Debates of March 9th, 1998

The Budget

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member opposite, in his discussion of the scholarship program, has approached the undergraduate students and the graduate students in Quebec who will be receiving this summer the science scholarships from the federal government which will allow them to work in the labs of the universities and the hospitals?

Has he considered approaching the students who are at present in Quebec universities and are undertaking degrees based on funds provided by the grants councils, the Medical Research Council, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and NSERC, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council? All of them are federal councils. All of them are providing money to students in universities in Quebec. Is he suggesting that those students should give up those scholarships they have at present and that they will have next summer and next winter?

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my wise colleague for his question, but I would remind him that the money being given out comes from Quebec.

I would also remind my colleague that Le Quartier , the University of Montreal newspaper, wrote “In the millennium fund, Ottawa should step aside for Quebec”, and “Save the university”. In La Presse , Claude Piché, no friend of the sovereignists, called it the “millennium catastrophe”. The same press review also says, on the subject of the position adopted by the Quebec university students' association “millennium scholarships rejected”. I am speaking on behalf of the people of Quebec.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I have just a couple of points of clarification. I think the hon. member in his speech indicated that the transfers to the provinces were going to continue to go down. I would caution the hon. member that he should read the numbers again.

We have in fact seen a reinvestment in the Canada health and social transfer of $1.5 billion a year. He will also see because of the system of transfers being made up of cash and tax points that transfers to the provinces will continue to increase.

I want to speak directly to the comments made on the millennium fund. What does the hon. member say to the Fédération étudiante universitaire du Québec and the Fédération étudiante collégiale du Québec when they say they would like to see both governments co-operate, to set aside political squabbles and find a formula so they can have access to these funds because they need them?

Essentially the students in Quebec and students right across the country are saying not to get into political squabbles, but to deal with the issues. That is what we have attempted to do with the millennium scholarship fund. There is a vast amount of support for this program by the students. If the hon. member wants to help students he should stand in his place and support this scholarship fund which will ensure that students get the money they need to access education.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite is hard of hearing or he did not listen to my speech, perhaps because it was in French.

We are saying duplication must end, that the $82 million should come back to Quebec, that it must be sent, transferred to Quebec, and that Quebec is capable of looking after this $82 million. We have proven it. By managing the program established by Mr. Pearson, Quebec has a less expensive system of education, and its students have the smallest debt load. Instead of spending money and treading on toes, the government should send the $82 million to Quebec and let it look after it. Students would be better off.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse for sharing her time with me.

I too am pleased to take part in the discussion on this universally criticized budget. Even if we agree with the results, we can have some very serious reservations on the means used to accomplish them, because we know that this zero deficit plus surpluses has been reached at the expense of the provinces, middle-income families, the unemployed, the sick, students and welfare recipients.

But where does this surplus come from? In 1993, the Liberal red book said it was unrealistic to wish to eliminate the federal deficit in five years. The Prime Minister stated that such an objective could not be attained without pillaging social programs, and no Liberal government would agree to do such a thing. Four budgets later, the federal deficit is now eliminated, but at the price they refused to pay in 1993.

The main accomplishment of the Liberal government as far as beating the deficit is concerned can be summarized as follows: $42 billion in cuts to hospitals, universities and welfare, an employment insurance reform which impoverishes the unemployed, coupled with an economic upturn combined with non-indexed tax tables. That is what the zero deficit is all about.

But, let us face it, this approach of getting other people to do what one is incapable of doing oneself has put the federal government in a position where, for the first time in a long while, there was the possibility of somewhat lightening the tax burden of Canadian and Quebec taxpayers, the working and the unemployed, in short those who are responsible for the situation we are now in.

Fifty-four per cent, or more than half, of the cuts in expenditures made by the federal government between 1994 and 1998, moreover, were dumped onto the governments of Quebec and the provinces, to the tune of $6.3 billion annually. An annual amount of $6.3 billion is no trifle.

Yet in 1993, the Prime Minister stated “In our program, we have no intention of cutting payments to individuals or to the provinces. That is clear and it is in writing”. I refer those who may want to know where this quote is from to the September 25, 1993 edition of La Presse . Of course, no one believed at the time that this promise would be kept any more than the others, the GST for example.

However, the current fiscal situation, which was achieved thanks to the efforts of provincial governments, permitted at the very least that the provinces be compensated for the losses caused by this offloading. To this end, the government could have given them as tax points 25% of the next two years' surpluses, thereby cancelling out the cuts imposed during the first Liberal mandate in the transfers for health, education and social assistance.

