House of Commons Hansard #210 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was war.

Topics

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

But there will be no questions or comments.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont, QC

Mr. Speaker, I also thank my colleagues in the House for allowing me to speak to this important issue.

The decision to involve ground troops can be heavy with consequence, and I think we must also not ignore the fact that it could well lead to loss of life. There is no doubt that parliament must be much better informed than it is at the moment before it makes a decision. A true debate must be held before parliamentarians can make an enlightened decision on such a serious matter. Then this debate must necessarily be sanctioned by a vote, which will give the government a clear mandate on the relevance of sending ground troops.

The purpose of the motion put forward by the Bloc Quebecois is not to take a stand on a possible military engagement on the ground in Kosovo, but rather to force the government to have a debate and a vote on this issue in the House should this possibility arise. To avoid thinking about it right now would just postpone a problem we will have to face sooner or later.

It is clear to us that the government cannot claim to have firm democratic approval if it does not have a vote on this issue in the House of Commons. Moreover, without a vote, the position of the various parties carries no real weight. All day, government members avoided taking a stand on this issue claiming it is only a hypothetical question.

First of all, I want to say that, as the situation progresses, the chances of a ground intervention becoming necessary are increasing constantly. Also, even though it is just a hypothetical question, nothing prevents the government from making a commitment today to consult parliamentarians before sending in ground troops. In fact, to us, it is impossible to justify the government's current position, which is simply undemocratic.

Moreover, the government is probably worried that some members or some parties may express their opposition to the deployment of ground troops, which would be perceived as dissension and would send the wrong message to the Yugoslav leaders.

In fact, by acting the way it is acting now, that is by keeping information from the House of Commons and by refusing to let it play an important role, the government forces members and parties to be more and more critical.

If, in fact, members of the House are not informed of diplomatic or military initiatives and if the reasons for decisions made by NATO or the Canadian government are not explained and discussed in the House, this cast doubts in the Bloc members' minds as to the appropriateness of these decisions.

For the government to refuse a vote for misleading reasons would send a negative signal to all members of parliament. That would be denying the House the possibility to play its role and would jeopardize the present consensus.

The government should not be afraid of having a real debate and of answering certain critical questions. It would be stupid to act as though 100% of Quebeckers and Canadians agreed with Canadian participation in the present NATO operation.

In fact, it is important to stress the fact that many Canadians are concerned and critical of the situation. The government must be accountable to them. Taking a serious decision without the consent of parliament would amount to a denial of our democratic system.

I will conclude by saying that our riding offices receive many calls from citizens asking questions. They want their elected representatives to debate the question. They also want their member of parliament to represent them well and, for that, there obviously must be a democratic vote.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

It being 6.22 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt proceedings and put forthwith any question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

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

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

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

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those opposed will please say nay.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

At the request of the chief government whip, the vote on the amendment stands deferred until tomorrow at the conclusion of the time provided for the consideration of Government Orders.

Is it agreed that we proceed with the adjournment proceedings?

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

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

SupplyAdjournment Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

NDP

Gordon Earle NDP Halifax West, NS

Mr. Speaker, the Halifax Herald ran a cartoon in February 1999 of a T-shirt with a slogan “I survived Buchenwald and all I got was this lousy T-shirt”. The caption below refers to the latest efforts from veterans affairs.

Although the experience of 26 prisoners of war is certainly no laughing matter, their treatment by this callous Liberal government is a joke. On February 12, 1999 I asked the Minister of Veterans Affairs to offer these survivors of Buchenwald concentration camp a just and honest settlement. I pointed out to the minister at that time that the compensation paid by this government of barely over $1,000 each was an insult in itself.

The pathetic inability of this government to succeed where others have failed in securing just reparations from the German government is a testament to this government's misplaced priorities.

The minister had the gall to respond that these survivors were delighted. Then he seemed to contradict himself with the next statement, saying that the Canadian government had raised it again with the German chancellor.

A constituent of mine who survived the horrors of the Buchenwald concentration camp sent the cheque back to the Liberal government with the word “refused” across the insulting payoff of $1,098.

The governments of Australia and New Zealand reached a satisfactory settlement with their veterans who faced similar horrors.

These veterans were interned in the Nazi Buchenwald concentration camp instead of a prisoner of war camp where they should have been sent under the Geneva convention. Other governments have had the the ability to convince the German government to provide an appropriate reparation. Our government has failed itself and failed these brave Canadians miserably.

I do not understand the inability of the government to secure a just settlement for these Canadians. Is it a matter of incompetence or simply that the government cares little for the plight of a small handful of 26 veterans?

