Debates of March 19th, 1996

Supply

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I remember very well that, in the report he submitted 12 months ago, the auditor general, Mr. Desautels, talked about $6.6 billion in unpaid taxes. Most of this $6.6 billion in unpaid federal taxes was owed by very wealthy people and large corporations.

There is no need to spend $700,000 or $800,000 on friends of the government to find ways to collect the money owed us. One of my neighbours owed money to the government, so they seized his assets. He was an ordinary man of modest means. They seized his assets, sold his pick-up truck and gave him about $100 that was left over after they collected their taxes. No review committee is needed to go after this $6.6 billion. Only $200 million was recovered after a year. This is no cause for celebration.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the $6.6 billion is not all related to corporate income tax. Surprisingly enough, I believe almost$1 billion of that relates to single mothers whose child support payments are delinquent and therefore not enough cash flows into those households. It was the government that changed the income tax system to make that a non-taxable transaction.

The member is suggesting that we should go out and put the squeeze on these single parent families which has nothing to do with corporate taxation.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to the motion put forward by the separatist Bloc Party. This is a very peculiar motion. I wonder if the Bloc has a hidden agenda. After all we know its purpose in this House is not to support policies and positions that Canada may take for the good of Canada as a whole.

As I read the Bloc's motion today, I became suspicious about what exactly is behind it. It appears that Bloc members are asking the House to form a joint committee of business experts and members of Parliament, which would include the separatist Bloc members, to come up with a plan on how to address corporate taxes and the regulations that corporations live by in doing business inside and outside of Canada.

However, it is almost hypocrisy that the Bloc Party would want to have members on this committee, which would be looking for ways to benefit the whole of Canada, when its agenda is simply to break up Canada. This motion by the Bloc is very hypocritical and, I suspect, has a hidden agenda.

The committee proposed by the government is a good idea. It is going to bring together business leaders and experts to examine the tax laws in Canada dealing with corporations. When the committee has reports from time to time, it will turn them over to the finance committee which is comprised of members from the government, the separatist Bloc and the Reform Party, the unofficial opposition party in this House. Members will discuss it openly in committee and all will have a chance to have input into the reports. Therefore, there is a decent amount of transparency and openness which the Bloc says there will not be in this committee.

I cannot really see, considering that MPs will have the last say on any report or recommendation in the committee and in the House, how the Bloc members can say there is not enough participation by members of Parliament in the process. I do not think there is any reason to be concerned about the lack of input from experts in this field should this joint committee that the Bloc is proposing not be established.

These are only some minor points that I raise relating to the wording of the Bloc motion.

The Bloc has really missed the target and has wasted a supply day that would enable its members to talk about taxation in general. It wasted that day by preferring to attack the membership of a committee on corporate tax reform.

This was an ideal opportunity for Bloc members to tell the House and Canadians about the unconscionable taxes that are being charged to working men and women.

Canadians in every province are crying out for tax relief whether they live in Newfoundland, Quebec, Ontario or any of the western provinces. The average Canadian is overburdened with taxes. Taxes have increased to the point where both parents working in a household has become commonplace. Because of tax levels, disposable income has continued to shrink while the cost of living has gone up.

This whole spiral of taxation increases was started by the Liberal government of Mr. Trudeau and carried on to the government we have today.

The Bloc has failed Canadians by not putting forward a motion that deals with taxation levels in general. As members know, since Reformers came to this House, we have stood up over and over, day after day, crying out for tax relief for overtaxed Canadians. The reason why jobs are not being created by the private sector and the corporations is because taxation levels and the cost of business are too high.

The Canadian Business Council and every business organization in the country have told the government about the high levels of taxation that corporations are facing. They have said that if you want us to create jobs, then give us some tax relief. We will create them.

The finance minister in 1994 even talked about how many jobs a decrease in the payroll tax would create. What have they done about it? Nothing. Since the government has come to power it has increased taxes from all sectors by a total of some $11 billion. These are tax increases in all forms. Canadian business, Canadian corporations, average working Canadians were not excluded. They are paying the bills.

The Reform Party released a taxpayers' budget which called for balancing the budget in three years and getting rid of the deficit. This would lead to the tax relief that is needed and that will create jobs.