This would have enabled the provincial governments to regain the flexibility lost in previous budgets while not affecting the federal government's finances. Indeed, it would still record a surplus of approximately $30.8 billion in 2001-02, even if 25% of the next two years' surpluses were paid back to the provinces.

There they go creating new programs. It has been known for months that the finance minister's latest budget would be a surplus budget, or at least a balanced budget. All the stakeholders, be it the Bloc Quebecois or the other opposition parties, the premiers and finance ministers of Quebec or the provinces, asked, begged the Liberal government not to start spending again before having made up for the losses resulting from the cuts made these past few years in health, education and social programs.

Nothing was done. The government has gone right back to wasting taxpayers' money, introducing a myriad of new measures that will duplicate or overlap what is already being done in the provinces, and running the risk of again losing control of its spending and plunging us into a deficit spiral.

The best example of this renewed interference is the creation of millennium scholarships. This fund is a pointless affront to the governments of Quebec and of the other provinces and makes no provision for withdrawal with compensation. The Prime Minister is bent on sending out cheques with the maple leaf on them and was certainly not going to be stopped by considerations of jurisdiction, as defined in his own Constitution.

This morning, in an article about a new home care program, a health department official told us why the federal government was introducing this new program: “We want to see the maple leaf on the cheque”. As one of my constituents said to me, if the Prime Minister is so interested in visibility, all he has to do is put his picture on the twenty-dollar bill.

Quebec already has a student assistance program that is a vast improvement on all similar programs in Canadian provinces. Not only is it the only program with loans that are advantageous for students, but it is the only one where they do not have to pay back scholarships when they graduate. The result is that the average indebtedness of Quebec students is half that of students in other provinces.

No one in Quebec wants to see that money wasted on some program that would duplicate what is already being done and done well. Even the education sector condemns this “operation visibility” which, in the end, will be conducted at the expense of the students themselves. Hopefully, the appeals to common sense made by Quebec stakeholders will be heard by the Prime Minister, before the upcoming meeting with Quebec government officials.

I also want to talk about health, since I am the critic on this issue. In Quebec, and everywhere in Canada, health is probably the sector where the federal government has done the most damage. Disconnected as it is from the medical realities in the provinces, the federal government offloaded its deficit onto provincial health programs, at a time when the provinces themselves were in the middle of a restructuring process. After blaming the provinces for its cuts, the federal government should have redistributed the surplus of the last budget to alleviate the negative impact that it helped create in the first place.

Yet, the new budget does confirm that federal cuts totalling $42 billion will be made between now and the year 2002. However, it is silent on how the government will use the additional $70 million that will be generated by the increase on tobacco taxes. The budget includes no new measures to deter young people from smoking, and it does not provide any compensation for sports and cultural events.

But the biggest disappointment is the lack of any reference to the financial compensation the victims of Hepatitis C contamination have been awaiting for years, which the government can now afford to pay immediately. Unfortunately, a measure of this type did not fit in with the Liberal's objective of keeping a high profile. Yet the federal government could implement this immediately, without waiting for the provinces, which are already saddled with the costs of services provided to these victims through the health system.

The biggest surprise where health is concerned came, not in the budget speech, but from the mouth of the Minister of Health, when he brought into the open the federal government's true intentions as far as encroachments on health are concerned. This is unacceptable.

Since you are indicating I have only a minute left, Mr. Speaker, I will move on immediately to my conclusion, which is that the latest budget by the Minister of Finance has once again confirmed what the Bloc Quebecois has been saying for a number of years, that the federal government's plan is to put the provinces in a shaky situation budget-wise, and then to come along to rescue them with new initiatives in areas that fall within provincial jurisdiction.

The best illustration of this approach is provided by the President of Treasury Board himself, with his statement that “When Bouchard has to make cuts, we in Ottawa will then be able to demonstrate that we have the means to preserve the future of social programs”. Here we have both overlap and duplication.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I listened as the hon. member went on and on about how the government was hell bent on creating duplication, overlap and all the rest of it.

Earlier I made a point about what the students of Quebec were saying. They want provincial governments and the federal government to work together to ensure that this program works, to ensure that students have access to post-secondary education and skills training so they can compete for the jobs, and to ensure they have the quality of life we all want them to have.

