Debates of Dec. 11th, 1997

Committees Of The House

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I hear no consent.

Resuming debate, the Parliament Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of participating in the hearings of the Standing Committee on Finance in Vancouver. I was impressed by the line from Flaccus of fate casting lots for the high and the low. Everybody came along, the high barons of industry, the trade union bureaucrats, very powerful people, learned professors and not so interesting professors occasionally of economics and journalists, but it was an exercise in public participation.

When I look at the report and try to assess how many witnesses appeared, how many depositions, the answer is it was an exercise in participatory democracy. I think that is one of the legacies of the patriation constitutional process of 1982, the fact that one took little steps but they are now becoming further steps.

I am reminded of this when I get letters from people saying that the MAI project, for example, is being hatched in secret and by an elite. We look at the process with MAI and to become law in Canada, we would need a signature on a treaty if and when a text is adopted, we would need a ratification of the treaty, we would need implementing legislation, federal and provincial I think in that case. That is a lengthy process, which is still incomplete in Canada in relation to the Law of the Sea. We are 14 years away from the first signatures, and still incomplete in many other areas.

I also look at the witnesses who appeared before the standing committee of this House on foreign affairs on MAI. I find 35 witnesses again covering the whole spectrum of society and the whole range of informed opinion on economic matters and 125 separate depositions. That is not a secret process. When we consider it will be open in the future if and when an agreement comes back from the OECD on MAI, the same issue will come again, implementing legislation with public debate.

This is a process we are engaged in with great success and with a large degree of collegiality if we follow the achievements of the committees of this House. I sat on the foreign affairs committee this morning. I noticed on two potentially very controversial subjects a consensus resolution was met. In one case it encompassed all parties and in another case all but one. That is an achievement.

I congratulate the Standing Committee on Finance on an expeditious process with all deliberate speed, producing a report and producing some recommendations with considerable substance in them.

Allow me, if I may, to comment on the first and general ideas here, the commitment to fiscal integrity which was the key point in the present government's successful campaign in 1993: balance the budget and reduce the external debt.

I would essentially agree with the tenure of this report as I heard witnesses before the committee that Canadians want us to hold the line on that. We want fiscal integrity. We want a balanced budget. It will be achieved before the end of the budget year 1998, several years ahead of our original schedule, and we are attacking the external debt.

However, Canadians want continued investment in health and welfare in the community facilities necessary to maintain a healthy and decent society, which means commitments to pensions and to medicare, the most single Canadian contribution I think in this hemisphere. Only the German's Bismarck in the late 19th century I suppose preceded us, but we have concretized it in a way other countries have not.

I believe I will concentrate on a point that is in this report but is worth special attention. The hon. member for Kings—Hants referred to it previously. It is the investment in knowledge, the recognition that the next century is a knowledge based century and dependent on having an informed, trained, talented and imaginative workforce. The key to job creation is in investment in knowledge and research.

What is known popularly as the Japanese and German syndrome, the defeated countries after World War II invested in pure research. There are no immediate returns in pure research but five or ten years down the road, you know that you are leading in science and technology and that your industries that understand this are beating all competitors.

That shows up in the foundation for innovation, the $800 million for that, developing the infrastructure and rebuilding it in medicine, engineering and the sciences, the centres for excellence networks, the millennium scholarships, the increased relief to student loans and the post-secondary education debt relief.

I will mention that I have had communications from the heads of universities in the last few weeks asking me to make the case for maintaining the grants to the federal granting agencies, the NRC, the SSHRC and the Canada Council. There was a time in western Canada when we complained that these bodies had a certain eastern Canadian mentality, that the grants seemed heavily weighted in favour of what we call central Canada. I am happy to say that the university presidents tell me that this is being corrected and has been corrected in large measure and they would like to see the grants returned to full vigour; that is to say, the equivalent in 1997-98 of what the grants were before the cuts. I would endorse that.

The intelligent choice of projects in which to invest is the key to an intelligent and reasoned approach to developing our science and technology for the next century. I think this is a recommendation that could come forward from the House to the government in the elaboration of the next budget.

When we were making the case for Triumph, the $167.5 million grant to the University of British Columbia base research in folic physics and particle physics, one had to explain what this was about, but the most telling argument was the spin-off in high talent, high intelligence based industries in British Columbia. We were able to point to a $200 million export contract enrichment in one year alone and the jobs that it brought.

I think that is the key to what we are talking about. If we are competing with other countries which have larger population bases and perhaps larger resources in other areas, we do it by increasing our investment in education, by making it not really up to world standards but making an issue of leadership.

This brings us to one other area which I raised in my question to the member for Kings—Hants. I think it is necessary to have a federal role of leadership in education, in science and research. It is not merely a matter of creating the national standard, it is not merely a matter of bringing economically less favoured provinces up to national standards. One remembers Nova Scotia, which is certainly not a wealthy province, but for many years it was considered the cradle of education in Canada and there was an extra degree of devotion among Nova Scotians who were poor but honest, some say, to education.

