Debates of April 23rd, 1998

Banking

[Denis Paradis, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express concern about the impact a potential bank merger could have on ever increasing bank charges.

When I toured the 42 municipalities in my riding of Brome—Missisquoi, my fellow citizens told me they were outraged by bank charges. Today, I am proud to have the written support of 163 colleagues, a majority of members, on all sides of this House, for the bank charges bill I introduced on February 4.

Together, we represent more than 16 million Canadians and numerous small and medium size businesses. Next Monday, our Liberal caucus committee will be meeting in Montreal to hear witnesses on the banking situation. I will report back.

Young Offenders Act

[Jim Pankiw, Reform, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, surprise, surprise. The bleeding heart liberals have no heart to get tough on crime.

In typical Liberal fashion the minister is sitting on the fence with her changes to the Young Offenders Act waiting to see which way the political winds blow. Meanwhile violent teens continue on their merry, destructive way with full knowledge that if the law ever catches up with them, they will be treated with kid gloves.

“Kids” do not murder or commit violent assaults, but the Liberals treat these criminals as harmless children. We need immediate amendments to the Young Offenders Act that hold violent youth responsible for their actions and which act as a strong deterrent.

Reform MPs have organized a public meeting on the Young Offenders Act to be held on May 5 in Saskatoon.

Residents in my home province have lost complete faith in the youth justice system. Canadians have lost faith in this justice minister who has no stomach to do what is right.

Lantz Elementary School

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

Mr. Speaker, the trickle down effect of the finance minister's financial agenda is being felt by students and parents in Hants county in my riding. After making education and the millennium scholarship fund the central issue of this year's budget, the finance minister has cut transfers to Nova Scotia by $25 million.

The students of the Lantz Elementary School in Hants county are feeling the effects of these past cutbacks. Over 220 students are sitting at home today because the carbon monoxide level in their school is seven times higher than the recommended level.

It is all too easy for federal politicians to dismiss such cases as a provincial problem because it is education. It is easy to cut in Ottawa where there is no tangible evidence of the impact of these cuts, but the impact is in Hants county today when those students sit at home because of the callousness of this federal Liberal government and the callousness of the Minister of Finance.

The health of these students today should take precedence over the promise of a scholarship in three years.

Hepatitis C

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, some issues are just too big for partisan politics. Moral questions are bigger than any party. They are bigger than any prime minister. Questions like abortion, capital punishment or euthanasia. The question of abandoning hepatitis C victims falls into this exact same category.

I want to ask a question of the government, not as one MP to another but as one human being to another. Let me ask the Minister of Health why the government will not let its MPs vote according to their conscience on this motion of compensation.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is very simple. The Reform Party is asking members of the House to vote non-confidence in the policies of the government and non-confidence in the policies of the 10 provincial governments.

The federal government and the 10 provinces have joined together in a decision on policy and the Reform Party is asking the people of the House of Commons to vote against that decision.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is simply nonsense.

The Liberal member for Cambridge has said that he would vote with the victims on this matter, not against the government, and he is absolutely right.

I give the Prime Minister and all of his MPs my personal pledge that the official opposition will not treat this as a confidence motion. In fact the opposite is true. We will congratulate the government and say that it is doing what is right, that is the issue of compensating victims. That is what we care about.

I ask if the official opposition is not treating this as a confidence motion why should the government.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, why is it that in almost every vote in the House on government measures, and with one or two exceptions on private members' measures, the Reform Party has voted as a single group? Let us have some explanations on that.

It is not simply a matter of what the hon. lady says at this time. It is a matter of what a vote amounts to in a fundamental way. She is asking and her party is asking members of the House to vote against not only the federal government but all the provincial governments.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is not our view on this. The government House Leader, in the 1993 red book, included these words: “Parties in this House must have ample opportunity to place before parliament their alternatives for free and open debate and decision without artificial applications of non-confidence doctrine”. He went on to say that opposition motions should not be treated as confidence motions unless they were explicitly advised of such.

Again I want to ask the government to do the right thing and answer this question. If the official opposition is not treating this as a confidence motion why should the government?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, can we turn things around and if members of the opposition say a measure is a confidence measure we could totally ignore the way they are speaking?

