is a catastrophe in the Saguenay or something like that. That it is a topic just for that day and they have to get information from the minister. I make every effort to see to it that the member, whether an independent or belonging to another party, would have a chance to get their question on.
I would tend to agree with the government House leader in this respect about freedom of speech. I direct myself precisely to the point that freedom of speech of course has to do with a member's being able to say what he or she wants to say without any impediments in this House after the member has the floor. As to the member's being able to get the floor, to get the eye or the attention of the Speaker, members as a House have generally decided that this will probably be the make-up. But in the absence of any suggestions from the different parties it is of course the responsibility of the Chair to make the decision as to who will speak and when.
I find at this point that there is not a prima facie case of privilege with regard to the specific point to which the member alludes. However, once again I appeal to the House in its magnanimity, and I refer specifically to the whip of the Reform Party who said he has made some allocations where it was possible for independent members to take the place of some of the members of his party who would have spoken had it not been for another occasion, for example. These things I think we can work out together.
However, specifically to the member for Calgary Southeast, if there is a burning issue, something on which the member must absolutely speak, although this does not occur on all the issues, I would ask the hon. member to address herself to the other whips if she likes or come up to the floor and where that slot is put in there, the Chair will give every consideration for those members who make a direct appeal to the Chair at that time.
I thank all hon. members for their interventions at this time.
The House resumed consideration of the motion for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his Speech at the opening of the session.
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley East, BC
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with our deputy House leader.
Today we are discussing the Liberal speech from the throne which was delivered on February 27 of this year, some nine months ago. It was 13 pages long. We all tried to listen to it. Only once in that 13 pages did the Liberal government even mention the word family, and that was just in a passing reference.
Today I would like to take the government to task a bit about that and also explain perhaps the priorities I think the family issue should have been given in the speech from the throne and certainly would be given by the Reform Party.
In an Angus Reid poll in 1994, 63 per cent of Canadians agreed that the family is in crisis, not just in trouble, in crisis.
In our recent fresh start initiative we have addressed the concerns that many Canadians have about their families being under pressure, stressed out, overworked, underpaid and having no time to spend with their families, on charity work or on community work. They are feeling the stress and are not enjoying it.
In a seven page attack memo that was put out by the Liberals last week in response to our fresh start campaign, they said Reformers do not understand the complexities of the modern family. Just what they are talking about I do not know. The modern family is not very complicated. I can tell members right now that if one wants to call it complicated, in the modern family most times both parents have to work. Some also have to moonlight. If that is complex then I think I understand it. The modern one income family has to pay $7,000 more a year in taxes than the two income family making the same amount when both parents work. This is the so-called complex reality of the modern family.
I think it is really very simple. Parents to not have enough time, enough disposable income and enough assets to spend as much time and energy with their children because they have to work harder for diminishing returns.
It is interesting that most of these people do not feel that they have a choice about whether they are going to spend more time with their family. They end up working split shifts, two shifts, two
jobs and so on because they are forced to for economic reasons. Many of them would prefer, especially when the children are young, to be able to look after their children and have the assets to do that.
On page 38 of the red book the Liberals said the following: "Young families need a support system that enables parents to participate fully in the economic life of the country. That is why the availability of quality child care is an economic issue".
The Liberals' concern for families is that they have to find ways for them to participate fully in the economic life of the country. In other words, it is Liberal doublespeak for "get to work, people, you do not have enough assets to stay home and look after your children, so put them in day care".
The Liberals do not seem to understand that there are other options, that we can reduce taxes so that one parent can look after the children. We can change the Criminal Code so that parents do not feel worried about the safety of their families and their children. We can change the taxation system so that it reflects an equality for all people regardless of their choice for child care.
Before I get into our own fresh start alternative, it is interesting that the Liberal answer seems to be to keep taxes high and force both parents to participate in the economic life of the country so that they can tax them both highly and then the government will run a huge national program in order to pick up the slack. It is no wonder 63 per cent of families feel that they are stressed out and overstressed. They do not have an option. The options have been taken away from them by this government. It does not seem to understand that the simple answer, and not just the simple but the correct answer, to what it would like to say is a very complex issue is a very obvious set of guidelines and priorities that can change and turn this whole problem on its head and give families the stress relief they deserve.
This is what Reform's fresh start would emphasize if we were giving the throne speech today. First, we would acknowledged the problem which is that because of social and economic changes many families are facing high debt, stress, bankruptcy and burnout. A reform government will recognize the value of families as the most important building block in our society so they can spend less time under pressure and more time with those they care about the most. That should have been the guiding principle, the acknowledgement of the problem, so that we could get on with solving problems that families feel need to be addressed and should have been addressed in the throne speech.
This is our commitment to the Canadian family. A Reform government would make families a priority and ensure that government policies and regulations are family friendly.
Second, extend the $3,000 to $5,000 child care deduction to all parents, including those who are there for their children at home.
Third, increase the spousal amount from $5,300 to $7,900 thus levelling the playing field for parents who choose to stay at home to look after young children and helping families meet the needs of a more demanding economy. In other words, increasing the spousal deduction will put more dollars in their pockets so they can look after their families in whatever way they feel necessary.
