House of Commons Hansard #79 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was debt.
Jack Ramsay Reform Crowfoot, AB
Mr. Speaker, the justice minister has refused to inform this House when she will bring in amendments to the Young Offenders Act. I ask her again. When will she put public safety first and bring in amendments to the Young Offenders Act? When will she do this?
Anne McLellan LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, we have always indicated in this House that we are a government that is not going to take a simplistic approach to young offenders. Protection of society is a key value, but obviously so are prevention of crime and rehabilitation and reintegration of young offenders.
The hon. member can rest assured that the response will be tabled in this House in a timely fashion.
Young Offenders ActOral Question Period
The Speaker
My colleagues, that would bring to a close our question period for today.
I am going to deal first with a question of privilege. The hon. member for Scarborough Centre.
John Cannis Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, my privilege arises from question period when the member for Winnipeg Centre asked a question and he was left alone. But in a response from the minister of labour on pay equity I commented and so did my colleagues around me. He expressed himself with language that is uncalled for in this House, unnecessary, vulgar and—
PrivilegeOral Question Period
The Speaker
My colleagues, I would hope that if such a thing occurred, I of course did not hear it, but I would hope that hon. members would always speak to each other with great respect in this House.
Randy White Reform Langley—Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to a matter that occurred in the justice committee. It is a matter that only this House can address and is a matter of interest to all members of this House.
While I recognize that committees are masters of their own proceedings, the justice committee has gone beyond its authority by ignoring an order of this House.
On March 10, 1998 at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights the chair ruled that a motion passed by this House on October 30, 1997 did not bind the committee. This is confirmed in the letter sent from the chair of the justice committee to the sponsor of the motion, the member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley. In the letter the chair states:
Enclosed you will find a copy of the order of reference on impaired driving dated October 30, 1997. As you can see, no time line was imposed on the justice committee. This project has been considered by both our steering committee and the full committee in planning our future business—we will not reach this project before June.
The order of reference given the committee was contained in two motions. The first motion which carried unanimously read as follows:
That this House call on the government to bring forward a motion pursuant to Standing Order 68(4)(a), to instruct the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to prepare and bring in a bill to amend those sections of the Criminal Code which deal with impaired driving in order to (a) enhance deterrence; and (b) ensure that the penalties reflect the seriousness of the offence and that the said committee, when so instructed, submit its report to the House no later than May 15, 1998.
Subsequent to the adoption of the supply motion, the committee was so instructed by a motion moved by the Minister of Human Resources Development. I was involved in the negotiations of that instruction, so I do know for a fact from where we come on this particular point of order.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, a motion cannot direct or order the government to take action. That is why the supply motion called upon the government to act. The second part of the motion read “and that the said committee, when so instructed, submit its report to the House no later than May 15, 1998”.
The second part of the motion dealt with the committee. The motion directed the committee and as you know, Mr. Speaker, that is perfectly in order for any motion of this House whether it be a supply motion, a private member's motion, or a government motion.
In Beauchesne's sixth edition citation 760(2), it states that “committees receive their authority from the House itself and the authority of the House overrides that of any committee”. Citation 831(2) points out that “a committee is bound by, and is not at liberty to depart from the order of reference” from the House.
In the last Parliament, the 35th Parliament, the Special Committee on Code of Conduct was given a reporting date by the House. The committee could not and did not decide on its own when to report to the House. When the committee found itself crunched for time it had to come back to the House and seek authority to extend its reporting date.
Also in the last Parliament there were two important rulings regarding committees and orders given committees by the House. On June 20, 1994 and November 7, 1996 the Speaker ruled that “while it is a tradition of this House that committees are masters of their own proceedings, they cannot establish procedures which go beyond the powers conferred upon them by the House”.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to address at this time the fact that there are two motions in play on this issue. If you consider our practices regarding the management of our business, there is often more than one motion dictating the business of the House and its committees. Superseding motions for example are always acceptable motions, such as motions to adjourn debate.