Over and over again the hon. member made reference to the millennium scholarship fund. It is not about creating a bureaucracy. It is not about overlap. It is essentially about putting money directly into the pockets of students. It is bypassing politicians. It is bypassing institutions. It is bypassing bureaucracy.

The hon. member said that the sole motivation of the government was to ensure there was a flag on every cheque. The sole motivation of the government is to allow young Canadians opportunity and access to skills training.

We saw in the Globe and Mail today that the difference between those that have opportunity and those who do not is education. That is the great equalizer. We want to ensure that every student has opportunity and access to that information.

The hon. member keeps talking about how the government wants to get in the way of the provinces. I disagree wholeheartedly. I believe that young Canadians who want to see access and want to see the millennium scholarship work support it.

I hope the hon. member will say that her motivation is to say that they want Quebeckers, young Canadians and Canadians in all other provinces, to have improved access to education and improved access to opportunity. I hope they will work with us to ensure that in fact will occur.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can understand the secretary of state defending the budget. What I do not understand and what I reject is the extent of his lack of knowledge of the Quebec system of loans and grants.

The millennium fund simply duplicates things. He cannot deny that. If he understands the Quebec system, if he has examined it or if he is interested in it he will see that this fund duplicates what already exists. Why not give this $80 million to the provinces in compensation and to help them improve a system they all approve?

All the provincial ministers of finance and education acknowledge that in Quebec we have the best system of student loans and grants. I do not know where he gets the idea that students do not agree with us and are in favour of the millennium fund, because it is not true.

He only need contact the various representatives of certain federations, such as the Fédération des universités et des cégeps and the Fédération des étudiants du postsecondaire to discover their total disagreement.

Currently, students receive an average of $3,800 annually in grants open to all students, according to need. The millennium fund promises $3,000 on the basis of need and merit, to be determined by a board of directors. This is a waste. Where is the system that will really ensure justice or determine a student's merit?

Do you think a student in debt, who is poor and has to work part time to pay for his studies, is going to do as well as a student whose parents are well off and can look after his needs? This is where the unfairness lies.

Regardless, what is being proposed at the moment is the duplication, in Quebec, of one of the best systems, a system praised across Canada. So why not give Quebec the right to opt out with compensation so it can help more students who are in debt?

I suggest the government go back to the drawing board on this and, if it is really so open, allow Quebec to opt out of the millennium fund.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to indicate that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Durham.

I begin my address today by extending my personal congratulations to the Minister of Finance. The minister has in this fiscal year achieved something that no other finance minister has been able to do since 1969. He has brought order to the country's finances. Not only are the books balanced this year but it is projected that they will balance for the next two consecutive fiscal years, a feat that has not been matched by any Canadian federal administration for half a century.

I come from a small and traditional farming community that was built firmly upon the premise of hard work. Over the years I remember several instances when, after completing a very long tiring and productive day in the fields or in the barn, all that I desired in the world was a few hours of rest. In short, often the most welcome reward for an honest day's work is a good night's sleep.

Let me be among the first to say that the minister has now completed the proverbial hard day's work and is to be congratulated for that. When the aforementioned theories are applied to the completion of the task of bringing order to our financial house, one would think an accomplishment of this magnitude would be a feat sufficient enough to warrant at least a momentary time of reflection; a break in what has been a constant four year crusade to eliminate the deficit.

That is what one might think. However, as a lifelong farmer turned politician I would have to say that national fiscal management is certainly not comparable to hard work on the farm. If it were, I am afraid that the cattle would long be gone and it would perhaps be too late to close the gate to the corral.

I guess what I am trying to say is that we have now balanced the books but we must not become too complacent. If we let down our guard we run the risk of permitting last year's crop of problems to once again take root. We must never forget it was only four short years ago that our annual deficit stood at over $42 billion. Inflation was soaring. The only thing lower than consumer spending was consumer confidence.

In 1993 there were fierce storm clouds collecting on the horizon. This bleak economic outlook which was perpetrated by a blatant mismanagement of the public purse forced us into a position where we had to borrow over $30 billion annually on foreign money markets just to service the accumulated public debt. In the most basic of terms we were paying our Visa card's minimum monthly balance with our American Express in the hope that we would one day get a pay raise.

It was clear to anyone with even the most rudimentary of mathematical skills that this trend was neither practical nor sustainable. I cannot fathom that even one single Canadian or businessman would have attempted to justify this or to apply the practice to his or her own fiscal life without expecting dire consequences.