Fourth, help provinces and local governments ensure that deadbeat parents live up to their responsibilities to support their children when families break down. Reform will ensure that agreements concerning access to children are also respected and enforced. When families break down, an unfortunate thing that happens in society from time to time, Reform wants to make sure that deadbeat parents fulfil their obligations to their children and do not try to skirt around their obligations. It is not only a moral obligation but Reform wants to make it a moral obligation to support those kids.
Fifth, Reform would enact a zero tolerance policy on family violence.
Sixth, crack down on child prostitution and child pornography.
Reform wants to make families a priority. It should have been a priority in the throne speech, and it will certainly be a priority under a Reform government.
Reform believes that the strongest social programs to be had are policies to create and to build strong families. With a strong family all the other problems, many of which are dealt with here by legislation, go by the by. When there is a strong family that can look after themselves, feed the children properly, educate them and buy them school supplies, over the course of time those children are better educated. They have a lower crime rate, are able to concentrate better at school and have the confidence and the security that comes from having a family that is not stressed out completely. That is why families need and should have a higher priority than the government has given them to date.
I would argue that time spent with your family is not a luxury that should be enjoyed by a few or by a fluke of birth or whatever. Family time is essential time whether you are talking economically or psychologically or crime prevention or literacy rates. Families that spend time together can address most societal problems within their own family structure.
I would argue that parenting has real value and the government should recognize this as well. It is often said that children are our country's future. It is a phrase that is thrown out at every opportunity but it is true. Policies and programs of governments need to reflect the truth: we are concerned about parenting and we
want to make sure that it is possible for families to have and recognize the value of that parenting skill.
That is why Reform places such an emphasis on tax relief for people raising children. People raising children have increased expenses and increased needs. Why not allow the policies and programs to reflect that? Why not increase the spousal allowance so that people who are raising children do not have to send the government money? They can keep that money to look after their families.
Why should we not say that all people who have children, whether they put them in a government run day care, whether grandma is looking after the kids or whether they look after them in their own home, deserve a pat on the back and encouragement. Some of that should come from the tax man. In other words, they deserve some tax relief that is targeted toward recognizing that parenting has real value and that good parenting is the key to a strong society in the 21st century.
That is why Reformers say the child care deduction of $3,000 to $5,000 should be given to all people regardless of their choice of child care, whether it is institutional care, at home, with a neighbour, through a pooling of resources or with grandma. It does not matter. When you are raising children you need resources. Those resources should not just be made available to people who are able to hire a nanny. Those resources should be made available to them when they have children. That should be the criterion. It should not be the criterion of a government program.
We believe that if these resources are given to parents they will be able to make better use of them than if those same resources were shipped off to Ottawa and people hoped against hope the program that was delivered in a neighbourhood might actually be of some use to them.
There is an old saying that governments take the people's money, deduct 50 per cent for handling and then give back services the people never asked for nor wanted. That should stop. The services that parents want to provide for their families, if the resources were left in their hands, could be provided. They could provide for the needs of their children better than the federal government.
There are some things we need to do to reassure families about their future security. We have to have zero tolerance toward family violence. As have many hon. members, I have had people in my office telling me terrible stories about spousal abuse, family abuse, child abuse and so on. Each story is sad and sickening. I have zero tolerance for it and so should government policy.
That is why family assault should be made a separate and more serious offence under the Criminal Code. Those who abuse the trust of people need to be in a special category, a category which is more severe. Those people have broken a trust and have destroyed, perhaps forever, a child's security. It should not be tolerated. There should be zero tolerance for that.
We also want to enforce and strengthen peace bonds and restraining orders toward those who have shown a tendency for violence or who have threatened family members.
Finally, we want to make effective counselling programs a part of any sentence for family assault.
I mentioned earlier some of the other things that families deserve.
Mr. Speaker, as you approach half a century on this earth, as you get toward a very serious plateau in your own life, you will recognize the need to place emphasis on the family. I will allow my colleague to elaborate on that. As you head into your second half century, I know, Mr. Speaker, that you will listen kindly to his remarks.
Jake Hoeppner Reform Lisgar—Marquette, MB
Mr. Speaker, we heard some very interesting comments from the hon. member for Fraser Valley East.
I was wondering if he has some other statistics. I think I heard at one time that some polling company came out with a statistic which told us how many mums or dads would love to stay home to look after their small children. If that was feasible financially, how does he feel about that?
When I was in Winnipeg I had the privilege of attending a meeting of the Standing Committee on Health. An RCMP officer brought out a very interesting fact. He said that they had found it a lot easier to build a good kid than to fix a broken adult.
When we spend billions and billions of dollars on the justice system, would the hon. member not agree that this would be money very well spent if it was directed toward the parenting of young children?
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley East, BC
Mr. Speaker, there are statistics to back up all of the things I mentioned today, for example, that children who come from a secure home have lower rates of crime, have higher levels of literacy and education and have better health. The statistics go on and on.
It is true that over 50 per cent of parents say that while their children are young they would prefer, if financially possible, to have one of the parents stay at home to be the chief provider for those children. In other words, they would train them, teach them, spend time with them, build security into their lives, pass on family values, show them right from wrong and so on. They feel that is a valuable asset and a valuable contribution.
That is why the tax proposals that Reform has come up with, especially for low income families, will lower the tax burden by 89 per cent for families making less than $30,000 a year. Just think of it. I am not going to spend any time worrying about those who can hire a nanny. They have made their priority choices in life and I guess they have a lot of money.
