Debates of May 2nd, 1996

Grain Handling

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, task forces, inquiries and consultations can only be effective if the government is willing to act on their recommendations. Over the last two years the government has commissioned no less than three studies into the movement of grain through west coast ports, but nothing has changed as a result of all this work.

Workers, farmers, producers, shippers and manufacturers are worried. Work stoppages cost millions of dollars. Markets are lost and reputations are damaged. The clock is ticking. Is the government willing to stand by and wait until there is another labour disruption requiring back to work legislation for the umpteenth time?

There is an option. The west coast ports inquiry recommended final offer selection arbitration as a tool for settling labour-management disputes.

I suggest that the time has come for the government to relinquish control. Give labour and management the mechanism to solve their disputes and meaningful settlement will result.

Missing Children

[Colleen Beaumier, Liberal, Brampton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, May is Child Find Canada's annual Green Ribbon of Hope month. Canadians are asked to wear a green ribbon as a symbol of hope for the safe recovery of missing children.

The green ribbon of hope originated at Holy Cross Secondary School when Kristen French's friends and teachers wore the green ribbon to express their hope for Kristen's safe return. Sadly, Kristen did not return.

It is every parent's nightmare to learn that their child has been abducted. Yet for too many families this nightmare becomes a reality. In 1995, 55,749 children were reported missing in Canada. This includes children who were abducted by a stranger, by a parent and children who ran away.

I represent a community which has been forever scarred by the tragedy of a missing child. Christopher Stephenson was just 11 years old when he was taken and lost his life at the hands of his abductor. For the Stephenson family the horrors of child abduction have left a permanent mark. We must make every effort to ensure that another family does not experience the same trauma which the Stephenson family has had to endure.

I urge Canadians to wear a green ribbon.

The Late John Dickey

[Russell MacLellan, Liberal, Cape Breton—The Sydneys, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is with sorrow and a sense of loss that I rise today to offer my condolences to the family of John Dickey who passed away on April 27 at the age of 81.

John served our country with distinction throughout his life. As a veteran of the second world war, as an outstanding lawyer and as the member of Parliament for Halifax between 1947 and 1957, John epitomized intelligence, integrity and commitment. He was an active member of his community and was respected by anyone who had the privilege to be acquainted with him.

John had a great many friends not only in Nova Scotia but throughout Canada and the rest of the world. He was devoted to his family. I know my colleagues join with me in extending sincere sympathies to his wife Joyce and their six children. He will be greatly missed.

Unemployment Insurance Reform

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, recently, on April 29, 1996, a demonstration was held in my riding to show the dissatisfaction of the public with the unemployment insurance reform.

The demonstrators included people from unions, community groups, teachers' associations and women's groups. These people denounce the unfortunate effects that this reform will have on their daily lives and deplore the fact that the government is not going after those who have the money, the more fortunate members of our society.

The demonstrations, which were held in various locations in Quebec and in Canada, are sending a message to this government, and it has no right to turn a deaf ear to these people who are only claiming their due.

The federal government is not doing its homework. It should not, therefore, be surprised, that the public is not giving it a passing grade.

Stratford Festival

[John Richardson, Liberal, Perth—Wellington—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last week people across the world celebrated the birthday of the late William Shakespeare, the greatest playwright of all time. On the heels of this celebration I cannot think of a better occasion to remind Canadians about one of the jewels of Shakespearian theatre, the Stratford Festival.

Heading into its 44th season, the Stratford Festival has become a true success story. While most arts groups rely heavily on government funding, only 8 per cent of the festival budget is derived from government funds. This funding is minimal compared with the estimated $100 million in economic benefits derived from the festival for the city of Stratford and the over $25 million in taxes generated for the governments.

I wish all those associated with the festival another successful season. I encourage all Canadians to visit my riding and take in a performance during what will surely be another fabulous season. For my colleagues in the House of Commons, I have placed a festival program in their desks for their use.

Sentencing And Parole

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma, ON]

Mr. Speaker, recently I hosted two town hall meetings in different parts of my large riding of Algoma to discuss a wide variety of issues with my constituents.

A number of them voiced their serious reservations about how we deal with those who perpetrate particularly violent crimes which lead to life sentences upon conviction. Of concern was section 745 of the Criminal Code which provides for a review of life imprisonment sentences for first degree murder after 15 years. This can be the case if they apply under the faint hope provisions of Canada's parole legislation.

I agree with my constituents that this can sometimes send the wrong message about our justice system and the seriousness of murder.

I call on our government to address this issue by amending the Criminal Code to provide society and especially the victims of crime with assurances that life sentences given to those who are the most violent have little likelihood of being reduced.