Reformers have criticized the government for its continued use of taxation measures to deal with the out of control deficit. We have argued in favour of a reduction in expenditures since the government has a spending problem and not a revenue problem. There is enough money coming in. It is just that the government is spending too much.

Today, on the supply day of the separatist Bloc party, not a peep is heard from its members with respect to the taxation levels on average Canadians. There is not one word about the taxation levels of average Canadian working men and women inside and outside Quebec.

They have wasted this supply day dealing with some objection to the formation of a committee. In the whole grand scale of things, when one considers the whole tax problem and how important it is, how could they feel that a motion dealing with that committee is of such magnitude that they are going to waste a supply day?

They have not come close to such a statement in this motion. It fails miserably, which is too bad since it leaves only Reformers in the House to stand up on behalf of Canadian taxpayers and point out the devastating situation that Canadians find themselves in.

As I pointed out, since the Liberals were elected taxes have risen by $11.4 billion. This country does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. If we assume there are 13.5 million taxpayers, that represents an average tax hike to Canadians of $840.

As the official opposition-and there is some question as to the reality of that-those members should be standing up for the 13.5 million Canadians, using their position to attack the government's taxation policies. Did they? No. They want to deal with a committee process. I say shame on them. They have wasted a supply day.

Bloc members have demonstrated a disdain for corporate profits. They are prepared to bite the very hand that creates jobs in the country, that creates jobs in Quebec. The corporations are creating the jobs. Do they think the government will continue to try to create jobs? What happens when the money runs out, as it does with any government program? Yet Bloc members are standing today to say that the nasty corporations are ripping everyone off.

Any average citizen knows who creates the jobs. The Liberals would have us think differently. The Bloc would have us think differently. However, the average Canadian knows it is the private sector that creates real, long term, good paying, reliable jobs.

Would the Bloc not do better to discuss measures which would reduce the level of taxes on Canadians and Canadian business on its supply day? Certainly these are matters which the Bloc should bring forward to the government on behalf of Canadian taxpayers. But why should we expect that when clearly the Bloc does not have the interests of all Canadians at heart?

It is the Reform Party that continues to bring these important fiscal matters to the attention of the government on behalf of the taxpayers. We are proud to do it.

I do not support this motion. It is a waste of a supply day.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Ontario, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is always interesting to hear the comments of the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley. I represent a riding in Ontario, where the people have elected a provincial government with policies and interests similar to those of the Reform Party.

My question for my dear colleague is very simple. Since people in Ontario are rejecting the policies of premier Mike Harris, which sound a great deal like my colleague's comment, does he really think that his party can do anything more to garner support in Ontario, since these policies hurt the economy and the people as a whole?

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let me point out that the fiscal policies of the Mike Harris government in Ontario were supported by a vast majority of people living in Ontario.

If we multiplied the crowd which is causing the problems at Queen's Park one hundred times, it would not even make a dent in the number of people who elected the Mike Harris government because of its fiscally conservative policies. It is because of the policies which that government took right out of the Reform blue book that the majority of the people of Ontario voted for it. If we multiplied the crowd which is demonstrating outside Queen's Park one thousand times, we would still not make a dent in the number of people who voted for that government and its fiscal conservative policies. Those same policies have been in our blue book for a number of years.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was asked to speak in this debate today and it is right up my alley. I have spent most of my life in entrepreneurial business ventures and I will get into that.

I would like to put on the record and bring to the attention of the House that in my mind the response to the last question typifies the problem this country has and why it is in the mess financially and emotionally as far as unity is concerned. The reason is that for all of my adult life politicians have been motivated by politics and not principle. There is a difference.

If a government is given a mandate by the electorate to achieve a particular end, then principle and character come into play. If that government is swayed from its pole, if it is swayed from north, if it is swayed from what it was elected and given a mandate to do, then it is playing politics. It is the playing of politics and the pandering to the flavour of the day which has got our country into the mess it is in.

If we are ever going to get our nation back on track, we are going to do so because we put politics in its rightful place which is somewhere distantly behind principle and behind character. It is a sign of character that a political party would have the fortitude to brave the weather, the storm that is taking place in Ontario right now, to do the right things for the right reasons. Having weathered that storm it will find itself in exactly the same place as the Government of Alberta. It did exactly the same thing and retains a 67 per cent popularity rating, even higher than the popularity rating of the Liberals opposite who have achieved that for no discernible reason.