The Government of the United States recently arrived at an enviable settlement with Germany for United States veterans in a similar position to our veterans. In his letter to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, my constituent William R. Gibson expressed the following sentiments:

I am hopeful that the Government of Canada can still come up with a just and honourable settlement. You may be interested to see that the American government has negotiated a settlement with Germany for its veterans ranging in benefits from $10,000 to $200,000.

Perhaps even more insulting than the cheque to these Canadians from the government were the words of the Minister of Veterans Affairs in his accompanying letter. He said: “I am delighted to be able to close the chapter on this longstanding issue”.

Delighted indeed. It is now over eight years since the plight of these veterans was discussed in the January 1991 report of the subcommittee on veterans affairs entitled “It's Almost Too Late”. Over eight years later I should say that it is almost too late.

This issue was raised again in committee in August 1994 and in letters to the ministers of veterans affairs, defence and foreign affairs in 1997. I have raised this issue time after time for over a year now and the government still admits defeat where other governments have succeeded.

A letter from the office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs to my office admits failure with these words “Canada has embarked on several démarches requesting prisoner of war compensation from Germany, but we have had no success”.

When I attempted to get to the root of the matter in the interest of these veterans, I was told that the Liberal government abjectly refused to make public its correspondence with Germany on this issue. Why is the government afraid of exposing its ineptitude where others have succeeded?

The Liberal government should take this opportunity right now to do the honourable thing and agree before the House and all Canadians that it will immediately begin to negotiate a just settlement with these veterans and commit to succeed in finalizing appropriate negotiations with the German government.

SupplyAdjournment Proceedings

6:25 p.m.

Nipissing Ontario

Liberal

Bob Wood LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs

Mr. Speaker, I am astonished that the hon. member for Halifax West wishes to condemn the government's action on behalf of Canadian veterans held at the Buchenwald concentration camp. Let us get the facts on the table right now.

Some countries, Australia and New Zealand in particular, opted in the 1980s to make a one time payment of $10,000 and $13,000 respectively to their Buchenwald veterans. Canada had already chosen a different path in the mid-1970s.

We opted for the payment of monthly compensation for life with a continuing benefit for the veteran's surviving spouse. Those indexed payments are equivalent to a minimum of $45,000 in today's dollars for each veteran with at least 89 days of captivity. Compensation payments, as in the case with all veterans benefits, are not subject to income tax. If the veteran incurred any disability as a consequence of the imprisonment, that is separately compensated for through disability pension awards which again are tax free.

In terms of the compensation payment announced on December 11, that arose because attempts in the 1980s and 1990s to gain compensation from the German government did not succeed. The Government of Canada therefore decided that these veterans had waited long enough and decided to pay compensation on exactly the same basis as was awarded to the Hong Kong prisoners of war, namely $18 per day of captivity in Buchenwald, although the payments to our Buchenwald vets were considerably less than the payments to our Hong Kong veterans who suffered three and a half years of unspeakable captivity.

A final point is the Minister of Foreign Affairs made it clear on December 11 that the government payment of compensation to the Buchenwald veterans did not close the door for further representation on their behalf to the German government. Those representations were made by the Prime Minister personally to the new chancellor of Germany. The chancellor agreed to look into the question and the Department of Foreign Affairs has been following up on that commitment.

In short, everything has been done that there is to be done right here. I think the hon. member should acknowledge that.

SupplyAdjournment Proceedings

6:30 p.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Mr. Speaker, on February 17, 1999, I asked the following question in the House:

Mr. Speaker, this budget confirms the Minister of Finance's continuing dependency on the EI fund. He is using the surplus in the EI fund to fill his coffers and line the pockets of millionaires. While the minister is paying off his debt on the backs of the unemployed, there is nothing in his budget for those who do not qualify for employment insurance.

I put the question to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Human Resources Development was the one who answered. I asked what was the amount of the surplus in the EI fund.

The minister told me it was $4.9 billion. He went on to add:

However, I am amazed that, on the opposition side, they keep pushing a pitiful and simplistic solution as the best way to help the unemployed, and that is to keep them on EI as much and as long as possible.

We on this side want to give the unemployed hope, a global strategy that will enable them to join the workforce. Unlike members on the other side, we want to give them hope, not dependency.

When it comes to dependency, it is the Minister of Finance who is dependent on employment insurance. Workers who have lost their jobs can no longer rely on it.

Even the Liberal member for Fredericton was reported in Time Transcript as saying “We want him to be generous with the EI system”. The Liberal members said that, after April 12, they would meet with the minister to tell him how badly the EI program was hurting Canadian workers.

They know it hurts and they are even discussing the issue, but they are not ready to discuss with members of the opposition and try to find solutions.

