Debates of April 26th, 1996

National Day Of Mourning

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition wishes to join with the government and the other parties in this House in paying tribute those who died or were seriously hurt in the workplace.

These injuries were undoubtedly an important, a disturbing moment in the lives of those concerned, and it is our duty as members of Parliament to remember, so that such accidents do not happen again.

We are fully aware that, despite the laws now in effect across the country, two workers are killed every five working days in Canada.

Every two minutes, a worker is seriously injured in one of Canada's workplaces. In total, each year, 57,000 workers are involved in sometimes fatal accidents. On an economic level, $100 million in compensation is paid to workers who can no longer earn a salary as a result of an accident; last year, 860,000 work days were lost to accidents, which could have been prevented in some cases.

Let us hope that we can work together to improve health and safety in the workplace. The best way to do so is to co-operate so that the workers, unions and employers can arrive at the wisest decisions and work on prevention together. In this regard, the official opposition wants to work on improving the existing legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Reform Party of Canada, the national opposition, I am pleased to join my colleagues in paying tribute to the victims of work related accidents and to those suffering from occupational injuries or disease.

Work conditions and occupational health and safety have evolved greatly since Confederation and are now fundamental to managing the workplace. The rights and duties of employees are now embedded in our laws and regulations.

It is one thing however for Parliament and legislative assemblies to pass occupational health and safety laws but it is another to ensure they are followed. The time to become safety conscious is not after an accident occurs. Prevention has to be foremost in our minds.

Laws, regulations and governments play an important role in accident prevention. In the final analysis however, it is the employ-

ers and the employees who are responsible for preventing, eliminating or controlling hazards in the workplace. This is a responsibility no one can shun.

Preliminary statistics for 1994, the last year for which I found them available, show that there were 709 workplace related fatalities, 152 of which occurred in my home province of British Columbia. That is an increase of 124 from the previous year.

Workplace fatalities, whether they claim one life or 26 as was the case in the 1992 Westray mine disaster, are devastating not only for the family and friends of the deceased but for co-workers and employers as well.

Workers make this country productive. We have to do our utmost to ensure that the workplace is health and safety conscious, that those are necessities, not options.

The world economy is becoming increasingly competitive and technologically advanced. New challenges abound and workers face previously unheard of hazards. Labour and management must work together to provide a healthy, safe and prosperous workplace necessary to secure and maintain a competitive edge.

Let us use this national day of mourning to promote awareness of the vital role that health and safety play in the protection and preservation of our Canadian workers.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Colleagues, the minister has proposed that we observe a moment of silence for those killed or injured in the workplace. Is there consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Committees Of The House

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, York North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the third report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development regarding Bill C-12, an act respecting employment insurance in Canada, which as agreed to is reported with amendments.

[Raymond Bonin, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the first report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development concerning the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997.

Canada Elections Act

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-276, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (registration of political parties).

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to amend the Canada Elections Act to allow the registration of political parties by the chief electoral officer only when the party nominates candidates in at least seven provinces that have in aggregate at least 50 per cent of the population of all the provinces and in at least half of the electoral districts in each of those seven provinces.

For the purpose of the Canada Elections Act, the provinces include the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.

There are four principal aims of this bill. First is to ensure that those parties entering into federal elections are nominating candidates in a majority of ridings across Canada so that their support and point of view will be national in scope. Second is to ensure that each party provides a platform which is reflective of national interests and not of regional scope. Third is to provide greater access to the majority of Canadians to pass judgment via a national convention or a general election on a party's political platform. Fourth is the aim to keep Canada as one, united and indivisible.

I ask all members of the House to support my private member's bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Ethics

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion:

That this House support the truth, integrity and ethics in politics and the belief that a politician's promise should be upheld, including a promise to resign.

I would like to hear individually from each party as to how its members feel on this motion. The Reform Party certainly supports the motion. I would appreciate unanimous consent to proceed with debate.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois certainly agrees to debate the motion. If there is a debate, we deeply regret the absence of the Deputy Prime Minister, who would certainly give her consent regarding this motion.

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, at this point we cannot give unanimous consent to the motion. The hon. member who moved the motion is the House leader of the Reform Party. He knows very well that there are other appropriate channels where we discuss on a daily basis how the business of the House is conducted. If he is serious about this motion he should use those channels and then maybe we could have a debate.