But, look, that is falling away when one looks at the position of the universities and colleges in Nova Scotia. So, a federal role is necessary and there is a certain sense of equalization in education, but much more I think the vision for what is needed in terms of international competitive industry and the research base in science, technology and engineering that will be the precondition for that. I think that requires a federal leadership.

My plea in the budget, as is recognized in the Standing Committee on Education, is to make sure that this is a recognition of the knowledge century and the investment we must make in funding the science, technology and pure research with the skilled people who bring that to a conclusion.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member on his provocative discussion about the importance of education and his position and opinion relative to the potential of the federal role in terms of leadership in some areas of education.

The member is quite right that Nova Scotia was a cradle of education and to a certain extent, perhaps, that led to the intelligence of the electorate in the recent election. However, I am not certain of that.

In terms of the disparity that exists in education, not just between provinces, but between areas and counties in provinces, we need to recognize that to a considerable extent the investment in education is based on local tax bases. Wealthy communities can invest considerably more locally in education than poorer communities.

I grew up in a wonderful, picturesque part of Nova Scotia, but an area that is very economically depressed. In that area, there were 30 students who came out of grade six at the time I did and only ten ever graduated from high school. For me it is extraordinarily important that we ensure educational opportunities exist in very community Canada. I believe the federal government can play a role in providing leadership to ensure that is the case.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would perhaps cite to the hon. member a remark that the former Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, made when he was still Prime Minister, just before his retirement when he received an honorary degree from Dalhousie University. He said with great wit and great truth when he looked at the record of the alumni of Dalhousie University and the roles of leadership they held in national politics in Canada, he wondered how he had got so far himself without having a degree from Dalhousie University.

In the wit is a large element of truth. The maritimes invested very heavily in education. But it is time to recognize the disparities in wealth and financing since it simply operates to a severe disadvantage today. I do believe that we are into a system where the federal government may need to deal directly with the municipal school authorities in this area. This looks for more imaginative and mannered approaches to co-operative federalism which was an idea of the 1950s and 1960s, now being revived. However, I think it needs a little more structure and sophistication.

I think his plea for the maritimes would be supported by this side of the House also. I thank the member for that observation.

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

I am seeking unanimous consent for a motion, seconded by the member for Ottawa Centre, the member for Ottawa West, the member for Edmonton North, the member for Saint John, the member for Winnipeg North Centre, the member for Laval East:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the request of the Famous Five Foundation to honour the memory of Emily Murphy, Nellie Mooney McClung, Irene Marryat Parlby, Louise Crummy McKinney and Henrietta Muir Edwards—the “Famous Five”—by allowing a statue commemorating them to be placed on Parliament Hill.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The motion is not adopted.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding Standing Order 24(2) or any other usual practice, the time provided for Government Orders be extended by 15 minutes, therefore expiring at 5.45 p.m., provided that no quorum calls or dilatory motions shall be received by the House after the hour of 5.30 p.m.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion to extend the hours of sitting?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There is no unanimous consent.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appeal to the Chair. Earlier I saw a member indicate he did not agree. There was, however, unanimous consent on the motion of my hon. colleague, but the person who did not give his consent was not even in his seat. So I do not understand why his remark would be recognized. I therefore believe that there is unanimous consent and I would ask you to reconsider the motion.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair holds that one dissenting voice determines the matter.

The Chair does not inquire about where a member is sitting in the House when a question is put seeking unanimous consent. The Chair asked for unanimous consent. An hon. member said no, and I am afraid that determines the matter.

The Chair is not in a position to determine whether a member was in his seat or not for the purposes of that and, indeed, members do not have to rise to say no. The question is put to the House and the answers come back.

I regret the circumstances are that I cannot entertain the motion.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I realize in about a minute things moved rather quickly. I wonder if you might agree to review the tapes of the last five minutes.

What I observed, and I may be mistaken, was that the member from Etobicoke—Lakeshore asked for unanimous consent and nobody said no.

I believe you then asked if the motion is adopted. At that point somebody who was not in the House when the motion was moved came into the House and essentially voted no, but not from his seat.

I am just asking, Mr. Speaker, whether you might review what was said in the last five minutes.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member is quite correct. Because there were other items moved immediately following, the Chair abandoned because the House seemed to abandon the attempt.

The motion the hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore sought to put before the House was agreed to be put to the House. I then put the motion and a member said no when I put the motion to the House.

The motion is a debatable motion. I can put the motion to the House again if the House is willing to do that. The difficulty we are facing is that it is going to take unanimous consent.

There is unanimous consent that the motion be put to the House. Perhaps the hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, having obtained that consent, could have her motion delivered to the Chair and I will put the question to the House.

Famous Five

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

, seconded by the hon. members for Ottawa West, Ottawa Centre, Edmonton North, Saint John, Winnipeg North Centre, and Laval Est, moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the request of the Famous Five Foundation to honour the memory of Emily Murphy, Nellie Mooney McClung, Irene Marryat Parlby, Louise Crummy McKinney and Henrietta Muir Edwards—the “Famous Five”—by allowing a statue commemorating them to be placed on Parliament Hill.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the motion. Under the rules there is no time to debate this motion unless the House gives its unanimous consent. I therefore put the question. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.