It is interesting to note that the government members opposite are pursuing a fiscal regime which has Liberals of the past 30 years spinning in their graves. They cannot recognize the Liberal Party today because it bears no relationship to the Liberal Party of the past. It is an interesting observation that members opposite would make when they show a lack of fortitude, a lack of strength and a lack of principle in not carrying forward the reforms that absolutely must be achieved if we are going to pass along the country to our grandchildren in the shape we found it.

Members of the Liberal Party opposite should get down on their knees every night and say: "Thank you, God, for having Reform Party members facing us who give us the fortitude and the courage to do what we know must be done. Without them we would not have gotten anywhere. At least we are now taking the first few tentative steps on the road to recovery of our country. You should know that we are magnanimous in accepting your good graces".

As Lincoln said, if you do not care who gets the credit, there is no end to what you can accomplish, although at times it is very trying as we stand here and see the Liberals getting credit for the good works we have brought to our country. However we are happy to do so in the name of our grandchildren.

Having said that, let me get to today's Bloc motion. Usually the Bloc supply day motions are pretty well thought out. I have not looked at any Bloc motions thus far, prior to this one, and wondered what it was trying to get at. Usually it has been direct.

The Bloc motion speaks to the recent budget and it speaks to something in our budget which I thought really made a whole lot of sense. For the benefit of those members who have not been here for all of the debate and for those viewers at home who are just tuning in, the Bloc supply motion moved by the member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot states:

That this House deplores the fact that the technical committee set up by the Minister of Finance to analyse business taxation is comprised of members who are both judge and judged with regard to business tax reform; and that, this being so, the Minister of Finance should set up a joint committee of experts and parliamentarians to examine business taxation in an impartial manner according to an open and transparent process.

I looked at that and wondered what it implied. It is implicit that the government should not put together a group of experts strictly because of the group's knowledge of the corporate income tax world, that parliamentarians should be involved in it. There is also the implication that somehow, at least in my interpretation of the motion, corporate Canada gets up in the morning and asks how it can screw the country, how it can rip off the country, what it can do wrong. Corporate Canada is somehow the bad guy.

Corporate Canada is us. We are all corporate Canada whether we are owners, shareholders, or whether we work for a business enterprise in Canada. It is us. Corporate Canada makes the world go around as far as business and employment are concerned. It is not the government but corporate Canada.

It seems to me the budget makes eminent sense. I will quote from the budget document: "Finally an effective business tax system should not only raise revenue, it should be designed to help create jobs. We believe it is time for a comprehensive look at this issue. In order to identify any obstacles to job creation currently contained in its tax act and to suggest reform, we are announcing today" the implementation of a group to look at it. That group would obviously include people from corporate Canada who are experts in tax law.

The question then is: Will Parliament have a chance to debate it, to get involved in it, or is it strictly a one way deal? There is cause to be cautious. Very often we find that legislation comes to the House as a fait accompli, or once the government has a report and there is political baggage associated with it, the government is loath to change it.

It is important that this information be vetted through Parliament while it is still in a very malleable condition. There is no reason to believe that would not be the case. Any potential legislation would go to the various committees of the House of Commons and would be thoroughly vetted.

The part of the Bloc motion that speaks to input of parliamentarians and through them citizens in general to changes in the corporate tax act is pretty bogus. Perhaps the most important issue in the Bloc's motion is the presumption that somehow corporate Canada is a bad guy. If I were a representative of Quebec, I might be a little further down that road than I am since I come from Alberta which is known as the bastion of free enterprise in Canada.

If we were to dispassionately examine the attitude of fear, an attitude that is represented in the Bloc motion toward corporate Canada, and look at what has happened to Quebec in the last 20 years or so, we would find that an attitude which puts down or somehow looks at corporate Canada as being the bad guy results in a very negative atmosphere for business and business investment in the jurisdiction. I would support that claim by quoting some statistics.

This is where I believe the Bloc is doing a great disservice to the people it wishes to serve. I do not suggest for a moment that the Bloc in its heart of hearts is not trying to do the right thing for the people of Quebec. However, inadvertently it is creating a disaster for the people of Quebec and the people of Canada by suggesting that somehow corporate Canada is a villain and should be treated that way.

