Debates of May 6th, 1998

Holidays Act

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the debate on Sir Wilfrid Laurier's contribution to our history.

I had hoped to do so in a non political fashion, as a Canadian recognizing the contribution of an eminent Canadian to our history.

However, before beginning, I must make a quick correction. In her speech, a few minutes ago, the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis said that the Canadians of the time were today's Quebeckers, when she referred to a well researched document which I respect, even though I do not share the views of its author. This is not quite accurate because, at the time, the term Canadians referred to all francophones in America, in Canada, and did not just include those we now call Quebeckers.

Some 12 or 15 months ago, I attended a meeting with history teachers and I asked them point blank who, in their opinion, had been the best Prime Minister in the history of Canada. The answer to such a question requires one to think for a moment. However, two of the teachers spontaneously said it was probably Wilfrid Laurier. I asked them why. The first answer that came from one of the teachers was Laurier's sense of compromise.

It goes without saying that no political career can be perfect. Politicians face unavoidable obstacles. Their decisions may be arguable, but it is the spirit of compromise shown by Laurier, and by others, but particularly by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, that led to the building of a country which, while it may not be perfect, is nevertheless the envy of many.

Canada was built on compromise, on honourable compromise that was respectful of the other party. This is not just a philosophy or a concept: it is also reflected by concrete measures, such a equalization.

There are many writers, musicians, artists and authors who did not get the recognition they deserved in their day. The same is true for—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I must leave the remaining two and a half minutes to the member for Oak Ridges.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the members who spoke to my bill today. It does not ask for a statutory holiday but a day of recognition.

My colleagues spoke of other very notable people who could be recognized. The major difference is that Laurier was a prime minister and certainly the father of Canadian independence.

It is said that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. If one does not understand the past one has no concept of the present and is unable to contemplate the future. By recognizing and promoting Laurier Day, November 20, is to give Canadians a sense of who they are.

As my colleague has just said, the spirit of the country was built on compromise. The spirit of the country was built by Canadians working together, the settling of the west, because of Laurier and because of men of vision.

It is important that we as Canadians in the House look to that inspiration. By proclaiming November 20 we are able to point to this day and tell our young people how important Laurier was as a nation builder. Then, as we go into the next century, we will have a good understanding of what it means to be Canadian, the glue that brings us together as a people. That is extremely important.

I thank my colleagues for the debate and seek the pleasure of the Chair to make the bill votable.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is there unanimous consent of the House to make the bill votable?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. This item is dropped from the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Jean Dubé, Progressive Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, on March 17, I asked the Minister of Finance why he continued to discourage people from saving for retirement.

I explained to the House that a number of financial experts were discouraging middle class Canadians over 50 from investing in RRSPs. With the new seniors benefit, the money they save today will not make up for the tax they will have to pay later.

This is only one of the weaknesses in the seniors benefit the Minister of Finance announced over two years ago.

Many have been critical of it. Here are some of their concerns. With current marginal tax rates, the recovery of 20% of income over $26,000 means that middle income seniors would have a marginal income tax rate of 60% to 70%.

Middle income Canadians will no longer have anything to gain by saving for their old age. Seniors choosing to remain in the labour market will discover they are keeping only 30% of their salary.

When the income of a couple entitles them to the benefit, the husband and the wife will each receive a cheque, but the wife's entitlement to a pension will depend on the husband's income.

A study commissioned by the Canadian Real Estate Association also revealed that seniors who live alone and who have an income exceeding $31,000 will see their financial situation deteriorate, as well as couples with a total income of $26,000.

When there is an increase from the present situation, that increase will not exceed $120 a year in most cases. However, middle income seniors could lose from $3,000 to $7,000 a year compared to what they are getting under the present system.

Even middle income seniors who choose to stay with the old system will pay more taxes since the age credit and the pension benefit credit will be abolished when the new seniors benefit is implemented.

Indeed, with the implementation of the seniors benefit, the Liberals propose to abolish the old age pension, the pension benefit credit, the age credit and the guaranteed income supplement.

They are still refusing to provide a thorough analysis of the impact of these measures on tomorrow's retirees.

Instead of encouraging individual responsibility, the proposed benefit will discourage everybody from saving for their retirement, except for the wealthiest people. It will also prompt a lot of seniors to get out of the labour force since they would keep only 30% of their salary.

The Progressive Conservative Party intends to force the government to fully disclose to Canadians the financial impact of the proposed seniors benefit. Canadians of all ages must understand the consequences of this new benefit.

We must prevent the government from destroying the foundations of our national retirement income system.

I encourage all Canadians to write to their respective MPs to express their opposition to the new seniors benefit proposed by the finance minister and to tell the minister to get his hands out of their pockets.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, I rise in response to my colleague's intervention regarding the seniors benefit and the Canadian pension system at large.

The government has actually stabilized the nation's pension system in terms of the Canada pension plan. As well we are moving forward in terms of the seniors benefit and providing security and access to income for seniors. This is very responsible.

While the hon. member continued to discuss issues of partisan politics, I point out that the government actually stabilized the system after years of neglect under a previous administration by another prime minister.