Even the bishop of Moncton said last week in L'Acadie nouvelle that the so-called black hole could not be allowed any longer in southeastern New Brunswick. Across the country, everyone knows that changes to employment insurance have hurt people.

I will briefly give an example. I got a call from a voter in my riding who was part of the Atlantic groundfish strategy. He had accumulated more than 850 hours. He made an application for employment insurance because representatives of the groundfish strategy had told him he was eligible for employment insurance benefits. He was told that, no, he was not, and that he would have to go back on the groundfish strategy. He appealed the decision, but he lost his appeal.

When he returned to the groundfish strategy, he was accepted. Later, he made another application for employment insurance benefits with the number of hours supposedly needed, and was told that there had been a mistake the first time and that he would receive employment insurance benefits. So he received his money, plus the benefits of the groundfish strategy. But he had also worked a certain number of hours.

He found himself in another income bracket, so he now owes Revenue Canada more money than usual.

He tried to have the problem settled at Revenue Canada, but he never succeeded. He was not able to obtain a solution from Human Resources Development Canada nor from anybody else. The system no longer works.

SupplyAdjournment Proceedings

6:30 p.m.

Oakville Ontario

Liberal

Bonnie Brown LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development

Mr. Speaker, the money of which the member speaks belongs to Canadians. Canadians expect us to make intelligent choices in deciding how to spend their money effectively.

We are working to help the unemployed, but we are also committed to investing in health care, skills and higher education, job creation and helping young families through such measures as the Canada child tax benefit and changes to the Income Tax Act.

As well as spending wisely, Canadians want us to report clearly on how their money is being handled. That is why EI funds are tracked openly in a separate column in the government's books, just as the auditor general recommended.

While the EI program covers most people who recently lost their jobs or quit with just cause, there are also many unemployed people looking for their first job or those who have been out of work or out of the labour force for a long time. For these Canadians EI is supported by a number of other programs to help them get a job. For example, there is $2.1 billion for those who need help re-entering the workforce; $155 million to help youth obtain experience; $110 million every year in communities with high unemployment; and $430 million a year with the provinces to help Canadians with disabilities find work.

The careful management of public funds is important, but getting the government's books balanced is just the starting point. Our goal is to help Canadians achieve secure futures through good jobs.

I must remind my hon. friend that unemployment is at an eight year low, at 7.8%, and that the deficit has been eliminated. I hope most Canadians will say that we are going in the right direction.

SupplyAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Jim Jones Progressive Conservative Markham, ON

Mr. Speaker, the federal Liberal government continues to be the number one obstacle to growth in this country. Today we were reading about the latest evidence of Canada's weakening economy. According to an internal federal report, hikes in personal incomes taxes have contributed to a significant decline in the after tax income of Canadians. Stagnant family incomes, a poor middle class and rising poverty were identified as the consequences of Canada's high tax policy. In short, the report concluded that Canadians on average have become poorer in the 1990s.

One of the lesser told stories is the negative impact on the economy brought about by the Liberal government's cost recovery program. There is nothing wrong with a cost recovery program based on reasonable fees, increased efficiency and smarter performance, but credible evidence suggests that the present program is the Liberal government's latest attack on the private sector.

A recent report prepared by the Business Coalition for Cost Recovery, which represents small, medium and large size firms that employ 2.2 million people and contribute $330 billion to the national economy, detailed the devastating impact the federal cost recovery program has had since 1994. Canada's manufacturers have been subject to a massive 153% increase in regulatory fees. User fees charged through cost recovery are among the fastest growing costs of doing business in Canada. The $1.6 billion in regulatory fees charged to businesses in the 1996-97 fiscal year cut Canada's GDP by at least $1.3 billion and cost at least 23,000 Canadian jobs.

The cost recovery fees, as currently structured, are undermining the productivity and international competitiveness of Canadian businesses. For of all the problems caused by cost recovery the government is only gaining 20 cents in revenue for every dollar in fees charged to businesses.

As I have noted on numerous occasions in the House in recent months, if the Liberals were truly concerned about productivity and increased business investment they would have used this budget to place an immediate moratorium on new or increased regulatory fees until a complete overhaul of the cost recovery program were complete. Instead they chose this complicated and inconsistent cost recovery structure that unduly interferes with the very private sector we need to grow for a stronger economy.

These regulations and fees comprise a hidden form of taxation and their excesses need to be curbed to guarantee sustained growth for Canada's economy. I challenge this government to start addressing the root causes of low productivity such as the heavy regulatory burden of the federal cost recovery program.

SupplyAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

St. Catharines Ontario

Liberal

Walt Lastewka LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to the hon. member's question concerning productivity. The available evidence shows that Canadians can improve their productivity performance relative to other major trading partners.