At the beginning of the last referendum in 1980 the business vacancy rate in Montreal was 3.3 per cent. Today it is a 19.7 per cent. I believe this is a direct result of the way that the separatists treat corporate Canada as a villain.

The whole notion of separation and the climate of uncertainty that it brings to the table has caused a flight of capital and entrepreneurship from Quebec. A motion such as this is very poorly considered. I would accept and welcome any questions that anyone would have on this.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the words of the hon. member from Alberta with considerable interest, as he described Alberta as the bastion of free enterprise. We have been aware of just that, on several occasions, at the time the Act to amend the Interest Act was introduced in order to restrict the banks and financial institutions to a penalty of three months interest when loan capital is paid back before the due date. The Reform Party voted against this.

We also saw the Reform Party oppose an amendment to the Bankruptcy Act, which introduced by a member from the Quebec City region, more precisely the member for Portneuf, my colleague to the right here. What he wanted to do was to put ordinary workers and low income people at the top of the list for collocation of creditors in the case of a bankruptcy, in front of banks, guaranteed creditors and so on. Again, the Reformers voted against this.

This is not the first time the Reform Party has been against anything that could show a little compassion, bring a little relief to the low wage earner, the most disadvantaged of our society. Then, to be really sure to have the upper hand over this group, the Reform Party recently sent one of their gang over to Asia to learn about caning and corporal punishment of offenders.

The hon. member referred to the vacancy rate in Montreal, referring I believe to unoccupied office space. It is true, unfortunately, that it is much more related to the tax policy of the City of Montreal than to the political situation currently prevailing in Quebec or in Canada.

I would like to ask the Alberta member who has just spoken, whether just once, some day, or once in a while, these people could show a glimmer of compassion? I would imagine that, even in Alberta, the bastion of free enterprise, not everyone who lives there, who moves about the province, who eats, sleeps and lives in Alberta, is a millionaire. I assume there are also some people who are less well off, and some who are poor, as there are everywhere, and these people need some compassion.

Would it be betraying their mandate if, for once, during the 35th Legislature, these people showed a bit of compassion for the least well off, the poorest, the disadvantaged, those less gifted to succeed financially? We have never yet had any evidence of this, in two and one half years.

I would ask once again: before taking the irreparable step of voting against the motion by the member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, just try to understand the poor, the disadvantaged, those members of our society whose need is greatest.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, beauty is definitely in the eye of the beholder.

I am reminded that it is nice to have a soft heart or a soft head but you had better not have a soft heart and a soft head at the same time. It is probably wise to have a soft heart and a hard head.

The reality of the situation in which we find ourselves in life is that if you cannot first look after yourself, how can you possibly look after your neighbour? That does not mean we do not have to look after our neighbours or that we do not have compassion. It means that we have to make a basic, philosophical decision. Are we to be personally responsible for the good and bad in our lives or are we to say that society is primarily responsible for what happens to us?

How can we be interdependent if we are are not first independent? I guess that is a basic contradiction between the whole notion of common law and civil law. Do we put individual rights ahead of collective rights?

This conversation typifies the debate that rages in our country from east to west and north to south.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time.

In his budget speech, the federal Minister of Finance clearly expressed his intention on the business tax system. He said that a technical committee would take a comprehensive look at the business tax system guided by three main objectives: to promote jobs and growth, simplify the system and make the system fairer.

The technical committee examining the business tax system will look at corporate income tax and tax paid from commercial activity revenues and will evaluate the level and make-up of these taxes. This measure, also found in the budget, is neither spontaneous nor improvised. In fact the government, and this is something the opposition often forgets, set up a process for consultation and co-operation as part of the last two budgets. This is not the first time, and in fact each time we consult Canadians from one end of the country to the other.

These unprecedented public consultations have encouraged Canadians of all walks to debate the economic and financial problems facing the country as a whole.

On January 1, 1994, for the first time in the country, the House of Commons as a whole met to prepare the budget. In 1995, co-operative efforts to prepare the budget were on an even larger scale.

On October 17, 1995, the Minister of Finance made public a document entitled "New Framework for Economic Policy", which outlined a broad job creation strategy.

As for the 1996 budget, the co-operative effort was still greater in that the Standing Committee on Finance and the minister took more time to listen to views and recommendations on approaches taken to improve the financial situation. Canadians also feel that the Liberal government listens to them in order to achieve the economic, fiscal and financial objectives that have been set.