I am certain that to an outsider it must have seemed like we were building the social fabric of Canada in a manner which could only be compared to the construction techniques of a house of cards.

In 1993, with financial chaos looming over our heads, Canadians demanded that their government immediately move to rectify the problem of the treasury being in constant overdraft. Canadians called upon the Liberals to tackle the nation's financial crisis. Prior to 1993 the Department of Finance routinely set and missed its own targets, which caused international investors to become apprehensive at the mere mention of investing in Canada. In a nutshell, the confidence that our citizens and business leaders once enjoyed was rapidly and needlessly eliminated.

Immediately after assuming office the government took firm control of the financial reins of the country. In his 1995 budget the Minister of Finance declared “We have broken the back of the deficit”. This was the first in a series of announcements which signalled the beginning of a long and overdue journey along the road to financial recovery.

On February 24 of this year the Minister of Finance announced that the goal had at long last been realized. For the first time in 50 years there seemed to be a genuine light at the end of the tunnel.

There is little doubt that the 1998 federal budget represents a turning point on the national course. Our path both socially and economically has been dramatically altered for the better, hopefully forever. No longer are we financing our current lifestyle by committing to a second and third mortgage on our children's future. In the words of the finance minister “the government has cut up its credit cards”, an announcement that I am all too happy to hear.

Just prior to the budget I held a public forum to consult with my constituents on this issue. As always, I was impressed with the high quality of input I received from the residents of my riding of Huron—Bruce. Although the group was made up of people from several different political stripes, we checked our politics at the door and proceeded to have a productive discussion.

There was unanimity in the belief that our massive federal debt had placed Canada in an ever weakening position with respect to global economic credibility. Our capacity to effectively negotiate trade deals, direct the internal inflation rate, control domestic employment levels, and to set and to execute national priorities were all being seriously hindered. In short, the government's ability to effectively govern was in danger of falling victim to total erosion.

It was agreed that if we were to truly overcome our money problems we must adopt a two pronged approach. First, we must begin to pay down our massive federal debt. Second, we must reinvest in the areas hardest hit by cost cutting: health, education and skills development. In the report presented to the Standing Committee on Finance this notion was summarized by saying that we must not sell the house to pay the mortgage.

Since first assuming office in 1993 our government has maintained that after we managed to remove the red ink from the national balance sheet we would begin to tackle the problem of the debt and that we would expand upon our commitment to reinvest in valuable social programs, youth and skills development.

To that end, this year the budget theme is building Canada for the 21st century a strong economy and a secure society. Financially speaking we are now in a position to begin to reap at least some of the benefits accumulated as a dividend of over four years of belt tightening.

Along with balancing the books this government has once again resisted the urge to increase personal income taxes. Quite to the contrary, we have provided at least some form of tax relief to nearly 14 million low and middle income Canadians. This was done by reducing or eliminating entirely the 3% federal surtax for individuals who have income levels of less than $65,000 per year.

We have also increased the basic personal tax exemption by $500 and we have earmarked another $850 million to enhance the child tax benefit. This is in addition to the various other tax credits and new exemptions that were announced on budget day.

I know that many of our colleagues claim we did not go far enough with our tax reduction strategy. To those people I would say that if reducing or eliminating federal income tax for 90% of the current taxpayers does not constitute real tax relief, then what does?

In the 1997 election the Liberals committed that it was our goal to, after a zero deficit had been achieved, put the debt to GDP ratio on a permanent downward track. Without question we have done just that. It should be noted that in 1995 the aforementioned ratio was hovering at almost 72%. By the turn of the century, it will sit at approximately 63%, nearly a 10% decrease in five short years.

In addition to that, we have managed to broker a new three year agreement with the Bank of Canada that will see a continuation of the inflation control targets. This agreement promises to keep the national rate of inflation inside the range of 1% to 3%.

The objectives of this monetary policy are simple: to contribute to sustainable expansion, to support high levels of employment and a rising standard of living. These I believe are goals that every Canadian can support.

In addition to tax breaks for those who need them the most, in addition to balancing the books into the next millennium and in addition to cutting the cost of running the government, we have also begun to reinvest in education and health. Time and time again these have been clearly identified as national priority areas.

This budget announced measures designed to address the mounting problem of student debt and unemployment. To this end I believe that the $2.5 billion millennium scholarship fund, the 17% of student tax credit, the EI premium holiday for small businesses that hire students and the increase to the RESP levels will go a long way.