We often pass motions that prescribe the way debate is conducted. The actions in the motions are triggered by events that may happen during debate. For example, during late night debates the words “when the last member rises” often trigger the question being deemed put and the vote deferred to a determined time.
Time allocation motions often address the report and third reading stages of a bill. It presupposes that the report stage will carry and that the third reading debate will proceed and be guided by the time allocation motion. Such an order waits until the business is called even though that business may never be called.
What is disturbing about this issue is that it is the justice committee of this House that is at the centre of controversy once again.
It was the justice committee that refused to report a private member's bill to the House, which triggered a number of questions of privilege and resulted in a Speaker's ruling allowing a new procedure to deal with insubordinate committees.
It was the justice committee that restricted an opposition member's participation contrary to the rules of the House that led to the Speaker's intervention of November 7, 1996.
It was the justice committee that ignored an order of the House in regard to the drafting of a national victims bill of rights that we put forward in this House on April 26, 1996. That has not been dealt with since in the justice committee.
Randy White Reform Langley—Abbotsford, BC
I trust I did not hear “I just lied”.
In conclusion, seeking a solution to the problem of drinking and driving is supported by the public and was supported unanimously by this House. Not only did all members speak in support of the motion introduced by the member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley, but all members unanimously supported an amendment moved by a Liberal member, the member for Abitibi, which inserted the reporting date which is the focus of my point of order today.
I would agree with the words of the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough who said during his presentation in debate “Members should come together without partisan politics and create new legislation that will contribute to the saving of lives”. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister said “I support the intent and essence of this question. When the protection of human life is involved we have to do everything we can”.
The justice committee should take note of the sentiments expressed during that debate on October 30, 1997 and respect the decision of the majority by reporting to the House as ordered.
Let me sum up. We the members of this House, in this House, all agreed that there would be a bill received in this House no later than May 15. The question is how does this House become and stay relevant if a committee of the House arbitrarily makes a decision without coming back to this House on the very issue that we all supported, all members of this House from all parties?
Shaughnessy Cohen Liberal Windsor—St. Clair, ON
Mr. Speaker, there are three things that are very important here.
One is that the justice committee, and in particular the chair of the justice committee to whom some of this seems to be addressed in the person of myself, has every intention of following the order of the House that we received in our committee through our clerk.
Number two, we take very seriously the issue of impaired driving in this country. I have confirmed to at least one justice critic in the last 24 hours the significance of that review and the fact that I am looking forward to undertaking it.
Number three, had the Reform House leader referred to the proceedings of the committee in preparing for today, and he may have, I do not know, he would have found that we even talked at some point about how extensive this review would be.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, it is important for you to know that when we received the order of reference from Journals branch the order of reference was not time dated. There was no reference in that order to May 15.
As a result of that, apparently the member who is interested in this motion in the first place wrote to me. We have heard part of the letter. The rest of the letter indicates an undertaking, as I recall from writing the letter which I do not have here, that we would deal with this issue as soon as we possibly could.
It is important however for the House to know that this schedule is not drawn up in a vacuum. This schedule is drawn up after consultation not just with a steering committee but with all members of the committee who represent all parties. I point out that the Reform Party has three members on that committee, none of whom has ever suggested that this is of the highest priority to them.
There is a problem here and that is assuming the order we received from the House was not time dated, and I believe that to be the case, then what do we put aside in order to accommodate the interest of a member of Parliament who is not a member of the committee and who does not attend our committee proceedings? Do we tell victims of crime on whose work we are operating that their work is less important than the work of this member? Do we tell persons with disabilities that we are sorry, we cannot work on the amendments to the human rights code right now because we have to do work that has come to us from outside our committee? Do we tell the victims of crime, the police community and others that we are sorry that we cannot do our work to establish a DNA data bank because one member of the Reform Party has another agenda?
This is a terrible situation in which our committee is put. I see you signalling me, Mr. Speaker, but there is a lot more at operation here than would be suggested.