Improving our productivity performance matters because the more efficiently we can combine our resources to produce goods and services, the more easily Canadians can use some of those resources in other areas of endeavour they believe are important to improve their standard of living, including health, education and the environment. For this reason the government is committed to building a stronger, more innovative and more productive economy.

Budget 1999 underlined this commitment by continuing to build the fiscal base for long term growth. It also provides for substantive new investments undertaken in partnership with the private sector in the creation, dissemination and commercialization of knowledge. Just a few examples of these investments are: $200 million for the Canada Foundation for Innovation to build research infrastructure; $60 million over three years to establish smart community demonstration projects that will broaden access to the information highway; and $90 million over three years for the networks of centres of excellence to support partnerships among world class researchers in the private sector.

These and other investments will help improve foreign activity and ultimately our standard of living. They are vital at this time, but they are not the complete answer.

Together we must tackle the multifaceted elements of the productivity challenge, such as strong business investment, research and development performance, the commercialization of innovation and encouraging higher levels of training in areas appropriate for the demands of the new knowledge based economy, and improving our trade performance. We must work together on productivity in the House, in the committees and in our constituencies.

SupplyAdjournment Proceedings

6:40 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Guy Chrétien Bloc Frontenac—Mégantic, QC

Mr. Speaker, I want to condemn an injustice with respect to the former BC Mine workers of Black Lake.

When the BC asbestos mine was closed, on November 1, 1997, 300 workers lost their jobs. Two thirds of them were over 52 years of age.

The Minister of Human Resources Development reacted very timidly to support Quebec asbestos miners with only $4 million, whereas the same minister finds considerable amounts for the miners from Cape Breton in Nova Scotia.

On behalf of the Minister of Human Resources Development, the Minister of National Defence answered this to the question I asked on this issue on March 19, 1999:

In this case a workforce adjustment package of $111 million will be provided to workers with fair severance and early retirement packages.

To the generous $111 million compensation package I just mentioned, $148 million will be added by two other departments, apparently to accelerate Cape Breton's economic expansion.

I condemn this double standard. The people in Black Lake feel the Minister of Human Resources Development is treating them unfairly. The Thetford Mines region feels unfairly treated by the Liberal government of Canada. Quebec is not getting its fair share.

To the $111 million have been added $68 million from economic development and $80 million from the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, for a total of $259 million to the miners of Nova Scotia, while hardly $4 million has been provided for the people of Black Lake, in Quebec.

That is the fairness of this Liberal government. Four million dollars for Quebec, and $259 million for Nova Scotia.

I urge the Minister of Human Resources Development to correct this injustice by reopening the file on the BC Mine workers. Everyone in Canada must be fairly treated. Why $259 million for coal miners in Nova Scotia and only $4 million for asbestos workers at the BC Mine in Black Lake? There is the injustice.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, in response to a question from the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, said earlier that the surplus from the employment insurance fund, which exceeds $20 billion, belongs to everyone, and not only to millionaires. If this money belongs to everyone, a good share of the $20 billion should be given back to the BC Mine workers. That is—

SupplyAdjournment Proceedings

6:40 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member.

SupplyAdjournment Proceedings

6:45 p.m.

Oakville Ontario

Liberal

Bonnie Brown LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development

Mr. Speaker, the government shares the hon. member's concern for the workers affected by the closure of the British Canadian mine operation at Black Lake, Quebec.

He compares the situation of the BC mine workers to that of the Phalen mine workers in Nova Scotia. While the workers in these two cases faced different circumstances, the government treated both groups with equal fairness and equal consideration.

Let me explain the measures we have undertaken to help the 300 BC mine workers in Quebec. We reacted quickly and, in total, provided some $4 million.

As early as September 1997, close to $3 million was set aside to help the 300 workers quickly re-enter the labour market and this help is showing some signs of success: nearly 70 workers have found work; nearly 60 are pursuing training and skills development to help them find different work; and half a dozen are trying to establish their own businesses. We know these people want to work and we hope our assistance will continue to help them.

In addition, in June 1998 the government also announced $1 million in funding intended to help workers between the ages of 55 and 64. The Government of Quebec gave its approval to move forward and put this program in place for older workers from the BC mine last fall.

Meetings were held with former workers and representatives of Emploi-Québec and federal officials to exchange information and accept applications.

I am happy to report that eligible workers will begin receiving early retirement benefits, cost shared by the two governments, in the upcoming months. The government will continue to offer support to all Canadian workers through programs to help them participate fully in the Canadian labour market.

SupplyAdjournment Proceedings

6:45 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

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

(The House adjourned at 6.46 p.m.)