There is not unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question becomes academic, but I will ask it anyway.

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

No.

Petitions

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present two petitions to the House today.

One petition contains 161 signatures of individuals from across British Columbia. The petitioners request that Parliament not increase the federal excise tax on gasoline and that it strongly consider reallocating its current revenues to rehabilitate Canada's crumbling national highways.

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition contains 1,305 signatures.

The petitioners would like to be added to the growing list of petitioners calling on Parliament to enact legislation against serious personal injury crimes being committed by high risk offenders by permitting the use of post-sentence detention orders and specifically passing Bill C-240.

Bill C-240 has been renumbered to Bill C-254 in this session of Parliament.

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition which calls for Parliament to declare and confirm immediately that Canada is indivisible, and that the boundaries of Canada, its provinces, territories and territorial waters may be modified only by a free vote of all Canadian citizens as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or through the amending formula as stipulated in the Canadian Constitution.

This petition is signed by 27 people from the West Island area and parts of my riding.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I present two petitions today on behalf of constituents of Simcoe Centre.

The petitioners request that the Government of Canada not amend the human rights act to include the undefined phrase sexual orientation. Refusing to define this statement leaves interpretation open to the courts, a very dangerous precedent to set. Parliament has a responsibility to Canadians to ensure legislation cannot be misinterpreted.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition concerns the age of consent laws.

The petitioners ask that Parliament set the age of consent at 18 years to protect children from sexual exploitation and abuse.

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my pleasure to present the following petition which has 449 signatures. I present it on behalf of the petitioners and on behalf of a very concerned constituent, Mrs. Lori Smith.

The petitioners pray and request that Parliament proceed immediately with amendments to the Criminal Code that ensure the sentence given to anyone convicted of driving while impaired or causing injury or death while impaired reflects both the severity of the crime and zero tolerance toward the crime.

This is certainly a commitment and concern of my constituents they would like the Government of Canada to meet.

Questions On The Order Paper

[John Richardson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I wish to inform the House that, because of the ministerial statements, government orders will be extended by 20 minutes.

The House resumed consideration of the motion, the amendment and the amendment to the amendment.

Budget Implementation Act, 1996

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to such a full house today on such an important issue as the budget of the country.

Several comments were made by my colleague in the Liberal Party which bear repeating. One is "we have done a very good job". Having been here for two and a half years, I sort of missed where the good job came in and so have a lot of people where I come from in British Columbia.

"We cannot expect perfection in this country". It had to do with the remarks on GST, which I will get into a little later. Canadians,, although disappointed with the lack of perfection, are probably just as disappointed with the mediocre performance we have seen thus far.

The Minister of Finance made a great deal of his claim in the budget speech: "We are not raising personal taxes, we are not raising corporate taxes, we are not raising excise taxes. In fact, we are not raising taxes".

Unfortunately in this country we tend to get duped with that kind of statement. When people think they are safe this year with no more raising of taxes by the government they miss some important points. Since this government came to power two and one-half years ago, it has overspent an accumulated debt of $100 billion.

I could ask people sitting in the gallery or anyone else in this country how much that is. I speak to a lot of high schools and I ask them how much $1 billion is. How much does the country owe in debt? I have yet to go to a classroom that can tell me.

The young people in the country have no idea what is coming at them and I think a lot of adults have no idea what is coming at us, particularly when the finance minister stands up in the House and says we have not raised taxes. They think they are safe for today.

Since I have been in the House the debt has risen from approximately $450 billion to $575 billion. That is five hundred and seventy-five thousand million dollars. When you ask students they say $5 billion, $10 billion, but when you say five hundred and seventy-five thousand million dollars they look at you with this blank stare and say "I guess somehow it will go away". It will not go away.

Taxes will increase under this government. We have to deal with the annual borrowing of the government. This year it will likely be around $30 billion. Overspending one's budget by that much is almost criminal when the debtload is $575 billion. Somehow, some way we have to make people aware exactly what is coming at them.

There are all kinds of places to cut budgets. The Liberals say they have done a very good job, but they have made no cuts in some areas. These are the kinds of things they are spending money on. When you are overrunning a budget by $30 billion plus every year, do you really need to give $33,000 in grants to promote and develop music in alternative spaces? Grants of $280,000 are given to various professional small ensembles to produce or rehearse for special events.