Let me say this, Sir. We have never sought to defy, directly or indirectly or inadvertently, an order of this House. The order we have does not—
Points Of OrderOral Question Period
The Speaker
I am trying to give as much latitude as I can but I think we are getting a bit into debate. Before I go to your point of order may I ask the intervener, the opposition House leader, and I am going to have a look at all the papers, but is it your contention that both of these motions passed by the House were time dated? I want to clear that up.
Randy White Reform Langley—Abbotsford, BC
No, Mr. Speaker. As I said there were two motions involved. The first motion was time dated with an amendment from the government.
Subsequent to the approval that night, we did discuss the fact that it has to be a ministerial authority to give direction. We arranged for that. This is not something that only the Reform Party mandated. All parties in this House agreed to it.
Points Of OrderOral Question Period
The Speaker
I guess what you are saying is that although it was not time dated on the paper, there was agreement in the House that this also be time dated.
Colleagues, I think I have heard enough. I will take the information under advisement and return to the House very soon. I will not wait long on this. I want to have a look at the documents. I want to have a look at everything that has transpired. I will come back with a decision on this issue.
I think I have heard enough on this point of order unless there is something I have missed.
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, following the intervention by the chair of the justice committee, I want to make it clear that this is not the desire of only the Reform Party.
This is not just a member's desire, although a member put forward the motion originally. It is a decision of the House.
It is the decision of the House that cannot be contravened, not just that of a single member.
Points Of OrderOral Question Period
The Speaker
I do not want to get into debate. I have already made a ruling about a House order and I will have that to guide me as we go along.
I think on this point of order I am prepared to look at all the documentation and get back to the House with a decision.
Keith Martin Reform Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Winnipeg North Centre said during her member's statement that in the course of a health care debate yesterday Reform does not care about health care. She quoted me incorrectly.
That is absolutely not true. I would like the member to withdraw that statement.
Points Of OrderOral Question Period
The Speaker
In the course of debate we have one member who said this and one member who said that. I would hope that in the course of debate we would take these matters into consideration and try to keep ourselves on course for the debate.
I thank the hon. member for his clarification.
Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I listened carefully to the statement of the member for Winnipeg North Centre.
The phrase that is being referred to, I understood her not to be quoting the hon. member. That was a conclusion that she came to after quoting something the member said yesterday. I think it is correct—
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-36, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 24, 1998, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.
Budget Implementation Act, 1998Government Orders
The Deputy Speaker
When the House broke for question period, the hon. member for Scarborough Centre had completed his remarks. There are five minutes remaining for questions and comments.
Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, in this debate on the budget, the Liberal majority tends to forget that an important issue is at stake, namely that the Constitution has made education a provincial matter.
This bill contains a measure relating to the millennium scholarships, which will mean throwing over all the expertise, the entire student financial aid program that has been established in Quebec.
I would like to ask the hon. member whether he might not find it more appropriate, rather than creating the millennium scholarships, to return the money to the provinces as transfer payments. This would enable the provinces to administer their education system properly, as well as give them the necessary resources to provide everyone with a proper education, rather than targeting some people while leaving most students unable to take advantage of the new measure, which is more or less a Prime Ministerial whim.
John Cannis Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question which I listened to very carefully. He basically asked if we would turn over the funds in the millennium fund for the province to control. Absolutely not.
The provinces have jurisdiction over secondary and junior education, which is fine. But this post-secondary education program will have the rubber stamp of the federal Government of Canada whether it is the Liberals of today or whoever else it may be tomorrow.
This is not targeting part of the clientele as the member quoted. This is targeting Canada's future, Canada's youth to make sure that when they want to access funds, the funds will be there to allow them to get the education and the academic skills they will need. As we have said before, a good education is the best equalizer.
Francine Lalonde Bloc Mercier, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak to Bill C-36 with enthusiasm.
You will understand from the start that I oppose it and in particular the matter of the millennium scholarships. I will support the Reform amendment, which provides that the budget does not meet the usual public accounting criteria, as very clearly indicated on many occasions by the auditor general, Denis Desautels.