Although, from the time of its election, the opposition was in agreement on the urgency of tax reform, it nevertheless made a number of proposals. Until now, the Bloc proposals have precluded the achievement of the two objectives essential to any tax reform, namely: that government should be able to collect the taxes it needs to function and that economic development should be encouraged.

Bloc members often harp on loopholes, as do other parties, and claims of overly generous corporate tax regimes, as if these were the only reason for the deficit. They have no conception of how to use the tax system in a balanced and judicial way to collect revenues and promote economic development.

Let us look at the response to the budget measure reducing the labour sponsored venture capital corporation, the LSVCC tax credit. The LSVCC has more than three year's worth of capital to invest. However, the Bloc wants that credit in place, I guess to ensure that high income Canadians do not miss the beneficial tax break.

In the minority report on the finance committee's prebudget consultations, the BQ recommended a complete review of the tax system be undertaken. Apparently it is not satisfied even when the government agrees with it as we have in this case. The Bloc went on to criticize Canadian businesses that use loss carry forwards which allow businesses to balance their tax loads over good and bad years. The Bloc wants this eliminated and replaced with a minimum corporate tax on small business. This would not create jobs, just the opposite. The Bloc clearly still does not get it: Canadians want jobs and its recommendations would not create a single one.

Let us not forget what the Quebec minister of finance said recently in a speech. I do not have the exact quote but he said that Quebec will be a tax haven after separation. I would like to have hon. members tell me exactly what the minister of finance of Quebec meant by a tax haven.

Later in the minority report under the heading, Recommendations for an Effective Attack on Unemployment, Bloc members tell the federal government to get out of regional development and tourism altogether and transfer more tax points which they have elsewhere claimed are worthless to the provinces.

None of these measures would create a single job either in Quebec or elsewhere. Let us not forget it does not fit in the ultimate scheme of Bloc members because if we create jobs, the Canadian federation works. That is exactly what they do not want. They do not want it to work. Their ultimate aim is the breakup of this country, a separation.

The government, the provinces and the private sector are working together constructively on the Canadian Tourism Commission, an initiative that has been praised as both effective and harmonious by all participants. Nobody on the commission would support the Bloc's contention that the federal government should abandon its initiative.

The most astonishing thing of all in the Bloc's arguments is their claim that the government is not acting with complete transparency. On the one hand, they criticize the fact that the technical committee set up by the Minister of Finance is composed of members who are taxation experts, whom they describe as judge and judged, when the whole process is public, from the preparation of the budget down to the discussion concerning the taxation review, as mentioned by the Minister of Finance during question period last Monday, and I quote:

Any discussion concerning the taxation review will certainly be public, because the objective of that committee is really to prepare a background document that will be used for consultation, undoubtedly by parliamentarians, including members of the finance committee with his colleague.

Any government turns to experts when looking at more specific questions. Contractors are then engaged from outside the government without calls for tender.

Do not forget that the Government of Quebec also called on experts recently during the Quebec referendum. And do not forget the billions of dollars spent by the Quebec government for the very purpose of consulting the experts, friendly experts of course.

I would like to finish by saying that once again-

[The Speaker]

My dear colleagues, it being 2 p.m., we will now proceed to statements by members.

Semaine Nationale De La Francophonie

[Ben Serré, Liberal, Timiskaming—French-River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in this House today to draw attention to la Semaine de la Francophonie. This is a time to realize the important role played by the French language and culture as a basic element of our collective identity.

As a Franco-Ontarian myself, I have always vigorously defended the rights of francophone minorities, because I believe it is possible for us to develop wherever we are in Canada.

In a spirit of co-operation and solidarity, we, francophones, are proud of our language and culture, and we would like to strengthen our sense of belonging to the Francophonie.

I wish to salute and thank the francophone institutions and associations which, through their achievements, have greatly contributed to the French language being taught and used in the education, socio-cultural and institutional sectors, both nationally and internationally.

I wish all francophones from coast to coast-

[The Speaker]

I am sorry for having to interrupt the hon. member, but he has run out of time. The hon. member for Longueuil.

Quebec Sovereignty

[Nic Leblanc, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois promotes a sovereign Quebec. But we are being accused of trying to destroy Canada in the process. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have the future of Canada at heart, and both our countries stand to benefit from Quebec's sovereignty.

