Debates of Sept. 30th, 1997

Supply

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would like to speak on and on. Yes, we have another agenda. Perhaps he would like to have a copy of it. It is just one example of our agenda. By all means, the member may come down and talk to us at any time. We are at Room 368 of the Confederation Building. I would be more than happy to have dinner with the member. I will pay and we can discuss our agenda with him.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin my speech by thanking the voters of the Churchill riding for their support.

As many know, the riding comprises some four-fifths of Manitoba's land mass. It is home to the Sayisi and the Northlands Dene nation, a nation that is still disputing land claims north of the 60th parallel.

The people of Tadoule still seek compensation for forced relocation that almost saw the total destruction of an entire people.

Our riding is home to Churchill, the polar bear capital and a community of citizens such as Penny Rawlings and Robert Penwarden who believed in their town and the viability of the port of Churchill.

It was a shame that the government of Canada did not have the same commitment to the port. As many of us maintained, the port was not utilized to its fullest for years. The port is being used now after it was sold to an American company.

The Churchill riding is home to a number of communities where seasonal work is the only way of life. The government's changes to employment insurance saw many of the families in these communities forced to go on welfare as they did not meet the required hours to qualify for EI benefits. Some were only short by a few hours. The government should not be proud of this. Many people have simply given up looking for work and have been forced to go on welfare.

The government's cuts in social assistance dollars saw people in northern communities who have to pay $11 for four litres of milk paid social assistance benefits at the same rate as those down south paying $4.04 for milk. Cuts to health and education have seen hospitals short staffed with line-ups for emergency services, not enough dialysis machines or not enough trained nurses to operate them.

At a time when the royal commission on aboriginal people's report recommends 10,000 aboriginal health care workers are needed, we see fewer and fewer dollars going that way.

Increased tuition costs have made it even more difficult for students of the north who must already pay relocation costs to continue their education in university.

The government's failure to act on our charter of rights, its failure to pay the public service workers money due as equal pay for equal work, its failure to treat women fairly is despicable.

I have often felt that I am from a generation that has not done without. I have had medicare and maternity benefits, labour legislation, health and safety legislation, the security of CPP, employment insurance and employment equity.

People like Syd and Mory Allen of The Pas, and Nestor and Vicki Dolinski from Flin Flon, Manitoba in my riding supported the efforts of Tommy Douglas and Stanley Knowles from the early years.

These benefits I have had are not things that I want my generation to not give to the people following us. I want my children and their children to have those same benefits.

We talk about what to do with the “surplus”, the government's prize at the end of three and a half years of starving Canadians and at the end of 13 years of women fighting for equal pay. Let us put the dollars toward the people who have earned it and to those who really need it. The Government of Canada owes some 200,000 workers $2 billion. Let's pay the dues.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan—King—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member on her speech.

There seems to be a perception on the other side of the House that things are not just right. Perhaps the reason why I believe that things are getting better is that I was here as an assistant and as a member of Parliament under the former Conservative government and I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that things are indeed getting better in this country.

I remember as a Canadian born in 1960 when I came to this House there was a $42 billion deficit. Now we are entering a new era in Canadian public policy where we will have the first balanced budget in a long, long time. This is lost on the New Democratic Party whose members think somehow productivity gains and a competitive society is built simply by spending.

As an Ontarian I remember the Bob Rae years with a great deal of sadness. We saw firm after firm leaving Ontario. We saw the competitive edge of a once very prosperous province vanish.

We had to do a great deal of work to re-establish a competitive economy that speaks to modern day values, to the fact that we live in a global society. We cannot be isolated as the New Democratic Party would like us to be.

What a difference the past four years have made to the lives of so many Canadians. Almost one million new Canadian jobs have been created as a result of some of our measures. I want to ask the hon. member, if she were to define the optimal conditions for economic growth, would they not be low inflation rates and elimination of the deficit? Do these not spur economic growth?

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, although there was not a question there, I thought I made it pretty clear without really spelling it out that the surplus was there as a result of the Government of Canada not paying its dues to its employees and not paying its dues to the people who were unemployed.

The surplus is there because those people are not paid unemployment insurance premiums the same way they would have been prior to this government. I did not get into the nits and grits of the $12.3 million paid to 3,000 government managers while these same workers were not being paid. I did not get into a reform of a tax system that would be fair for all Canadians. If we need to spell it out, one plus one is two and zero added to zero is nothing.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I too would like to congratulate my colleague from Churchill on an excellent speech. She stands in a very good tradition that I am well aware of having served in this House with a predecessor of hers, Rod Murphy, the member of Parliament for Churchill from 1979 to 1993.