I was in fact very keen to speak to both the budget and Bill C-36, which serves to implement it. I will first describe the context of the employment insurance fund surplus. Then I will speak to the shameless waste—and I will say why—in the form of the millennium scholarship fund. Finally, I will ask that this money be returned to the provinces in education, to Quebec in particular, or to Quebec at least, if the other provinces are not interested.
The budget provides for a forecast employment insurance surplus of $6.7 billion. Already there is an accumulation of $15 billion, which means that the Minister of Finance could give a contribution holiday to all businesses and workers. We could pay all benefits under the law and there would still be an accumulated $3 billion by the time of the next budget.
In this context, the Minister of Finance is planning for an additional surplus of $6.7 billion. This is scandalous. Why? It is a scandal because workers pay the surpluses, especially those earning low or middle incomes, because if you earn over $39,000 you do not pay. You pay up to $39,000, and the surplus is not taxed.
It is essentially the SMBs that are affected, because the major companies pay salaries over $39,000 including overtime. Generally, the SMBs pay less than that, especially those hiring a lot, labour intensive businesses.
This is outrageous, because the workers and the businesses are the heart and soul of the economy. In a country with 1.4 million unemployed, we do not purposely try to make the economy unproductive. Some might say “Sure, but economic growth was almost 4%”. We have to be careful.
Even the documents from the Privy Council say that growth not accompanied by strong productivity will provide increased revenues to businesses and will result in a number of jobs being created, but it will not lead to an optimum increase in revenues and wealth. Increased productivity such as the one we have here in Canada, which is the lowest among the G-7 countries and OECD members, thus putting a burden on the economy.
The government is urging businesses to promote innovation by investing in research and development, and also in labour and management, but it leaves taxes and employment insurance contributions at their current level, which is not good for the economy. The government could say “Okay, we will at least improve the employment insurance program for unemployed workers, so that they will have more money to spend in the economy”. But it is not doing that.
As we all know, the minister announced that contributions would be reduced to $2.70. But we also know that, given the huge surplus already accumulated, the program could operate with contributions of just $2. Bloc Quebecois members have been saying for quite some time that the extra 70 cents could be split in two, with one half being used to reduce contributions, and the other half to improve the program. We could do this without any problems.
Again, it is outrageous to have an accumulated surplus in the employment insurance fund, and to also have an anticipated surplus of $6.7 billion. It is outrageous and it primarily hurts small and medium size businesses, but also all the businesses that will contribute $3.9 billion to that $6.7 billion this year, even though they should not have to do so.
In the 1994 budget documents, the Minister of Finance said “We will not increase contributions from $3.07 to $3.30, as the previous government had planned. This will result in the creation of 40,000 jobs in 1996”.
If the minister's reasoning was good in 1994, it is still good today. This means that by not reducing premiums by an amount greater than that of 1994, he is not creating over 40,000 jobs. And that is serious.
That is not all I will speak about, because time is flying, but that is the basic point. It makes no sense. The public has heard about it and people know that it makes no sense.
What is the government doing with the surplus it has thus managed to create? I could remind the House that another reason the government was able to generate this surplus was because there are ongoing, annual cuts in the Canada social transfer. Cash transfers stood at $19 billion, at which point the government told us: “We are going to be good. We are going to hold it at $12.5 billion”. The shortfall is the reason for the problems being experienced everywhere in emergency rooms, in health care, in education and in welfare.
In this context, pleased at having generated a surplus, what does the government do? Does it decide to take $2.5 billion and put it to use right away in the education, health and welfare sectors? No. It decides to hand it over to a foundation that is not accountable, the foundation that will work on the millennium scholarships.
I will say right away that, in addition to constituting interference in Quebec's traditional areas of jurisdiction—if the other provinces do not want to exercise their jurisdiction, that is their business, but we have always exercised it in Quebec—this foundation is utterly wasteful, and I am going to show why.
The federal government amended the Canada Student Loans and Scholarships Act. I sat on the committee that studied this bill. In this bill, it is the government that decides who, in each province, will decide which students are eligible and what criteria will be used. It is the government that decides which institutions are eligible and that negotiates with banks, caisses populaires, etc. for loans and scholarships.