However, if those who are just on the cusp, just barely able to make it, were told that the choices were a little more flexible because if they are making $30,000 a year as a couple it maybe means that one person is working at a minimum wage job and the other is working part time, and I told them that their tax rate would be lowered by 89 per cent, it would mean that they would be virtually paying no taxes. If they are making $30,000 a year it is not a lot of money. They need all that money to raise their family.
A family of four earning $30,000 a year is on the poverty line. Imagine if they got their pay cheque and where today it says deductions for income tax sent off to Ottawa, never to be seen again it seems. Twenty per cent or 30 per cent is deducted for taxes. Would it not be wonderful if they saw instead the column said zero and all the money they earned, they got to take home to spend on their families the way they saw fit? I think if Canadian families were asked who knows better where the money should be spent, most people would say they know the needs in their own homes. They would be able to provide for their children. They have the best interests of their children at heart and they know that given a good shot at it, an ability to hang onto their funds they would be able to do a better job than the bureaucrats in Ottawa.
John Williams Reform St. Albert, AB
Mr. Speaker, normally when I start a speech I say how privileged I am to join in the debate. But let us remember that this is, after all, November 1996 and we are debating the throne speech that was tabled on February 27, 1996 approximately eight months ago. Throne speeches are when the government lays out its mandate and desires, what it wants to achieve on behalf of the nation. Unfortunately, over the years they have become perfunctory statements that are bland, wide-ranging and have very little meaning or substance.
The speech we are debating in November 1996 and was tabled in February 27, 1996, is bland, wide-ranging, says nothing specific. I cannot imagine why we are debating this seven months after the fact rather than talking about specific legislation emanating from the speech. The answer unfortunately is somewhat obvious. It is because the government likes these bland, innocuous statements rather than serious legislation to fix the problems that are facing Canadians today.
Members have heard the Reform Party talk about the one in four people in this country who either do not have a job, are looking for a job, or are concerned about their job because they feel that their jobs may be in jeopardy. We were talking about that in the House in question period less than two hours ago. The finances of a major employer in western Canada are in serious trouble and many jobs are potentially on the line. The government says: "It is not our problem at this point, " yet it ran on a policy of jobs, jobs, jobs. It seems rather strange to me that it continues to spout the mantra without delivering on any of the goods.
This is the lack of vision of the Liberal Party that the Reform Party has railed against for the years that we have been in existence. In the section "Ensuring Opportunity: A Strong Economy" of the throne speech it is stated: "The government will work with the private sector and the provinces to make the collective investments required to produce hope, growth and jobs".
We have not seen any tax reduction. The deficit continues to cause the government to borrow more money. The total debt is rising. It will soon be $600 billion. Yet, we have talked in this House in the last few weeks and have been critical of the government because it has given a company in Montreal, Bombardier, $87 million interest free.
Surely, that must be what the Liberals were talking about when they said they would work with the private sector and the provinces in their collective investments to produce hope, growth and jobs. I am concerned about the logic. It is the ordinary taxpayers, the people who work hard every day and remember that one in four of them are concerned about their jobs, who have to pay taxes to the Government of Canada because the government had to borrow $87 million which the government lent to Bombardier interest free.
Bombardier is a large and successful company with an international reputation. It has factories in production around the world. We are proud of Bombardier. We are proud of a Canadian success. But why do we have to be so proud of our Canadian success that we have to go to the ordinary Canadian in the street and say: "Can you spare a little more in taxes to pay the interest on the money we are going to borrow so Bombardier can have an interest free loan of $87 million?" That does not make sense. If that is the only thing the government had in mind in this line in the throne speech about collective investments with the private sector and the provinces, surely we expected a lot better.
Remember that the government's line was jobs, jobs, jobs. Here we are today, three years into the mandate and an election starting to loom on the horizon. I can see the next election being on the theme: "We didn't do it last time but this time it is going to be job, jobs, jobs. Trust us. We are going to deliver". That line is wearing thin. I doubt very much that Canadians will believe the Liberal Party this time if it runs on a policy of jobs, jobs, jobs. It does not wash.
Under the section on trade: "The government will continue efforts to expand NAFTA and will work toward more world trade liberalization. Where there are trade disputes, the government will spare no effort to promote and defend legitimate trade rights and interests". Nice words. Remember that the Liberals in opposition said: "Scrap NAFTA. We do not want anything to do with it". In the last election, they said they were going to amend it to make sure that it fit their philosophy.
As we can see, the Liberals have already moved a long way to acquiescence. After they won the election, they just said: "Where do we sign? Show us the dotted line for NAFTA". According to the throne speech, they are continuing efforts to expand NAFTA and work toward trade liberalization. My goodness, how they change when they get into power.
Of course in the next line the Liberals talk about promoting and defending legitimate Canadian trade rights. We had it right here today. The softwood lumber disputes should have gone to the World Trade Organization for a complete, satisfactory and final resolution but the minister stood up and said: "We got an agreement for five years. Isn't this neat and wonderful?"
We open the newspaper and find out jobs have been lost in rural Ontario. We find out jobs have been lost in rural Alberta. We find out that jobs have been lost in British Columbia. We wonder what the government really means when it talks about defending legitimate Canadian trade rights and jobs, jobs, jobs. We could go on all day.