Lots of people would say we need that, we have to keep our arts going and so on. However, in view of the fact we are collecting and overspending by $30 billion plus a year, must we continue to do this at this point? The Axis Mime Theatre got $65,845. The Buddies in Bad Times Theatre got $65,000, and on and on it goes.

I have negotiated many collective agreements in my day. I negotiated at the other side of the table with the Canadian conference of Teamsters. I find it ironic the government gave them $138,000 last year with a membership as large as theirs. When we are running this kind of deficit and debt one wonders hello, is anyone home over there? Today it does not look good.

The Canadian Federation of Labour got $297,368; the Canadian Labour Congress, $3.7 million. What is wrong with the government that in the face of borrowing all of this money it is still throwing it out the door like there were no tomorrow?

I would think a message would have been received by the way we dismantled the Tory organization, but I guess not. Do we have to give $500,000 to complete a nine-hole golf course in Newfoundland? Is that a necessary expenditure of the taxpayers who contribute their hard earned money from where I come from? I do not think so. Do we have to pay $5,400 for somebody to travel to Tennessee to gather information on sprout farming?

I could go on. There are books full of this stuff. I bring it up year after year but no one is home. No one is listening. That is sad. They will listen when young people are short of jobs, as they are today, and when their taxes are so high they cannot afford to live in some areas of the country. They are going to say "what have you baby boomers done? You have borrowed enough money to sink a fleet of ships and now you expect us to pay it back".

I have two children in university. One is graduating this summer. What will he do with his engineering degree? He is looking at leaving Canada for a job, and that is really sad.

I believe we have an uncaring government when it cannot make as its top priority balancing the budget and paying down the debt.

Are there any other areas where we could save money? I could list a host of them. I do a lot of work in the criminal justice system, especially in the solicitor general's department, and I can think of a host of things we could do there.

A couple of weeks ago I found out that in one of our maximum institution, where all the real bad guys are going, they are now allowing prisoners to buy rollerblades. They spent $4,000 refinishing the pool tables for them.

They are provided legal aid at the expense of taxpayers to sue the crown. For those who do not already know, Clifford Olson has approximately 32 litigation cases against the crown. I wonder if the government has thought a minute about that, about the kind of money we are spending on this creep when victims have to wait their turn in court behind this guy to get their day of justice.

Are we spending any more money in prisons? I found out something this morning I would have loved to raise in question period. I could have had a lot of fun with it. I have a real problem with a prison system that talks about zero tolerance for drugs and gives one ounce bottles of bleach to prisoners to sterilize their cocaine needles so they will not spread HIV. Talk about convoluted messages. It is a contradiction, much like saying "we did a very good job but we overspent only by $100 billion in the last two and a half years".

I knew about project bleach a year ago and I have been hollering about it ever since. I did not know about this little memo that just came from the commissioner's office which says a bleach kit pilot project has been operating successfully in Matsqui institution since June 1995. That institution is in my riding and I happen to know that success is somewhat over rated. Even the staff disagrees with it. The staff in many prisons disagrees with it. What does the government do? It is giving bleach to sterilize cocaine needles belonging to prisoners for cocaine intake at the same time as it has a zero tolerance for drugs.

If that member leaves, I am calling for quorum. I will not stand in the House talking to some television across the country with an embarrassing crowd like this in here.

The government has frozen the RRSP dollar contribution limit at $13,500 until 2003. What does the government do? It gives itself a gold plated pension plan. Congratulations. There are 51 out of 52 Reformers in this House who refused that plan. While these people fill their fat faces with their own pension plan, they tell the rest of Canadians sorry, but you do not get much for yourself. Talk about a contradiction in terms. Open the doors and let the rest of these people come in. Hello, is anyone home?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege today of taking part in the debate on Bill C-31. It is a privilege since the debate at second reading began late Wednesday and will already end today. Obviously, the Liberal government prefers to gag the Bloc Quebecois in the House regarding Bill C-31, just as it did when the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development considered Bill C-12 on unemployment insurance reform.