The federal government itself controls its Student Loans and Scholarships Act. Each province already has people familiar with the relative calibre of each institution, who know the requirements, who are able to judge and provide assistance. One does not just throw together a foundation to hand out 100,000 scholarships a year overnight, particularly as the wording of the bill is very disturbing.
Clause 5 of the bill reads as follows:
And here there is a big mistake in the French version.
—to participate in a changing economy and society.
Out of the blue, a foundation will set the terms for assessing applications received from students across Canada and decide, on the basis of merit and need, who should be granted a $3,000 scholarship. How much will it cost to determine which student will receive a $3,000 scholarship? Unless no assessment is conducted, in which case this will be a patronage haven.
What questions will the House be allowed to ask on this? Which politicians will be allowed to ask questions on this issue? And that is not all. The bill states that the foundation shall grand scholarships in a fair and equitable manner across Canada. It states further that the directors, who all have the power to hire, make expenditures, rent premises and what not, are drawn from the various regions of Canada, not the provinces. Quebec is part of the eastern region.
They are appointed to ensure that the board is knowledgeable about—listen to this—post-secondary education and learning in Canada and the needs of the Canadian economy. Do not come and tell me that this is not an intrusion in provincial jurisdictions. It means that, not satisfied with creating duplication by not making use of the existing structure to distribute the scholarships, the government has decided that these scholarships should be distributed based on the needs of the economy. While reference is made to a changing society in the objects and purposes of the foundation, the directors are expected to be knowledgeable about the needs of the economy.
We have heard a great deal of hogwash about the next millennium, the year 2000. Much has been said about the need for vision, but what do we end up with? There are quite a few problems in Quebec and Canada besides the Quebec-Canada problem. For our post-secondary systems to be of the required level, they must not be exclusively focused on the economy.
This means that the millennium scholarships are scholarships geared toward the economy. But what about culture and social studies? Granting council and humanities council representatives told the industry committee how essential research and studies in humanities were in this society of ours.
According to a Privy Council document entitled “Human Development Expansion and Social Cohesion”, one of the major challenges facing Canada between now and the year 2005 is social cohesion and human development. With the millennium scholarships we hear so much about, as if they were the key to the future, care is taken to select directors who are knowledgeable about the needs of the economy.
If the federal government is concerned about the quality of education, it should not have cut social transfer as it did. Instead, it should have put money into education as soon as it became possible to do so, giving it directly to the provinces.
That would keep costs from rising so quickly. It is not often that the Gazette and I agree, but one of its editorialists said “For heaven's sake. The government has to give the money back, otherwise students will have bursaries, but there will be no institutions worthy of the name university”.
Ask any rector—the president of the University of Toronto, the president of McGill, the president of the University of Vancouver. They are all concerned about the quality of education. They are concerned, and, as we know, the situation is different in the United States. We know that more money is being provided for research. Graphs are easy to do. In Canada, we are going one way, in the United States, they are going in the opposite direction. What we have done in Canada with research is to bring some of it back. It is still very little.
The situation is serious. When we congratulate ourselves because in 2000 we will start giving $3,000 on a merit basis to needy students across Canada through a foundation and solve all the problems, we are just fooling ourselves and that is dangerous.
Universities are not built in a year. They are a bit like the country's demography. The fact that we have reached a decision does not mean it will have an effect the following year. At least 25 years are necessary. Maybe it is not 25 years for the universities, but to ensure strong universities it takes teams with support, that succeed one another, and that are in contact with other universities in Canada, the United States and elsewhere in the world.
Yes indeed, students need hope, but the possibility of a $3,000 bursary, if you live in the country or anywhere, is not the solution. In Quebec, the likelihood is greater because the system of loans and grants is more generous than elsewhere in Canada and the costs of education are half as high, which is the very reason we say we are prepared to negotiate with students from other provinces, but we want to keep education costs low.
In these circumstances, this system of millennium scholarships preventing Quebec from opting out to make the most effective use of its bursaries, is most unacceptable. I repeat for those unmoved by these arguments, take a good look at the waste. It is waste, because there already exists a structure under federal control to provide bursaries. There is no point creating another structure from scratch, without the House having any control over it, in order to meet the visibility and honourable retirement needs of a Prime Minister, whoever he may be.