How about the public pension plan. "The public pension system will be there to support people in their old age", the Liberals said in the throne speech. Within a few weeks thereafter, the Minister of Finance stood up in this House and said that universality for seniors is right out the window.
There will be no more old age security in 2001. There will be no more guaranteed income supplement in the year 2001. The first thousand dollars of pension income tax free is out the window. The age exemption that every senior has enjoyed as a tax reduction on their tax return is out the window.
Instead anybody with any reasonable income of any kind is going to have a 20 per cent additional surtax applied as a clawback on top of normal taxation. If they are in the higher tax brackets their total payment marginal rate to the government can get as high as 75 per cent. And universality is out the window.
Did the Minister of Finance stand up and say that in this House? No. He couched it in nice and wonderful language much like the throne speech and said: "Don't worry, be happy. If you can look after yourself, good, because we cannot afford to do it for you. The Canada pension plan is in trouble. We are going to soak the working people. We are going to take it back from the retired people. We are going to put the excess in our own jeans rather than saving the Canada pension plan".
That is what we found out in the throne speech. We are still waiting for the legislation. Eight months later and we are still talking about the throne speech. Surely Canadians deserve better. They do deserve better and it is outlined in the fresh start program of the Reform Party that we introduced a few weeks ago.
Rather than taxing seniors more, we are going to give a tax break to every Canadian after the budget is balanced. After the budget is balanced. Please note that we want that job done first and then we will talk about tax breaks. We have laid these things out.
We are going to cut unemployment insurance for employers to create jobs so that they pay the same rate as the employees, a 28 per cent cut. It is going to take this huge surplus in the UI fund and put it right back into the employers' hands because they are the people who create jobs.
We are going to cut the capital gains rate for the entrepreneurs to give them the incentive to create jobs.
We are going to talk about giving every family the opportunity for a deduction for their children in lieu of saying only if their kids are in day care can they claim a tax deduction and therefore they have no choice if they want to reduce their taxes but to put their kids in day care. We want to recognize that it is the parents who choose how to bring up their children. It is not tax policy that dictates how parents shall bring up their children.
These are the things we have introduced in our fresh start program. This fresh start is a new vision of Canada compared to the no vision, the bland statements that are still bland statements eight months later. They were introduced on February 27, 1996 and today in November 1996 they have not moved forward one single inch.
Let that record speak for itself.
John Harvard LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, I want to say publicly that I congratulate you on your appointment to the Chair.
I want to make a couple of observations pursuant to what the hon. member has just said. I think all of us would agree that when MPs come to Ottawa one of the most serious and one of the most grave responsibilities they have is to maintain national unity. The last thing we should do is to try to play one province off against another or one region off against another.
Over and over again that is what the Reform Party does. They shirk that responsibility. They love this game of playing one region off against another. In the last few days they have raised the loan to Bombardier and they somehow leave the impression that there is a game of favouritism going on here and that Quebec or the city of
Montreal is being favoured over some other city, some other province, some other region. Nothing could be further from the truth.
It is noted very well on this side of the House that those members in the Reform Party never mention anything about what the federal government has done to support Calgary's bid for the exposition in 2005. The federal government has done everything possible to ensure that the exposition in 2005 comes to the city of Calgary. It has nothing to do with the fact that Calgary is Calgary or that it is in the province of Alberta or in the region called the west. It is a Canadian city. It belongs to all of us, as does Montreal, as does Winnipeg, as does Halifax. And this federal government has a responsibility to support that bid.
My city of Winnipeg, the capital of Manitoba is getting the PanAm Games in 1999. The federal government is supporting that project to the tune of about $40 million. Do we hear that from the Reform Party? No. We do not hear that from the Reform Party. The Reform Party would rather talk about a loan to Bombardier because that somehow conjures up an image that Quebec is getting something and the west is not.
I am from the west and I am sick and tired of that kind of game which divides this country. It is a game that should stop. Responsible members of the House of Commons would not indulge in that kind of talk. It is injurious to this country. It is very injurious and the sooner we stop it, the better.
John Williams Reform St. Albert, AB
Mr. Speaker, I think that was feigned outrage by the member who is from Winnipeg and from the west.
I do hope since he is from Winnipeg that he stood up and spoke loudly and at length, that he shouted from the rooftops when the CF-18 contract was taken from Winnipeg and given to another part of the country. Everyone knows that Winnipeg was a better bid, a cheaper bid, yet the people in Winnipeg, in his hometown, were denied that contract.
I am glad he raised the issue of unity. There was a referendum in the province of Quebec a year ago last week that we came within half an inch of losing. Why? Because this government sat and did nothing through the entire campaign. It sat on the sidelines and watched the country almost disintegrate because it had no policy whatsoever to deal with that situation.
While the member for Winnipeg St. James talks about the Reform Party and its policies, I have heard nothing about his defending the motion to create a distinct society for part of this country which was introduced last December in this House. In many parts of the country, including Alberta where I am from, that type of issue would not even be contemplated. Yet it was introduced in this House by his government to divide this country because the west does not like that particular phrase.
The member has the gall to accuse the Reform Party of divisive policies when we see the government he represents standing by without any governance whatsoever and allowing this country to fail both in unity and through the fact that we now have a $600 billion debt hanging around our necks, courtesy of that government. That type of thing must stop and a fresh start Reform policy will do that.
Nick Discepola LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, I too will share my time with a colleague. I would also like to congratulate you on your appointment, Mr. Speaker.