Perhaps the hon. member could elaborate for just a few seconds since we do not have much time on the injustice being done to so many women in the public service, by virtue of this government's persistent refusal to take seriously the judgment of its own human rights tribunal and pay what is due to women in the public service as a result of that judgment having been made with respect to pay equity.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will certainly respond. I thank the member for his comments. I too want to acknowledge Rod Murphy and all of his help.

Since 1984 the pay equity issue has been on the table with the Government of Canada. Since that time the government has failed to respond even though a report from the human rights commission indicated that those workers were entitled to fair pay for equal work.

As I was speaking to a Reform motion I happened to become aware of a statement by a former Reform MP from Simcoe Centre. I want to read his statement: “As you are no doubt aware, the Reform Party and I do not support the notion of pay equity as outlined by the federal government and the human rights tribunal. We believe the hiring and remuneration decisions should be made solely on the basis of merit without regard for gender or other inalienable characteristics”.

It would sound to me, just as I see this Reformer was using whatever he could to talk about equality—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

To the hon. member who has brought orange juice into the House, would you please—

Thank you. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Vaughan—King—Aurora.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan—King—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I noticed with a great deal of interest the Reform Party's motion:

That this House condemn the government for making their 50/50 election promise on any future surpluses without adequate public debate as to the optimal size of government, taxes, and debt, thus threatening to repeat Canada's 27 year old history of irresponsible spending, creating high debt, financed by high taxes, causing high unemployment.

I want to remind members of the Reform Party of something and point out the word consultation. I do not know where they were on June 2 but I thought the people of Canada made quite a statement. They re-elected a majority Liberal government. Hon. members may think what they want but we are back on this side after a vigorous debate precisely about this type of issue during the election campaign. The debate spoke to the renewed confidence that Canadians have in their government.

As I said earlier in my preamble to one of the questions I posed to the hon. member from the New Democratic Party, indeed things in this country are getting much better. That we are in a position today to even talk about this particular subject matter, namely how we are going to split the surplus, is only because Canadians and this Canadian government had the vision and made the sacrifices necessary to be in this position.

I also want to bring something to the attention of the Reform Party members. They need to understand that for the first time in a long time Canadians have a great deal of confidence in their government.

I was sitting on the other side of the House in opposition during the Mulroney Conservative government era. I saw Canadians being taxed to death, with no benefits to show for it at the end of those 10 years.

When we took office we had certain objectives. We had to get the fiscal house in order. In large measure we have done that. As I said earlier, we are going to have a balanced budget. Second, we were going to restore honesty and integrity to government. We have done that.

We also set some very good objectives. We said that we would invest in areas which would generate economic growth and increase our productivity as a country, understanding full well that in order to compete in an international economy we need to have the type of regulatory framework which speaks to the decisions which will generate wealth in order to generate the revenues which will result in the type of social programs to which Canadians have grown accustomed.

What are our priorities? Youth is a priority. I have dedicated my political career to advancing the cause of youth. When I see that the government has invested $2 billion in Canada student loans, which is a 57 percent increase over five years, I am quite proud of the fact that as a government we realize that accessibility to education is extremely important in increasing job prospects for youth. There is a direct correlation between the type of education a person has and the type of job they get.

We also invested heavily in technology. We understand the multiplier effect that investing in technology has. Right here in Ottawa, in Kanata, and in Cambridge we have been able to build a highly skilled, highly paid workforce that is producing value added products. We have helped to transform the economy into a new technologically advanced economy which is generating employment in key areas, areas in which we are quite competitive.

There is a strategy in place. We inherited a financial mess. We have cleaned it up. Now we are entering the second phase and we need to identify our priorities. What are they? What do Canadians hold sacred? Budgets and throne speeches must reflect Canadian values. What are they?

One of them is health care. We made an announcement just before the election campaign when we found out that the financial situation in Canada was even better than we expected. What did we do? We reinvested in health care. Why was that? Because that is a part of the fibre of Canada.

What else did we do? We reinvested $350 million on youth employment projects. Why was that? Because we know that the future of this country belongs to our youth and we need to provide them with the right opportunities.

How did we do that? Did we do it the old fashioned way? Absolutely not. We invested in areas where there was growth. We identified 33 key areas of growth in our economy. We entered into internship agreements with those sectors of the economy and now young people have a job and a future.

Gone is the old way of pork barrelling. Gone is the old way of throwing money at problems without getting results.

[The Speaker]

I surely hate to interrupt the member in full flight. I remind my hon. colleague that he will have the floor when we return to the debate.

It being 6.15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt proceedings and put forthwith any question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Speaker]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 4

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion defeated.

It being 6.47 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.47 p.m.)