I agree there are still unsolved problems facing us, however this budget represents a positive first step. Rome was not built in a day. And who are we to think that a country as great as this one can be repaired with one budget?

Canadians can be proud today. Together we have achieved what seemed impossible only four years ago. Fundamental problems have caused a fundamental change in the way that government operates. The days of wasteful overspending and foolish megaprojects are gone forever. They have been replaced by an era of strategic investment and co-operative partnerships.

We can argue the pros and cons of this budget until the cows come home but the facts are obvious. The business community has begun to once again regain its lost faith in the state of Canada's finances.

Since 1993 interest rates have dropped to record lows, consumer confidence has increased and our economy has begun to grow in leaps and bounds. In fact the latest projections place Canada in the best financial shape of all the G-7 nations.

This House is divided into five officially recognized political parties each applying a somewhat different philosophy and different agenda. As Liberals we have a very long history of fostering a strong sense of community responsibility. Canadians view many of our social programs as defining national characteristics. I am happy to hear that the 1998 budget reaffirms our continuing commitment to many of these core programs.

This budget clearly recognizes the need to stay the course with respect to fiscal prudence. Indeed this budget does many positive things. However its real strength comes from what it does not do. What it does not do is lose sight of the values that we as a country hold in the highest regard.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his remarks.

One of the policy changes announced in this budget was an increase in the child care tax deduction from $5,000 to $7,000. The minister has claimed that this is an indication of the government's commitment to children.

This increase in the child care tax deduction merely increases the unfairness and inequity faced by single income families who choose to care for their children at home. They have access to no tax deduction for their at home child care even though they are forgoing a second income. They also do not have the opportunity to split their incomes and take advantage of all of the deductions and exemptions in the tax system.

I wonder if the hon. member could comment on whether or not he supports this increase in the inequity with respect to single income families proposed in this budget.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for that question. It allows me the opportunity to expand on what I believe is an inequity in terms of how we deal with the families that have a spouse who remains within the home to take care of their own children.

As I said earlier this budget has not addressed every inequity in the country. To me, families are the highest priority we have. If children could find support in their mothers and fathers as we believe they should, we would probably find that we would have fewer social problems.

It is certainly my wish that in future budgets we address this whole issue of accommodating a tax credit for those spouses who stay home to look after their children. It hardly seems fair that someone can take care of my children and I can take care of someone else's children and we are given a tax credit.

We have begun the process. The process has a long way to go. It will be my commitment to this House to ensure that members on this side of the House at least understand the inequities. I will ensure that the minister responsible will be told of this. Hopefully we can address this in next year's budget.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, coming back to the matter of education, more specifically the millennium scholarships, the member for Huron—Bruce touted this fund as one of the obvious pluses of the budget. But not everyone, even in English Canada, agrees with this initiative. I quote from an article by John Trent, a professor of political science at the University of Ottawa, who says:

“The $2.5 billion Canadian millennium scholarship foundation announced in Tuesday's budget amounts to a rape of federalism. It is also politically egocentric, administratively inept and strategically stupid. Moreover it is unnecessary”.

Mr. Trent points out what many have said about the millennium scholarships. Basically, the government's strategy is once again to boost its visibility, but it is also determined to impose another administrative system on Quebec, and to do so in a clearly provincial jurisdiction.

Does the member agree or not that introducing a federal system of scholarships and loans adds an additional layer of administration to the existing provincial system? Does he, or does he not, agree that this amounts to interference in provincial jurisdiction?

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the simple answer is no, I do not agree with the hon. member's assumptions that we have interfered in provincial areas of educational responsibilities.

The kind of rhetoric I heard just a moment ago even if it came from a man as he has just mentioned does not surprise me. We hear that kind of rhetoric in this House. I am surprised that people in the position this gentleman is referring to would allude to such rhetoric, because I believe what we have attempted to do is to assist those who are being educated in our society. We are creating an incentive for them to go on to further education. We are doing this aside from the programs that are already in place through normal scholarships.

I do not believe that the students of today are the ones who are using this kind of rhetoric. I am rather appalled that we would find people in this House saying this, because we have not. We have made this fund available to Canadians everywhere in Canada, including the province of Quebec.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member for Huron—Bruce has heard from constituents and knows that for many Canadians there is deep disappointment about the absence in this budget of any new funds for health care transfers. He knows undoubtedly that we have a critical situation in every part of this country with overcrowded emergency wards. People are suffering because they cannot get the service they need. Hospitals are under so much stress.