I am also happy to participate in this debate, even though we are speaking about the throne speech that was delivered on February 27, 1996.
The very fact that we are still discussing the throne speech eight months later shows the importance of this document. I see the throne speech as a kind of business plan for the government. The fact that we are still debating this business plan shows how important it is.
With your permission, I will not go over the whole plan but, as my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works, pointed out, I will address the part of the throne speech dealing with national unity.
Notwithstanding the actions we took in the weeks following the referendum, there remains some confusion, especially in Quebec, on the various measures our government took to try to settle the basic issue of Canadian unity.
There are obstacles, but I listened with interest to the comments made about the throne speech by members of the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party, who, I must point out, were nowhere to be seen during the referendum debate. Today, they claim to be concerned about Canadian unity. That is not true. If they were really concerned about Canadian unity, instead of criticizing our government day in and day out and making no proposals to advance the debate on Canadian unity, they would have expended their energy on settling the matter and especially on trying to convince our colleagues and fellow citizens in western Canada to make an effort to understand a little better what Quebec has been seeking for so long.
It was clearly specified in the throne speech.
We were very clear in the speech from the throne what this government wanted to do. The Reform Party member who spoke prior to me stated that we have no vision of Canada, that we have no plan for Canada. Nothing could be further from the truth. I question, based on his intervention, whether he even took the time to read the speech from the throne.
As I said in French, the speech from the throne is a blueprint of where our government wants to take this country. In the speech from the throne we talk about modernizing the federation. More important, we talk about the different areas of responsibilities that our government is willing to withdraw from.
I want to quote from the speech from the throne concerning the areas which have been a sore point for most provinces. The throne speech states: "The government will not use its spending power to create new shared cost programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction without the consent of the majority of the provinces, and any new program will be designed so that non-participating provinces will be compensated provided they establish similar programs in their province".
In the province of Quebec this has been a very sore point for many years. Traditional past governments, in order to penetrate or impede on some provincial jurisdiction, would through their spending powers introduce their own programs and thereby bypass the province totally.
Our government was clear. We wrote it down. We stated that we will no longer do that. Why? We feel we have to work with the provinces because they are our partners. We cannot always look at the other levels of government as our enemies. If we are going to get Canada back on track, as we have done over the past two or three years, of which I am very proud, we are going to have to take new initiatives and work with the provinces.
We also stated in the speech from the throne that the government will work the provinces and Canadians to develop agreed upon values and principles to underlie the social union and to explore new approaches to decision making in social policies. That is very clear.
The Reform Party says we do not want to do anything and that we are not working with the provinces. The newly appointed Minister of Human Resources Development has spent a considerable amount of time, as did his predecessors, in negotiating manpower training with the provinces. It is a long process, but we made the ground rules and the blueprints in our speech from the throne which lay out very clearly where we are headed.
In essence, what we are saying is: "Hey, provinces, we are willing to work with you. Let us sit down and define which level of government is best able to deliver the services". After all, there is only one taxpayer in this country. Whether it is a municipal government, a provincial government, a federal government or even a school board, there is still only one taxpayer. Quite often these levels ignore that fact.
What we are saying is that we should look at the powers. We are looking at the responsibilities. We said it again in the speech from the throne. The government is prepared to withdraw totally from some sectors.
The government is going to withdraw from manpower training. That is well under way and in the province of Quebec it has been accepted with open arms. The government is also willing to withdraw from areas such as social housing, mining, sports and recreation.
The government has worked with the provinces on these matters, but there are probably some jurisdictions that it needs to retain, such as the environment. Obviously, pollution does not stop at a provincial border. The rivers which are polluted do not stop at a provincial border. The federal government still has to be responsible to a certain degree.
Tourism and food inspection are two others areas in which the federal government is willing to work with the provinces.
What we said in the speech from the throne is that we are prepared to renew the federation. It is incumbent-and the proof is in the longevity of our beautiful country-on every generation to look at Canada and to mould it for its needs and for the needs of future generations. That is what our blueprint states.
I would like to touch on the different things that we have done to respond to the commitments made by our Prime Minister in the weeks preceding the referendum. Again, most people seem to have forgotten them rather quickly.
During the referendum we promised that we would transfer manpower training to the provinces. We have done that. We delivered on that promise.
We promised to recognize regional vetoes. I recall very vividly that debate. I was out west at that point in time. I remember that British Columbians felt they were a separate area and that they should be recognized as a region. Our government listened. Instead of creating four regional vetoes, we went ahead and recognized five regional vetoes. We gave all the regions a veto. Quebec, after all, is the only province that had constitutional change imposed on it against its will.
I have one minute left. I will take that very important minute to appeal to my western colleagues to work with our government. They can use whatever phrase they want. The Liberal Party chose to use distinct society. Let us try to work together to recognize the distinct reality of Quebec. One has to be blind not to recognize that
Quebec has a different language and a different culture. Let us work together to enshrine that in the Constitution.
Yes, we did make exceptions for provinces. British Columbia, for example, in order to join Confederation, required that the national railway be built. In 1892 that dream was realized. Where would British Columbia be today if that dream had never been fulfilled?
If there were only eight residents on Prince Edward Island, all eight would either be senators or members of Parliament. We recognize that even a small province can contribute to Canada.