While it did not go into all of the many aspects of sovereignty, the recent Wood Gundy study at least had the great merit of stressing the fact that, from an accounting point of view, Quebec would benefit from sovereignty without Canada being hurt.

From 1995 on, the federal government will run an operating surplus, both for Quebec and for the rest of Canada. Achieving sovereignty in Quebec is no easy task, but now at least we know that all involved can do well for themselves, which means that sovereignty will benefit us all.

Ontario

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians were disgusted last night to watch the goings on at Queen's Park. As provincial governments struggle to deal with federal Liberal budget cuts to the provinces it becomes increasingly obvious the Ontario Liberals, NDP and other leftist organizations hope to block the Harris agenda through an orchestrated campaign of strikes, intimidation, violence and general thuggery.

It is evident the Ontario left hopes to achieve through force what it failed to achieve at the ballot box.

The common sense revolution is no longer merely about restoring fiscal sanity and hope to Canada's heartland, it is now also about preserving democracy and protecting the right of taxpayers to control their government.

At this time of grave threat to democracy and the economy of Ontario, the Ontario provincial government can count on the support of Reformers for our common objectives.

I call on the federal PC leader to end his silence and to do likewise.

Human Resources Development Canada

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the federal income securities program branch of Human Resources Development Canada and other federal government departments in Regina have lost 50 public service positions because of a decision by the former minister of HRD, the current Minister of Foreign Affairs, to take the jobs to his own riding in Winnipeg. This decision was slipped through on the minister's last day on the job of that department.

The chair of the economic committee of cabinet, the federal minister of agriculture, has remained silent as these jobs are moved from Regina.

The move makes no sense. It will cost taxpayers up to $2.6 million to pay for the move alone and it will take jobs in the valuable public service from the residents of Regina and Saskatchewan.

Seniors groups such as Seniors Action Now have expressed their concern that by sending these positions to Winnipeg seniors and the disabled in Saskatchewan will see longer delays to the processing of their applications and inquiries.

I challenge the minister of agriculture to take action on behalf of his constituents and his home province to reverse this politically motivated bad decision.

Racism

[Janko Peric, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in 1966 the United Nations declared March 21 the international day for the elimination of racial discrimination to commemorate the sacrifices made by peaceful demonstrators who were killed and wounded while protesting against the government in South Africa in 1960. This year marks the 30th anniversary of the UN declaration.

Canada is recognized around the world as one of the best countries in which to live. Unfortunately racism and racial discrimination are a reality in Canada. They are everyone's problem and we all need to take responsibility for them.

I hope my colleagues in the House will take up this challenge and will remember to honour the spirit and intention of March 21, the international day for the elimination of racial discrimination.

Employment

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the number of Canadians working for temporary help agencies grew by 15 per cent in 1995, 17 per cent in 1994 and 29 per cent in 1993.

Workers at these agencies earned on average $383 a week last year; more hours for less money. Some private employment agencies pocket hefty premiums from both the workers and their place of work.

We must therefore encourage government departments and the private sector to post a far greater number of job openings in Canada employment centres, which offer free services to all.

Racism

[Beryl Gaffney, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as Canadians we cherish the values of dignity and decency. We believe in fairness and freedom. We honour our reputation for generosity and

compassion. We know of the importance of respecting differences. We realize that citizenship brings obligations as well as opportunities. As Canadians we have achieved great things together.

The Prime Minister said in his address to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the United Nations:

The highest hope of the global community is to achieve what we in Canada have achieved for ourselves. A means of living together in peace and understanding. Not an answer to every problem, but a means to pursue those answers together-with respect, tolerance, accommodation and compromise.

This is the message to be given of March 21, the international day for the elimination of racial discrimination.

Churchill Falls Contract

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last night Liberal members from Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada showed their true colours. They defeated a motion that condemns the injustice of the Churchill Falls contract, toeing the Liberal Party line instead of representing the interests of their own constituents.

This contract sucks over $800 million every year from Labrador's economy, relegating the province to a have not second class status within Canada. The Liberal government looks on in silence while Labrador suffers without a fishery, without jobs and without basic services like roads which other Canadians take for granted.

This fossilized government is incapable of addressing the inequalities within Confederation. It is time for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to stop trying to change the system from within. It is time for them to reform the system from the outside by embracing real political change. It is time for Newfoundland and Labrador to vote Reform.