Is the member for Huron—Bruce aware of any plans the government may have for starting to reinvest in health care and starting to put some money into the health care transfer payment system? Would he have any idea when we can expect to see the government's millennium budget for health care?

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member would understand if she had read her budget that we have already applied $1.5 billion in further transfers to the CHST.

Living in the province of Ontario I am quite aware of the kinds of arguments that are being made. I sympathize with those who are finding health services at a premium these days. The province of Ontario says the reason we are short is because the federal government has made cuts. What the people are not being told, and I can only speak for the province of Ontario as that is where I come from, is that the 30% the province is giving back in tax reductions only apply to those who are paying tax. The ones who are getting the most back are the ones who pay the most taxes and who need it the least. If the province had applied that, the province would have four times the amount of money related to the amount of money that we have withdrawn from health services.

I would suggest that if Ontario and other provinces want to complain, they had better look at how they are doing their own books and be more insightful in those areas.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. It being almost 2.00 p.m. the House will now proceed to Statements by Members.

Commonwealth Day

[Bob Speller, Liberal, Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in this House as chair of the Canadian branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to draw the attention of my hon. colleagues that today is Commonwealth Day. This important event is celebrated annually on the second Monday in March to mark the establishment of the modern Commonwealth.

Our nation has benefited greatly from its membership in the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth stands as a symbol of international co-operation and it is a model for all nations to work together in friendship.

The theme of Her Majesty's Commonwealth Day message is “Sport Bringing Us Together”. Apart from more formal contacts between governments, the Commonwealth provides many special links between its members, one of those being through sport.

The Commonwealth Games which are being held in September in Malaysia are indeed known as the friendly games and for good reason. This great sporting event will bring together people from every background proudly representing their countries, competing for the love of their sport and with only one goal, to be the best that they can be.

I hope all members and Canadians will join with me in wishing our Commonwealth friends peace and happiness.

International Women's Day

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday was International Women's Day, an occasion to recognize the many women who have had an impact in Canada and abroad.

Women like Mary Ann Schadd, the first black newspaper women in North America and Charlotte Ross, one of the first female doctors in Canada, achieved success and recognition because of their abilities, their perseverance and their determination. These women were pioneers at a time when women were not even recognized as persons in the British North America Act. Even today many women around the world are denied their rights as individuals and this must be a concern to all.

Today I am pleased to recognize all women who have made valuable contributions to society as mothers, doctors, scientists, businesswomen and politicians.

Quebec Flag

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, fifty years ago, Quebec adopted the fleur-de-lis as our provincial flag. Two years later, on March 9, 1950, Quebec's legislative assembly passed a bill giving this decision the force of law. It is this anniversary that I wish to remember today.

Quebec has seen many changes in the last fifty years. It has moved ahead with great speed in all areas. Over the years, people from all four corners of the globe have come to Quebec and played a role in making our province what it is today.

It has become a modern, dynamic and outward-looking society. As the new millennium approaches, Quebec has everything it needs to continue on this course.

The fleur-de-lis is obviously a reminder of the francophone identity that runs through our province's history, but it is also a rallying symbol for all Quebeckers.

I look to it with pride in my beautiful riding, in my identity as a Quebecker and as a Canadian. It is my belief that, in the future, the fleur-de-lis and the maple leaf will continue to fly side by side.

Women Hockey

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday was International Women's Day, a day when women around the world marched for equality. It is with this in mind that I rise to pay tribute to women's hockey in Canada.

For most of us fans, the debut of women's hockey at the Nagano olympics showed that hockey is not only a man's sport. The world championship Team Canada with Cassie Campbell, Lesley Reddon and Jayna Hefford of Mississauga proved that by bringing home an olympic silver medal.

Most of the credit for the success of women's hockey must go to the Mississauga based Ontario Women's Hockey Association. As the only organization of its kind in the world, it was the driving force behind the establishment of the World Women's Hockey Championship and can take a great deal of credit for the inclusion of women's hockey in Nagano.

No tribute to women's hockey would be complete without mention of Mayor Hazel McCallion who earned $5 a game playing professional women's hockey in the forties. As an active member of the board of directors, she has remained a strong advocate of the sport and was a key force on the road to the olympics. All Canadians can take pride in the achievements of Canada's women hockey players.