What they are saying does not make sense. In so far as putting measures before the House for free and open debate, that is exactly what is happening today. That is what is happening on every measure. Let us have the debate. Let us have the vote.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, which Liberal said this: “When there are resolutions, as there are today involving victims rights, members of this party vote as they see fit?” That was the current health minister in 1996.

He was talking about exactly the same type of motion in the House, an opposition motion. Just what caused him to change his tune?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that debate was about something completely different. It was about the criminal justice system and the rights of victims before the courts.

In all that these hon. members have said today and in the past about this issue there is one question with which they refuse to come to grips because it is the most difficult question of all, namely, can we sustain public health care in the country if we make cash payments to all of those who are harmed, regardless of fault, through risks inherent in the health system.

They will not come to grips with that question but Canada's 12 ministers of health faced it and decided that what was right.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister, the House leader and the health minister all know that this is not a confidence vote.

This is a vote about whether or not every victim of hepatitis C from tainted blood should receive fair and just compensation. I can hardly believe that they will hang their whole process on a vote of confidence.

Nobody, not a single party in the House, will treat this as a confidence motion. I have given the government my personal guarantee of that.

Why then shall the government cause this to be a confidence motion?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister has just made a real revelation. The uniting of all the parties, not just of the right but of the NDP, has suddenly taken place. This is something the press should grasp. It is a big revelation.

At the end of the day we are being asked to vote against the position of the government, a considered position taken as a matter of discussion and agreement with all 10 provincial governments. The hon. member is asking us to vote against Premier Klein of Alberta, against Premier Harris of Ontario, against Premier Filmon of Manitoba and against all other provincial premiers.

[The Speaker]

When members ask questions courtesy would dictate that we listen to the questions and answers. I encourage you to do so.

Professional Sports

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

Mr. Speaker, the heritage subcommittee is currently looking at sports funding in Canada.

This morning, we learned that the government would be favourable to a tax deal for subsidizing professional sports teams.

Does the heritage minister find it normal, when millions of dollars are being cut from health and the federal government is refusing to compensate hepatitis C victims, that thought is being given to a tax deal with sports millionaires?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, the government has never taken such a position. I do, however, have some respect for a House subcommittee on which all parties are represented, including the Bloc Quebecois, that has one member.

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

Mr. Speaker, we too have great respect for the committee, but certain statements have been made by certain people on the government side.

Yesterday, we welcomed olympic athletes here who managed to win medals, in spite of meager government funding.

How can the Minister of Canadian Heritage justify her government's thinking of subsidizing professional athletes, who earn millions yearly, when it provides amateur athletes who bring back medals a mere $5,700 annually, on average?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, once again, we can see just how bankrupt the Bloc Quebecois has become.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Hamilton East, ON]

We know that a committee is looking at a rather important issue. We know the entire community in Quebec City was upset to lose the Nordiques .

What is happening now is that a House committee, comprised of government and opposition MPs, including one from the Bloc Quebecois, is trying to look at how we can keep hockey here in Canada. I trust that they are going to be join in and make some good recommendations and that they are going—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

The U.S. ambassador to Canada recently said that, if we wanted to keep professional sports teams from leaving the country, all we had to do was follow their example and provide teams with all sorts of funding to keep them home.

Will the minister admit that the real problem is that this American funding of professional sports constitutes unfair competition and that the real solution would be to lodge a complaint under NAFTA against such competition?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I think that a committee is looking at a number of issues. One thing I know is that the member herself has had an opportunity to speak with the former president of the Nordiques about possible solutions a little while ago.

I hope that everyone will work together to find an answer to this problem, which is of concern to the Montreal Canadiens, as well as all Canadians.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what the minister does not understand is that there is in fact a subcommittee, but members are announcing solutions on television, before we have finished our work.

How can one justify spending public money on teams that pay their players millions of dollars and that, to top it all, refuse to open their books?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I am not always in agreement with the hon. member, but today is an exception.

I think that we must now give the committee a chance to do its work. We are awaiting the report, which will come out in October, and when we have a good report, we will look at the results in order to decide to what extent we can work together to save hockey teams, because hockey is a sport that was created in Canada for Canada. Why not?