Aid To Africa

[Philippe Paré, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in this Semaine de la francophonie, we are very pleased with the project launched by the United Nations to promote Africa's development. This special initiative will focus on education and health.

The UN secretary general, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, said in Geneva that the UN wanted to solemnly tell Africa that it would not be abandoned. This special initiative, which is under the financial responsibility of the World Bank, provides for the injection of $25 billion over the next ten years, and for maximizing the efforts and resources of the major United Nations agencies and of the international community.

The Bloc Quebecois hopes that the Canadian International Development Agency and the Canadian and Quebec NGO's will take part in this courageous fight for peace, development, democracy and the respect of human rights.

Racism

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, March 21 is the International day for the elimination of racial discrimination. I invite Canadians, including my colleagues, of all races, colours, ideologies and religions to take part in this event.

It is in everyone's best interests to build a country free of racism. We must eliminate racism. We must take the responsibility for creating for our children communities that are sound and free of bias.

Canada has a reputation for being a tolerant and compassionate country. We are privileged to live in an environment where various cultures coexist. More important still is the fact that these cultures celebrate, share, communicate and work together to promote peace.

Let us work together to eliminate racism and racial discrimination. The various languages, peoples, cultures and religions are what make this country so very special. Let us all make a personal commitment to improving this superb country.

Semaine Nationale De La Francophonie

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

Mr. Speaker, there are one million French speaking Canadians who are not Quebecers, but have deep roots in the French culture and language, of which they are very proud.

Tomorrow marks the beginning of the Semaine nationale de la francophonie. I come from Saskatchewan. Back home, the Franco-Saskatchewanian flag will be raised in several rural and urban communities to recognize the contribution of Franco-Saskatchewanians to the development of our country.

Many French speaking residents of my riding are getting ready for the cultural activities that will take place, including a wine tasting contest in Bellevue, as well as a wood-carving demonstration by Robert Gareau. Many other events are also scheduled in Saskatoon, Prud'homme, St-Denis and Vonda.

Congratulations to all!

Sir Wilfrid Laurier

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

Mr. Speaker, 100 years ago in 1896 Wilfrid Laurier became the first francophone to be elected Prime Minister of Canada.

This great Liberal leader served Canadians as their Prime Minister for 15 consecutive years until 1911. Sir Wilfrid Laurier is well known to history as a man who recognized that Canada would succeed as a nation only if our citizens are willing to be tolerant and respectful of each other and our many differences.

His approach was to find compromise solutions to the problems Canadians faced in his times.

This method proved successful for the most part in keeping Canada united. Today in 1996 Canadians must be just as determined to respect our differences, to compromise when necessary and to work tirelessly, as did Laurier, to always keep Canada one great united nation.

Canadian Coast Guard

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Commissioner of the Coast Guard announced the third change in eight weeks in the marine services rates. After each change, Quebec comes out a loser due to pressures from both Western Canada and the Maritimes.

Several representatives of the Saint Lawrence shipping industry criticize the lack of vision of the Coast Guard, which seems to view the Saint Lawrence as a mere regional terminal.

This latest decision is but one of the many irresponsible measures taken of late by the federal government against Saint Lawrence harbours. This reminds us of the imposition of the Borden line, in the 1960s, which contributed to the closure of several refineries in the eastern sector of Montreal and to the loss of thousands of jobs in the city.

Before making any decision on this issue, which might have a serious impact on many areas in Quebec, the fisheries minister must order a social and economic impact study.

Standing Committees

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, recently I rose in the House to report on the Liberal government's shameless support of separatism in the election of standing committee vice-chairs.

At that time 33 out of 34 Liberals had supported separatists over federalists. The 19 committee elections are now over and the tally is Bloc, 18 vice-chairs and one chair; Reform, zero. This separatist sweep was accomplished with the support of of 91 Liberal MPs who time after time blindly followed the direction of their whip and voted for the Bloc.

These results are not only a slap in the face to the over 20 million committed federalists in the country, they are an insult to all Canadians who believed the Liberal red book promise to reform Parliament and govern with dignity.

The actions of the government during these elections bring forth what Tommy Douglas said more than 30 years ago. Listen up, guys: "The Liberals talk about stable government, but we did not know how bad the stable was going to smell".