While I am supportive of maintaining the faint hope provision for most offenders, I would ask that judges when sentencing have the authority to remove the faint hope review for certain criminals.

Hon. Member For Nanaimo-Cowichan

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of an ethnic minority, I strongly condemn the racist and homophobic remarks recently made by the former whip of the Reform Party.

After making amends by apologizing before this House, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan dug himself in deeper by saying in a televised interview with Don Newman yesterday that his worst fault was to be too honest and too direct in answering questions.

Not only was the hon. member thinking what he said, but he learned from his blunder that he had been too honest in letting people know what he really thinks deep down inside.

Given what he said, the people of Quebec and Canada have a right to expect Reform members to reveal all their prejudices before the next election.

Human Rights

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government's plans to change the human rights act are being rammed through Parliament without allowing members the freedom to air their concerns. Most Canadians would like to see both sides of the issue presented fairly in Parliament but that is not going to happen.

Tuesday's debate on the bill was limited to a mere three hours through the use of closure. Committee debate will be limited by closure. Even Liberal members of Parliament are muzzled by their own party. Two days ago I asked permission to share my speaking time with a Liberal member but was denied permission by the Liberal Party in this House.

These momentous changes to the human rights act will have far reaching effects for all Canadians. They deserve a thorough debate in our Parliament and in our society where everyone can freely speak their mind.

It is shameful that the Liberal government would use its majority to slam the door on honest debate and freedom of speech in this House.

Racism

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—Woodbine, ON]

Mr. Speaker, history teaches us that racism and intolerance must be challenged wherever it raises its ugly head. Attempts to dismiss racist comments as mistakes are too superficial. They ignore a pattern of intolerance that requires more serious attention.

There is a pattern of statements from members of Parliament in the Reform Party about aboriginal people that is very hurtful because of their intolerance and racist roots. For example one member compared reserves to south seas island resorts in an attempt to ridicule aboriginal land claims. There was a statement made by the hon. member for Athabasca where in reference to the aboriginal people he said:

The Europeans came to this country 300 years ago and opened it up and settled it and because we didn't kill the Indians and have Indian wars, that doesn't mean we didn't conquer these people. If they weren't in fact conquered, then why did the aboriginal people allow themselves to be herded into little reserves in the most isolated, desolate, worthless parts of the country?

There is no room in Canada or in Parliament for intolerance of this kind.

Hon. Member For Québec-Est

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the hon. member for Québec-Est made a derogatory comment, comparing francophones outside Quebec to paraplegics in wheelchairs. I am deeply offended by this comparison.

I am a francophone from northern Ontario and proud of it. My wife, too, is a francophone; she is also paraplegic and confined to a wheelchair. Despite her condition, she, unlike the hon. member, is in full possession of her faculties; this does not make her a second class citizen, as the hon. member is suggesting.

I feel that the comments made by the hon. member are an insult to all handicapped people who, like my wife, must use a wheelchair. I am asking the hon. member to apologize to all those who were hurt by his comments; that is the least he can do.

Goods And Services Tax

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made some rather startling remarks this morning. I would like to raise them with a member of the government.

The Prime Minister said that politicians cannot be held to all their election promises, because of what he called acts of God. The Prime Minister added, with regard to his government's failure to settle the GST issue: "Sometimes, in the course of a mandate, you run into situations where you cannot deliver the goods".

My question is for the Prime Minister or whomever speaks on his behalf on this day of crisis for the government. Are we to understand that the Prime Minister is finally admitting that he and his government missed the boat in the matter of the GST and were unable to deliver the goods?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, in 1990, Quebec signed a harmonization agreement with the Government of Canada. This said, it was far from clear whether the new government would continue the process.

With the first Campeau budget, the Government of Quebec not only made it very clear, but in fact put measures in place that eventually resulted in total or near total harmonization of the Quebec sales tax and the federal tax.

Now, if I understand the hon. member, because, really, an event changed the game since the election, as we have to admit, does the member think the federal government should have created a completely different tax that could not be harmonized with Quebec's tax?

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has days when he is effective in this House, but this really is not one of them. I thought, however, that he had already prepared to take over for the Prime Minister, but I realize this is not the case.

My question is serious, and I do not want an answer from him on the Quebec sales tax or on anything else. I want him to answer my question. Are we to understand, when the Prime Minister says that politicians should not be forced to sign contracts to keep their promises, what I would like to know is, in saying this, is the Prime Minister referring to the fact that, as far as the Liberals are concerned, politicians can say whatever they like during election campaigns and then invoke an act of God to justify their inability to deliver the goods?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I admit I am just as guilty as the Leader of the Opposition, but being effective does not always mean getting excited. I think it is possible to have a debate and be effective by responding calmly to a question.