I make an appeal to the premiers of the provinces to work with our government. I make an appeal for all parties to work with our government to solve the Canadian unity problem once and for all.
[Translation]
Nic Leblanc Bloc Longueuil, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have a question or two for the hon. member for Vaudreuil, one of those members who have frequently raised the fact that political uncertainty was disastrous for Quebec in terms of attracting investments in the province.
I should point out to him that, just today, an announcement was made that a Swedish company will be investing $300 million in pharmaceutical research in the Montreal area, probably in or around my riding.
If political uncertainty has such a disastrous effect-and perhaps he could address this in his response-it certainly is not political uncertainty caused by separatists, as he puts it, that adversely affects investment.
I would say that the Liberal government's attitude is much more detrimental. On November 5, Claude Piché wrote in La Presse that it was strictly an irrational excuse on the part of the Liberals to claim that investments were not coming in as they should in Quebec because of the political uncertainty caused by the separatists, when in fact it was just the opposite.
The problem is due to the fact that the federal government itself would have everyone believe that the lack of investment is due to political uncertainty and the sovereignist cause.
It is absolutely not true and I would like him to say so, because, if he is serious about wanting to help the people he represents-I think he speaks mainly for the people of Montreal and Quebec, given that he was elected by the people of Quebec-perhaps he should stop talking about political uncertainty and start creating an atmosphere to counter such a perception by investors, because this is strictly a matter of perception.
The perception does not match the reality. There is no survey indicating that political uncertainty in Quebec adversely affects investment. He should say do publicly-I sincerely hope he will-if he is serious about wanting to help the people of Montreal. That is my first point.
My second is the Bombardier investment issue, that the hon. members from western Canada keep raising. The problem, really, is the way the Liberals have announced it. The Prime Minister himself came to Montreal to announce that he was lending $87 million to Bombardier.
In fact, it is a loan equivalent to about six or seven million dollars per year, over a few years. As far as I know, never before has a Prime Minister made a trip with his ministers to announce with great pomp annual subsidies of $7 million to a major company such as Bombardier, when the economic spin-offs will be much greater than the $7 million in question.
The problem that westerners face has to do with the way the Liberals came with great pomp to Montreal to announce what was in fact a loan of $87 million. It is a loan and this is fine. I have nothing against it.
The problem is the way it was announced. The government misled people from the west by making them believe it was a huge subsidy, but it is not the case. I would appreciate it if the hon. member for Vaudreuil would explain it, to correct the false impression created by the fact that the Prime Minister came with great pomp and that the Minister of Industry said the government was giving $87 million. The government is not giving $87 million: it will give about $7 million per year, taking interest rates into account, for a few years. The hon. member should set the record straight.
Speech From The ThroneOral Question Period
The Speaker
I would ask the hon. member for Vaudreuil to provide a brief response.
Nick Discepola Liberal Vaudreuil, QC
Mr. Speaker, I will not have time to deal with the two questions in a brief response. I will discuss the issue of political uncertainty and its effect on the economy of Montreal and of the province as a whole.
The member for Longueuil only has to walk or drive through the streets of Montreal to see the devastating effects that this region has had to put up with for a long time. I am proud of the measures recently announced by our government to help Montreal's economy. It is sad and deplorable that the Quebec premier did not invite the federal government to the socio-economic summit. If he cared about Quebec's interests, he would at least have invited the federal government. Yet, Bloc Quebecois members are asking us why we do not do more for Montreal.
We are not the ones dreaming in technicolour, it is Bloc Quebecois members and separatists. The facts speak for themselves. Let us take a look at the unemployment rate. It is no coincidence. After all, we have the same policies for Quebec as for other provinces, and for Montreal as for other major cities. We do not devise policies to punish Quebec.
We must ask ourselves why the unemployment rate is two points higher in the Montreal region. the Canadian average is around 9.6 per cent, while the rate for Quebec is 12.6 per cent.
Why is it that the uncertainty affects the Quebec and Canadian economies indirectly and directly? It is not good for Quebec and it is not good for Canada. I hope some day they understand that.
Speech From The ThroneOral Question Period
The Speaker
The hon. member for Winnipeg St. James will have the floor. It is my understanding that the hon. member will be speaking for 10 minutes.
John Harvard LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Vaudreuil for allowing me to share his time in reply to the throne speech. I would like to pledge my co-operation to my hon. colleague from Vaudreuil as he makes every effort to strengthen Quebec's position and place in this federation.
I have recognized in working in the national capital as a federal member of Parliament that we are all family and we are all Canadians. Quebecers are as much Canadians as Albertans or as Manitobans. We are all family. We have our own peculiar problems and our own unique concerns. All of us have a responsibility to work together so we can tackle these problems wherever they might be found, in Quebec, British Colombia or wherever.
We know that the economy of the province of Quebec is in serious trouble, especially on the island of Montreal. We as good Canadians should do everything possible to revive that economy. The stronger the Quebec economy is, the stronger our national economy is. That applies to every province and region in the country.
The member from Vaudreuil mentioned that the 1996 throne speech had a vision of renewing the federation, and that is very true. Its main thrust was renewing the federation. Renewing the federation comes in many manifestations. For example, getting our fiscal house in order was and is part of that vision. Cleaning up the fiscal mess in the national capital is part of that vision. Without stabilizing the government and our national finances, everything else is put into question, everything else is put at risk. As part of that vision, as enunciated in the throne speech, it was so important to talk about and to address this problem of our national fiscal situation.