John Bryden Liberal Wentworth—Burlington, ON
Mr. Speaker, when the British North America Act was written and the Fathers of Confederation assigned management of education to the provinces, I do not think they envisaged anything other than that the provinces would treat all Canadian young people equally.
As we heard today in question period—and we had an allusion to it in the member's speech—young people are not treated equally in Quebec. The province of Quebec discriminates against young people from other parts of the country by charging them more for tuition. It costs them more to go to university in Quebec. I do not understand why more is not made of this because it is a clear case of discriminating against people simply based on where they live.
It has nothing to do with culture. A francophone from northern Ontario who tries to go to school in Quebec will be charged more than a young person from Quebec. Yet the Bloc Quebecois is asking for total control of the $2.5 billion in millennium scholarships planned by the federal government.
How can we trust a provincial government that engages in discrimination against young people from other parts of the country who might want to be educated in Quebec?
How can we trust a province that engages in this kind of discrimination to handle the millennium fund, to share it equally with all young people in Canada who are in need? In fact young people in Quebec have an advantage because they pay less. Is it not far better to give it to a federal government which will treat all young Canadians equally?
Francine Lalonde Bloc Mercier, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my honourable colleague for his question. It will give me the opportunity to clarify some things that were said during Oral Question Period which came very close to being something other than truthful.
It is true that tuition fees in Quebec are very close to half what they are in many other provinces, while Quebec is not the richest of the provinces. Why is this so? Because there is a political desire to foster accessibility.
There was a time when there was a wide gap between those who could afford to go to university and those who could not. My generation wanted everyone to be able to attend, which is why Quebec CEGEPs, which anyone can attend, are the equivalent of first year university in the other provinces. They are free of charge. University itself often costs half what it does elsewhere, because we want many people to be able to attend.
This is a policy choice, and it seems to me that any discrimination there might be is not negative discrimination. It would be a kind of positive discrimination.
It costs a lot of money to train a physician. If medical students choose to come to Quebec because they pay half as much, is it not normal that there be an attempt to negotiate a kind of equity with the government? If our students go to Ontario, they are going to pay twice what they would in Quebec.
American medical students had been coming to Quebec for ages before people started to say “Just a minute now. They are coming to study here, costing us X thousand dollars a year, and then going back home”.
So this is not a matter of being petty, but an approach based on looking at what things cost. We are making a collective effort to encourage education. We want Quebec to benefit from it as much as possible. We have nothing against young people from elsewhere coming here to study, but there must be agreements with the governments on this. That seems to me to be far from discriminatory.
When the statement is made that these funds must be administered in the same way, that strikes me as common sense. Where scholarships are concerned, a system is already in place. It is so hard to be fair in this area, to decide whether this person or that person deserves a scholarship, so such a system cannot be left in the hands of just anybody. We know that universities are recognized as having different strengths in different disciplines. One cannot improvise with nothing.
The Quebec loans and grants program meets students' needs. McGill University students are very happy with it and they do not want another program. The program is fair to all students. Negotiations can take place with students' associations. The program provides not only loans but also scholarships. And more and more scholarships become available as the education level gets higher, because costs also go up.
We want that money to go to the existing program, instead of being used to create another infrastructure, with administrators designing national application forms for all Canadian students and deciding who should be awarded the scholarships. If the scholarships are based on merit, then they are not awarded haphazardly, which implies that a real system is in place. Incidentally, what kind of control do we have over this?
I hope I am convincing people. The general idea may sound appealing, but if you take a closer look, it does not make sense. It is costly. It provides no guarantee whatsoever that young people are the ones who will benefit and, more importantly, that the process will be fair or efficient. It also requires that we put a lot of emphasis at first on the infrastructure.
It is a waste. It seems to go against the idea that, from now on, the government will no longer spend in a senseless way. It will not benefit education, it will not prepare us for the year 2000, and it is not for students.