The Liberal government is in such a hurry to pass these bills that it resorts to undemocratic measures rather than taking part in the debate and explaining the real objects of these bills, as well as their negative impact on Canadians.

Bill C-31 seeks to enact a series of controversial measures which will hit Quebecers and Canadians hard, and which will result in the continuing deterioration of their living conditions. All this in the name of the fight against the deficit.

Sure, order has to be restored in public finances. We are all aware of the situation. However, this must not be done on the back of the poor and the unemployed. Shovelling into the provinces' backyards is not a solution either: winter is over.

Part III of Bill C-31 amends the Unemployment Insurance Act so that maximum weekly benefits will drop from $445 to $413. This change will make claimants even poorer, and this means young people and single mothers mostly.

Moreover, the maximum insurable gains are being lowered to $39,000 per year. This means that it is primarily high income earners who will make lower contributions to the unemployment insurance fund. The change will result in tax savings of $900 million for high income earners. These measures directly affect the unemployed and will be applied retroactively to January 1, 1996.

Oddly enough, these two provisions are also found in Bill C-12 on unemployment insurance reform. Is the government trying to use the back door, in case the UI reform does not go through soon enough?

Despite all the demonstrations against this reform, particularly in Quebec and the eastern provinces, the party in power, the Liberal Party, is reiterating its intentions and including measures that will penalize the unemployed in Bill C-31.

This bill also affects the Canada social transfer, especially in Quebec. Unfazed, the government will continue to cut social program funding, which in Quebec will mean a shortfall of $5 billion over the next four years. The government is cutting but, in the same breath, maintaining national standards so that it can tell the provinces what to do. We have said this over and over: the government must withdraw from social program funding and give

the provinces what they need to fund these programs. All that the government is doing now is reducing the deficit on the backs of the provinces, by cutting transfers and continuing to call the shots on standards.

What is more, social program transfers will now be based on the population of provinces, instead of taking real needs into account. It is therefore the richer provinces who will benefit from the social transfers. Finally, with this bill, the red book government is reforming the GST.

The announcement by the finance minister this week concerning the agreement reached between the federal government and the provinces of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick showed us without a shadow of a doubt how this party really governs.

During the last election campaign, the Liberals made the abolition of the GST one of the main planks in their electoral platform. Back then, the Prime Minister told the public that the GST had to be scrapped.

The Deputy Prime Minister, for her part, was heard on CBC on October 18, 1993, just a few days before the election, saying, and I quote:

"I have already said personally and very directly that if the GST is not abolished I will resign".

This morning's newspapers show that, surprisingly enough, the Deputy Prime Minister herself admitted talking through her hat when she made that statement. In this morning's Le Devoir , the Minister of Canadian Heritage gives her own version of history with respect to the GST: ``I never said it would be scrapped without being replaced; no one ever said that''.

Barely six months after being elected, the Prime Minister repeated on May 2, 1994: "We hate this tax and we will kill it". I think the statements made by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister could not be any clearer. As recently as last Wednesday, the Minister of Finance himself admitted that promising to kill the GST had been a mistake. In fact, the real mistake is not that the Liberals promised to kill the GST, but that this government, which has no qualms about reneging on its most important election promises, was elected.

The hon. members for York South-Weston and for Broadview-Greenwood did not hesitate to condemn the government's refusal to honour its commitments. There were at least two members on the other side of the House who did not suffer from collective amnesia.

No matter what is written in the famous red book, all the people in Quebec and Canada heard key government figures promise to kill the GST. Not only does the agreement between the three Atlantic provinces and the federal government not kill the GST, it reinforces it.

The Minister of Finance talked about harmonizing provincial and federal sales taxes; in fact, provincial taxes will not be harmonized with but absorbed into the GST to become a national tax fully administered by the federal government, depriving the provinces of their autonomy in controlling their own tax rates.

To add insult to injury, the Minister of Finance is making the other provinces pay for this agreement. In fact, $960 million will be paid to the three Atlantic provinces concerned, including $250 million taken directly from the pockets of Quebecers. And this is only the beginning, as this measure will be implemented in the same way after the federal government negotiates agreements with Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island.

To top it all, the government is paying to renege on its promises while pretending to honour them. The GST stays, and the government continues to dump its deficit onto the provinces. Obviously, things could not be any better.