Obviously, when Quebec, representing 25 per cent of the population, decided to harmonize, it put the federal government, to some extent, in the position of not being able to harmonize any new tax it developed with Quebec. The Quebec Minister of Finance, Mr. Landry, told us at the meeting of finance ministers that we must not come up with another tax, because it was important for Quebec and its economy to have a harmonized tax. So this is what we did.

So I think the Leader of the Opposition will agree with me that we did the best thing for Canada's economy and, specifically, for Quebec's economy.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, there is a limit. The government is in a full blown crisis of confidence. The Minister of Finance, a few days ago, apologized for failing to deliver the goods. The Deputy Prime Minister had to resign because she did not keep a promise. The Prime Minister keeps saying he kept his promises and, this morning, he tried to tell us that sometimes we should let politicians make promises and not keep them.

I ask the government represented here by the Minister of Finance-it is not my fault there is no one else here to answer questions-whether the Prime Minister, in doing so in this day of crisis, wanted to acknowledge outside the House of Commons that the government was unable to keep its promises?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, do the members of the Bloc who said they would resign if the referendum did not pass intend to resign?

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

Mr. Speaker, let him find such a statement, just for the fun of it. We have said we would be here until the referendum goes through, and it will go through some day. We, unlike others, can live with the statements we make. The problems are not on this side of the House, but on the other side.

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Four out of seven!

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

Do not worry about the Minister of Human Resources Development. We will find some nice statements he made about the GST in the days he debated the issue with Mr. Wilson. His turn will come.

Last week, the Minister of Finance recognized that his government had make an honest mistake by promising to abolish the GST. He cannot deny it, we heard him on every TV channel. His leader was not too pleased, but the minister said it. In fact, during his career, he has made many statements that did not please his leader. Last week's admission was unquestionably one of them.

Today, following the resignation of the Deputy Prime Minister and his leader's flip-flop, I ask the Minister of Finance if he stands by his statement of last week that his government, and himself as Minister of Finance, made an honest mistake by promising to abolish the GST? Does he maintain his statement?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I not only maintain that statement but, when I made it, I was speaking on behalf of the government. That statement was endorsed by the government.

I want to take this opportunity to praise the courage and integrity of the hon. member for Hamilton East, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Sheila Copps. I am also extremely confident that she will be back here after June 17, exactly in the same seat.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is another example of a statement made by the Minister of Finance that will not please his leader. The minister just told us that he spoke on behalf of the government. That is what he just said. Speaking on behalf of the government, he said: "The government made a mistake when it promised to abolish the GST." For three or four days now, the leader of the same government has been saying that there was no mistake. This is a good one.

I would like to know who speaks on behalf of the government. Is it number three? Number two is gone because she had talked too much. Who speaks on behalf of the government? Which version is right: that of the Minister of Finance, or that of the Prime Minister?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister speaks on behalf of the government, the Minister of Finance speaks on behalf of the government, all cabinet ministers speak on behalf of the government. Not only that but, as a government, we speak on behalf of all Canadians, including those who live in Quebec. We speak for a country that is one and united.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Sheila Copps resigned because she broke an election promise to Canadians on the GST. The Prime Minister tried to tell us yesterday that Ms. Copps had to go because she overstepped the red book.

During the last election the Prime Minister promised Canadians time and time again that he would abolish the GST, kill the GST, scrap the GST.

What is the difference between Sheila Copps' promise to scrap the GST and the Prime Minister's promise to scrap the GST?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the member for Hamilton East, the former Minister of Canadian Heritage, stated her position with what we all thought was an enormous amount of courage.

What she stated was that the measures taken by the government in terms of the sales tax were in keeping with the statements in the red book but that in certain of her statements during the election campaign she had gone beyond that.

In those circumstances, because she is a person of tremendous courage, she resigned her seat in order to demonstrate that courage and credibility before the people of her riding.

Yesterday on television we saw elector after elector in her riding state their great confidence in Sheila Copps. There is no doubt that on June 17 the people of Hamilton East will demonstrate their recognition of the great courage, the great credibility and the great integrity of the member for Hamilton East.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a week ago it could have been described as courage. One week later it is convenience. It has nothing to do with courage.

On September 10 the Prime Minister stated quite clearly: "There will not be a promise in the campaign that I will not keep". That is the campaign, not the red book.

On the campaign trail the Prime Minister promised Canadians he would abolish the GST. The Deputy Prime Minister made the same promise and resigned because she did not keep it.

Will the Prime Minister now admit that he, like Sheila Copps, broke his campaign promise to the Canadian people on the GST?