Young Offenders

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to mourn the death of Sandor Nyerges, a veteran of the two world wars.

He was deaf, mute, 80 years old and lived alone. My constituent was left with the loss of his eyesight, hundreds of stitches in his head and body, a broken nose and he suffered two heart attacks following a beating. He was a victim of a ferocious beating that led to his death. The alleged assailant has a long record as a young offender.

We have urged this Liberal government since 1993 to get tough on crime. The Liberals are dragging their feet and sitting on their hands while seniors remain targets of violence day after day after day.

My constituents and I are furious. When will the Liberal's defend and protect our citizens? When will the Liberal's stand up for Canadians? Why was this freedom fighter not free from crime? Fix the Young Offenders Act.

International Women's Week

[Paul Bonwick, Liberal, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians join the world this week in celebrating International Women's Week.

The origins of International Women's Week can be traced back to labour strikes of 1857 and 1908. Conditions were overcrowded, dangerous and wages were paid more to men than they were to women.

This week communities of Simcoe—Grey and across Canada will be celebrating International Women's Week by giving their support and participation to a variety of special events. Further, the National Film Board of Canada is hosting a series of films this week highlighting issues affecting women's lives.

I pay tribute to all Canadian women and particularly those honoured Saturday evening at the annual Georgian Bay Fruit Growers Association where over 200 constituents came together to thank these women for their considerable contribution to the agricultural industry. Women have come far in their battle for equality but we must reflect on how far we also still have to go.

On behalf of my Liberal colleagues, I say hats off to women all over this world. Your sacrifice and contribution are appreciated.

Rail Transport

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in yesterday's edition of La Presse , an article by journalist Camille Beaulieu of Rouyn-Noranda appeared under the following headline: “Study predicts the end of regional rail services”.

The profitability of the railway system, the environment, road safety, competition, and even the survival of several plants and the development of new businesses will be compromised in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, Haute-Mauricie and Abitibi regions if Quebec extends to these regions the changes in load limits for road trains, or tractors towing two trailers, implemented elsewhere in Quebec in June 1997.

The study showed that increasing the limit from 59 to 62.5 metric tonnes may jeopardize the viability of railway lines in areas where traffic volumes will drop below the critical level. The remaining customers, those for whom railway service is clearly valuable, may be hard hit.

Quebec transport minister Jacques Brassard should be advised that the people of Quebec want a public debate on his road train load reform as it applies to these regions.

The Senate

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what are the qualifications required to become a Canadian senator?

Well, here they are. First, lose an election or, better yet, lose two elections. Chances are you will be a shoo-in for a Senate appointment and who better to represent the people than the candidate who people rejected at the polls.

Another way is to have blatant political connections, for example, working for a Liberal MP, or better yet, having the Prime Minister work for you and offering the Prime Minister a good deal on your company shares or co-chairing the Prime Minister's leadership campaign or chairing an election campaign or arranging candidate nominations.

Do your duty for the Liberals and you will be rewarded. So, Joan Cook of Newfoundland and Ross Fitzpatrick of B.C., come on down. Your seat in patronage heaven is assured.

Commonwealth Day

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

Mr. Speaker, today is Commonwealth Day. It is a day to remember, celebrate and learn about the Commonwealth.

Since 1949 the second Monday in March was chosen to be the day when member countries around the world would observe their association as Commonwealth members.

The modern Commonwealth recognizes the Queen as head of the Commonwealth while being republics, indigenous monarchies, sultanates, elected chieftaincies or as realms. Canada plays an important role as a member of the Commonwealth.

Building partnership and mutual respect among a community of nations takes effort. Celebrating and observing Commonwealth Day is a strong symbol of this effort. Happy Commonwealth Day to all parliamentarians in the Commonwealth.

International Women's Day

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on this day celebrating the place and role of women in our society, I would like to add my voice to theirs.

During the recent conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina, rape was widespread and it was used as a veritable weapon of war. To judge those who committed these atrocities, the international community established an international criminal court. For the first time in history, rape, one horrendous act among many, will be considered a war crime.

But while charges have been laid against them and their whereabouts are known, the alleged offenders have yet to be arrested, in spite of the fact that security forces from several countries, including Canada, are participating in the SFOR operations. This complacent attitude has lasted long enough.

I sincerely hope that those who committed rape will be arrested. I also hope that the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of National Defence will encourage SFOR to participate more actively in arresting criminals so that justice can be done for all women.