When this government came to office in the fall of 1993 the deficit was in excess of $40 billion, maybe even in excess of $45 billion. That is a lot of money. Something had to be done because without addressing that deficit, other things that this government wanted to do would not be possible. So our finance minister went to work aggressively and established a course that he has followed. He has followed that course assiduously and without any deviation. In that process and by not deviating he has established credibility. When he sets out to do something, he means it.
He started with a target to reduce the deficit to 3 per cent of the gross domestic product, and he has done that. He has now reset his target at 2 per cent, and it is not going to be long before it will be 1 per cent of the GDP. It will not be that long before there is no deficit at all.
Not only is the deficit being brought down quite rapidly but in the process the debt is being tackled. The finance minister announced a few days ago that come fiscal year 1998 there will no longer be a need for borrowing new money. That is success.
The debt is far too high, in the neighbourhood of $600 billion. Our interest charges are neighbouring $50 billion and that is far too much and has to be brought under control.
However, the finance minister has established credibility. He has shown that he can get the job done, and Canadians believe him and support him. I know it is going to be done. As a result of his doing a good job interest rates have come down to the lowest we have seen in almost 40 years. Our interest rates are lower than those in the United States. With interest rates as low as they are it makes buying a car a possibility, a probability. It means more and more Canadians are able to buy new homes or repair their homes or get a mortgage because of the low interest rates. We have had considerable success on that financial front.
That was part of the vision as outlined in the 1996 throne speech. However, there was far more to that vision than just cleaning up the fiscal mess. The throne speech mentioned technology partnerships. Nowadays it seems that wherever we turn we are confronted with new technologies. It is part of globalization and part of the new world order, technology and computers. For a lot of us who were raised a good many years ago, a lot of this new technology is perhaps beyond us. However, this government realizes that we are in a new technological world and we had better observe the necessities of the new technological age.
That is why the Minister of Industry has worked very aggressively on working with technology firms. Through his good work he has developed all kinds of technology partnerships. The government has contributed about $250 million toward technology partnerships. That will further technological innovation and it will strengthen the economy. It means creating jobs, which is being done already.
Notwithstanding the unacceptable unemployment rate in this country, a lot of new jobs are being created, especially in technology firms. This government has created over 600,000 jobs and I
expect better things to come. I expect those better things to come as early next year, 1997.
Also part of the throne speech vision was youth services. The government has found additional money for youth services. Right now there are about 35,000 Canadian youths involved in apprenticeship programs which is a real opportunity for young people to move from secondary education, high school and other educational institutions into the workplace. It is an ideal opportunity for young people to make the transition from their lives of education to the workplace. I believe our youth policy is working.
Maintaining medicare is part of the vision of the throne speech. Canadians believe very strongly in medicare and want this government to maintain it. I can assure members that we are going to maintain it and adhere to the five basic principles of the medicare system. We are not going to let the medicare system slip away.
It should be observed that in the last budget brought down by the finance minister he put a so-called cash floor so that the support for medicare would be maintained.
I could go on and on but I know I am out of time. However, I think the throne speech of 1996 has a well rounded vision. It is about renewing the federation. It is about strengthening the government. It is about getting government right. It is about serving Canadians much better than they have been in recent years.
Garry Breitkreuz Reform Yorkton—Melville, SK
Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here all afternoon listening to the various statements and comments with regard to the throne speech and I have a few comments of my own.
I was a teacher, before I came to this House, for almost 25. I have been a parent for almost all that time. I have met people from across the entire country since coming here and previously and a lot of the remarks that I have today in response to all the speakers who have been on this afternoon come from that.
There is one group of people in this country that I think is the key to the future. Despite all the rhetoric we hear, the government gives the impression that children come first but its policies and its legislation contradict this. That group of people that I think we must consider first and foremost in all the things we do is our children.
Liberal crime bills are very often merely job creation programs for lawyers. Liberal tax policies have forced both parents out of the home in order to avoid poverty. Liberal social engineering programs cause education, health, justice and social program costs to escalate. But the most horrific aspect of the Liberal policies, and the throne speech is an example of that, is they cause violent crime to increase, and our kids will pay a terrible cost.
What is the best crime prevention strategy that we could implement? It is simply to give children back their parents. This is the basis of Reform's fresh start family issues policy.
Let us look at education. The first and best teacher a child could ever have is a loving, caring parent. If we look at justice the best strategy for preventing violent crime is one that encourages bonding between a child and a parent. If we look at health care, the best health care program is one that starts at home with proper emotional development. If we look at social programs, the best social program is one in which taxes are lowered to the point where one job will provide for the needs of the family. It is common sense. It is simple.
When voters examine our fresh start platform they will see that Reform is the family friendly party. The party that puts kids first will do more to make society safer, improve health and education and reduce social program costs than all the big Liberal spending programs.
John Harvard Liberal Winnipeg—St. James, MB
Mr. Speaker, I found the hon. member's remarks interesting. I wish I could believe everything he has been saying. On the one hand he talks about the Reform Party being a family friendly party. Yet day in and day out in this House what do members of the Reform Party talk about? They talk about the criminal justice system. They talk about the spectacular cases that come up from time to time. They tell the government how we have to get tough on the young people of today, that we have to throw them into jail, that we have to lock the jail doors and throw the key away.