The government is committed to developing the best policy for the public pension system and the whole retirement income system in Canada. That is why we took time last fall to consult extensively with seniors groups, social groups and pension industry experts on the proposed seniors benefit.

Meetings were held from coast to coast. We listened carefully to the issues that were raised and to the concerns that were expressed. We took time to consult with Canadians because it is important that the government be fully aware of the concerns and views of seniors. The pension industry and other interested parties also have points of view that we took into consideration.

We have done that and now we are reviewing the proposal based on what we heard from Canadians. That is the reason an announcement has been delayed on the seniors benefit issue. We are making every effort to ensure that the concerns of Canadians are reflected in our proposed policy for the retirement income system.

Members on these benches are listening intently to different ideas and to different positions on the pension system and the seniors benefit. I mention, for example, the member for Hillsborough who has done an admirable job working directly with the Minister of Finance on the issue as recently as today.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to put a few more words on record with regard to the hepatitis C package.

We know the federal, provincial and territorial health ministers are to meet next week to re-examine the package. We know the package is flawed. The government is very arbitrarily leaving innocent victims in an strict and totally artificial timeframe from 1986 to 1990 outside the package. I believe we have to compensate all victims.

The point I want to make this evening is simply in response to what the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health said today. I am a bit concerned because I do not think they have learned anything from the debate that has taken place and the displeasure expressed by Canadians from coast to coast to coast for the package as it presently exists.

They are basically saying that they will not change anything. If one listens to today's language of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health, that is exactly what they are saying. Why are they to meet with the health ministers if they are to stick to the original package? What is to be accomplished by that type of stance?

The Prime Minister today tried to twist the words of the premier of the province of Ontario and his recognition of the problem. What I have in my hand is the letter that was sent to the Prime Minister yesterday by the Premier of Ontario.

I want to quote from the second paragraph of the letter. The Premier of Ontario, Premier Harris, states “Ontario is committed to sharing assistance for pre-1986 victims on the same basis as the existing package for those infected between 1986 and 1990”. How much plainer can you be than that? The Prime Minister today stood in the House and tried to twist the words of the premier, but those words are on paper.

What I am saying is that I think he has taken the most reasonable approach that we could possibly take. He is committing dollars to innocent victims left outside the package. The Prime Minister is denying that. He stood in the House today and denied it. There is something wrong when the Prime Minister of Canada cannot accept responsibility for innocent victims and a botched plan on behalf of his health minister.

They are being sacrificed by the finance minister. The only person taking great pleasure in this package is the finance minister. He sits over there with a big cheshire cat grin on his face every time we debate this. Unfortunately it is politics being played out on the front benches of the Liberal government.

The responsibility for Canada's blood supply system falls totally and completely at the doorstep of the federal health minister. The federal government is responsible. What I am asking it to do is to act unilaterally because, unfortunately, not all of the provinces are rich. Not all of the provinces can afford to give more to that package.

As I conclude I want to put this on the record. Is the health minister willing to swallow himself whole to make this package work?

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, in response to the hon. member's comments regarding the hepatitis C package and his interpretation of the federal-provincial process involved in these particularly difficult negotiations, I simply would like to point out that if there has been any twisting of words it has been by the hon. member.

What this House understands and what the people of Canada understand extremely well and very thoroughly is that it was the Government of Canada and this health minister that provided an opportunity for health ministers and premiers from across the country to come to the conclusion that where there was fault there should be compensation.

Let me make this very clear. While the hon. member from the Conservative Party holds up a letter from the Conservative premier of Ontario stating that now he has seen the light and is prepared to initiate an action, I would like the hon. member to stand and say specifically where the hon. premier was in the last 12 months.

While no other premier, no other health minister in this country was willing to stand to support a compensation package to bring the parties to the table, this health minister was. This health minister, despite the objections of some, brought the parties together and came up with a deal.

That deal was signed and put in place by premiers and by health ministers from across the country, representing not just Liberals, not just Conservatives, but New Democrats, separatists—members from all parties and all walks of life.

Now we have a change of heart. We have members who are now suggesting they have seen the light and they want to twist the words of their colleague, the premier of Ontario. We have nothing to learn from Mr. Harris or from the hon. members opposite.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, on April 2 in this House, I put a question to the Prime Minister about the implementation of a real shipbuilding policy. It was the hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Industry who answered my question and I guess he will be the one answering again today.

I then reminded the House that the Liberal candidates in the Quebec City area, including the Prime Minister's current chief of staff, had promised to hold a summit on the future of shipbuilding in Canada in the year following the election and coming into office of a Liberal government. Here we are in 1998, five years later, and no summit has been held.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Industry, I have suggested several times this year that the committee address the issue of a shipbuilding policy. I have written to the Prime Minister and asked questions in this House.

The last time he appeared before the Standing Committee on Industry, the minister finally told me he might have done something in terms of subsidies but, since he has no intention of doing anything, he steered me off in a different direction.