What the Reform Party talks about is all we have to do when it comes to youth crime is just write another law, add an amendment to the Young Offenders Act. We do not have to strengthen families. We do not have to help families that find themselves in a dysfunctional way. Oh no, just write a law and strengthen the justice system and maybe get rid of the Young Offenders Act. Not only that, but maybe we can even start charging young kids of nine and ten years of age with crimes.
That is what members of the Reform Party talk about.
Reformers do that every day in this House, and now the member for Yorkton-Melville comes along and says that his party is a family friendly party. I have two words: get serious.
Nic Leblanc Bloc Longueuil, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the address in reply to the throne speech, although I find it a bit odd to do so now, since the speech was given on February 27, 1996 and it is now mid-November. I suppose the government, which controls the program in this House, did not want us speaking about the throne speech when it realized it had not met the objectives it set for itself.
I have been here for 12 years, and although I do not recall what happened other years, it seems to me it has taken a while to get to the throne speech. If we had spoken about it in March, April, May perhaps, I would understand. But it is now November. My birthday is November 15 and I did not think I would be speaking about it so close to my birthday. I would have liked to speak about it much earlier.
The throne speech dealt with research and development, science and technology. The government said it would take steps to improve promotion of science and technology, and research and development in order to encourage job creation. It also said it would pay particular attention to the political uncertainty hanging over Quebec.
It also talked about improving free trade with the United States and Mexico, and mentioned NAFTA and a climate favourable to economic growth. These were the main points covered in the throne speech. Unfortunately, this is not exactly what is being done.
With respect to research and development, this morning I listened to experts and representatives of certain departments and Canadian institutions appearing before the industry committee. They seemed quite discouraged by the fact that the government was reducing research and development budgets. In my view and in the view of a number of people who know a little bit about economy and a country's economic performance, research and development is vital. It is something that must not be neglected.
We must always keep a keen eye on a government's obligations regarding education, training, research, and assistance to businesses so that we can operate more economically and be more productive. All this concerns the production environment in a capitalist system like the one in which we live.
People need training in order to be more effective. They need to be healthier, better educated. There must be more applied research that is more closely related to business needs. The purpose of all this is to provide a better standard of living for Quebec and for Canada.
This is, however, not what is happening. Since the Liberals have been in power, there is more unemployment, more people on welfare, things are going from bad to worse. Every day we have to motivate people, to give them faith in the future. At the present time, there is a little glimmer of hope, a minimal rate of growth.
Great attention must be given to everything related to research and development, educational levels, health, products, pure science, so that we can keep up with the growing international competition in the market place.
There are some who think that international competition is somewhat vulgar, bad capitalism, but it is nonetheless a reality. The reality is that we have decided to open up markets with the United States first, and then with Mexico. Now we are trying to open up markets with Israel, a small country, but still this demonstrates the desire to open up markets.
The countries of Asia and the Pacific have the same desire to open up markets in order to communicate, to do business together. This seems to me to be a good thing for humanity. The greatest opportunities to meet and to dialogue are always available in trade and in business.
I have seen this in the few trips to Africa I have had the opportunity to take. Several of our experts told us that trade was the route by which we will manage to get to know each other and to do business together. Not in the crass capitalist sense of the word, but rather in the sense of having trade exchanges in which the interests of all partners are served. And when people's interests are served, they make an effort to understand each other and get along better, so that gradually, we are better able to live together in peace and harmony. We might have fewer wars and fewer conflicts if we are more open to the world.
Since we know there is an advantage to being open to the world, for the reasons I just mentioned, the Canadian government must co-operate with business, universities, unions and everybody else, whether we are talking about human, scientific or other research, to help us draw on the resources we need to develop our own potential and help others do that as well, whether we are talking about trade, productivity, health care, education, or other sectors. This is all very important.
The government must also be fair. So far, I can tell you the government has not been fair in the way it distributes spending on research and development and science and technology among the provinces.
In 1989, I chaired a committee when I was with the previous government in power. It produced a report. At the time, we noticed that when officials of Statistics Canada evaluated how federal spending on research and development and science and technology was distributed, they always excluded the National Capital Region, which greatly distorts the results.
For instance, if we ask Statistics Canada: "Are your own employees distributed equitably among the provinces?", Statistics Canada answers: "Yes, we do a good job of distributing our staff". So I asked them in a committee in 1989, and this was quite sometime ago: "How are Statistics Canada employees distributed across Canada"? They told me: "They are very well distributed, we have about 150 in Quebec, 185 in Ontario, about 85 in the West and 40 or so in the Maritimes". I said: "How many employees do you have together?" I was told: "We have around 4,500 or 5,000
employees". I said: "Where are the others, I counted only around 700 or 800"? They told me: "The others are in Ottawa".
So there were around 3,500 or 4,000 in Ottawa and furthermore, Ontario had 185, and Ottawa is in Ontario.
This is just an example. So when Statistics Canada provides statistics, they are completely distorted because they exclude the National Capital Region, which is concentrated mostly or at least 80 per cent in Ontario.
Imagine what that represents. I did a calculation, and with unanimous consent, I shall if I may table this document in the House for information purposes.
Speech From The ThroneOral Question Period
The Speaker
The hon. member is asking for the unanimous consent of the House. Does the hon. member have the consent of the House to move the motion?