The parliamentary secretary seemed to indicate in his response that all was well in the shipbuilding industry. Yet, the Canadian shipbuilding association, which represents Canada's leading shipyards, has been asking the government for a year to implement a number of measures.

First, an improved export financing and loan guarantee program similar to the Title XI program in the United States.

Second, the exemption of new ships built in Canadian shipyards from Revenue Canada's current leasing regulations.

Third, a refundable tax credit for Canadian shipbuilders and ship owners who enter into contracts to build ships or conversion contracts involving a change in roles, mid-life refit or major refit.

Fourth, the elimination of the unilateral aspects of NAFTA which allow the Americans to sell new or used ships to Canada while denying Canadians any access to the American market.

These are but four measures. Others could also be taken. For example, in its 1997 budget, the Quebec government introduced tax credits for any type of shipbuilding and, 12 months later, extended these credits to drilling rigs. For the Lévis shipyard in particular, this is a very important niche in the market.

I conclude with the hope that the parliamentary secretary will be able to provide me with more information. What are the Liberal government's plans? Does it plan to follow up on its 1993 promise to hold a summit? Or, failing that, could the Standing Committee on Industry or the Standing Committee on Finance study the matter, as Liberal delegates requested at the last Liberal Party convention here in Ottawa less than two months ago? They too asked the government to do this, following similar requests by the premiers at their meeting in St. Andrew's last fall.

I ask the parliamentary secretary: When the government will honour its promises?

[Walt Lastewka, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. member for Lévis has given me the opportunity to speak on the subject of federal shipbuilding policy. I appreciate some of his concerns.

Let me first say that most Canadian shipyards are generally in good shape, providing repair and refit services and some new construction to the commercial marine market and government fleets.

However, Canada is only one of many players in shipbuilding internationally. We must recognize that fact and ensure that our industry is geared to realistic market opportunities. That is why between 1986 and 1993 the federal government spent nearly $200 million on an industry-led rationalization process. The industry itself decided it was necessary to reduce its capacity so that the remaining shipyards could survive and remain competitive.

I must also stress that this government already has a shipbuilding policy. It consists of support to the industry in the form of the following measures and the Minister of Industry has repeated them over and over in this House: domestic procurement by the federal government for all its ship construction and repair requirements where it is feasible to do so; a 25% tariff on most non-NAFTA foreign built ships; an accelerated capital cost allowance of 33.3% on new ships built in Canada, which many other sectors have requested; financing through the Export Development Corporation for commercially viable transactions; and a favourable R and D tax credit system that encourages shipbuilders to keep pace with new technology.

I work with various shipbuilding and repair companies. I encourage them to become more and more competitive, but subsidies are not an answer.

In summary, this government is now and always has been supportive of the shipbuilding industry and we will continue to encourage its development.

[Louise Hardy, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, since 1995 Elijah Smith reforestation funds have been collected and deposited in the consolidated revenue fund but they have not been available for reforestation in Yukon. The federal government has recognized that the process is not transparent or workable. The President of the Treasury Board says that it is necessary to amend the Territorial Lands Act to establish a separate account in the Accounts of Canada for reforestation in Yukon. It is unfortunate that it has taken so long to initiate this process.

At the same time Canada is in the process of devolving provincial like powers to Yukon. Considering that the federal government proposes that the Yukon government assume responsibility for the administration and control of lands, forest, water and mineral resources, I call on the government to modernize the Yukon Act so it is consistent with the powers currently exercised by the Yukon government and the powers to be conferred on the new territory of Nunavut.

The department of Indian affairs currently manages the inventory of Yukon forests. Rather than amending the Territorial Lands Act to open a separate account for reforestation, the federal government will better serve the people of Yukon by modernizing the Yukon Act so it is consistent with the devolution objectives and gives the provincial powers needed for Yukon to manage its own forestry.

[George Proud, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Madam Speaker, on April 23 the hon. member asked a question about the Elijah Smith reforestation fund, in particular about the disbursement of the funds once deposited.

Since 1995 Yukon timber harvesters have been contributing to the cost of reforestation in Yukon. I assure the hon. member that reforestation activities have occurred. In 1995, 100,000 seedlings were planted. This number increased to 480,000 in 1996 and 800,000 in 1997. Other reforestation activities have also occurred such as the collection of pine and spruce cones and the purchase of site preparation equipment.

When the 1995 regulations were implemented the disbursement mechanism was put in place. Under the mechanism revenues from Yukon reforestation fees are deposited in the CRF. INAK is authorized to draw into its budget an amount equivalent to the value of the revenues deposited.

However we recognize that the current process of collecting and disbursing funds to reforestation could be more transparent to the residents of Yukon, particularly to timber harvesters.

To this end Treasury Board people have been working with INAK to establish a more transparent process. To do so legislation must be created, and this is consistent with the requirements of the Financial Administration Act.

INAK is currently working on a proposal to amend the Territorial Lands Act which would include a provision to establish a separate account in the Accounts of Canada. This would enable the collection and distribution of funds for reforestation to be tracked publicly. We hope to put this in place as quickly as possible with the co-operation of parliament.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 5.55 p.m.)