Debates of March 27th, 2000

Petitions

[Walt Lastewka, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition that draws the attention of the House to the fact that Canada has the second highest incident rate of breast cancer in the world, second only to the United States, and the fact that the United States has had a mandatory mammography quality assurance standard since October 1994.

Therefore the petitioners request and call upon parliament to establish legislation and an independent governing body to develop, implement and enforce uniform and mandatory mammography quality assurance and quality control standards in Canada.

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions I would like to present today. The first one deals with concerns that constituents expressed regarding the failure of the government to deal effectively with the child pornography issue.

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition deals with the failure of the government to deal effectively with illegal immigration to this country.

The petitioners are calling on the government to allow quickly for the deportation of individuals in obvious and blatant abuse of the system when it occurs.

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions to the House.

In the first one, more than 300 constituents in my riding of Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford and adjacent ridings have signed a petition that calls upon parliament to legislate clear labelling on all genetically altered seeds, foods and their byproducts available in Canada.

It further requests that these products be banned from the market until they have been rigorously tested to prove their safety when consumed by humans and come into contact with all other species with whom we share the planet.

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition signed by 89 constituents in my riding of Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford. They ask parliament to fulfil the promise made in the 1989 House of Commons resolution to end child poverty by the year 2000.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in keeping with Standing Order 36, I am proud to stand in my place today to present a petition on an issue that is very timely, topical and urgent.

These thousands of signators from Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, and the surrounding area remind the government of the tragic history of the Royal Oak and Giant mines and the urgent situation of the many laid off workers and the pensioners who continue to be disadvantaged by this situation today.

These citizens of Yellowknife point out that the government played a role in negotiating away the severance package and the pension benefits of these workers and that it has an obligation at this time to make these workers whole once and for all.

These citizens call upon government to amend the Bankruptcy Act, the Pension Benefit Act and any other legislation that needs to be amended to put the rights of workers first in the case of a bankruptcy and not down the line after the corporate interests.

There is a hunger strike under way dealing with this issue. The government has the ability to act and these many thousands of Yellowknifers are demanding the government takes action today to end the tragic history of the Royal Oak and Giant mines in Yellowknife.

[Lou Sekora, Liberal, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today I have two petitions to present. One is from the Canada Family Action Coalition. The petition calls upon parliament to make sure that the possession of child pornography remains a serious criminal offence.

[Lou Sekora, Liberal, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from the Organization of Rural Route Mail Couriers. The petitioners call upon the parliament to repeal subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act.

[Peter Goldring, Reform, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I take great pride in presenting a petition that has been put forward by over 1,000 concerned Canadians, mostly from the province of Quebec.

The petitioners ask the government to affirm that all Canadians are equal under all circumstances, including linguistically, without exception in the province of Quebec and throughout Canada. They wish to remind the government to enact only legislation that affirms the equality of each and every individual under the laws of Canada.

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Victoria—Haliburton, ON]

Pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am presenting a petition from the people of the Kingston area who will be in your thoughts, Mr. Speaker.

The petitioners call upon parliament to enact legislation to establish an independent governing body to develop, implement and enforce uniform and mandatory mammography quality assurance and quality control standards in Canada.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged on behalf of citizens from my home community of Thompson to add this list of petitioners to those that I have already presented.

They call upon parliament to preserve the reference to God in the Constitution of Canada. They recognize that it honours the faith of millions of Canadians, symbolizes an important part of our heritage, and reflects the diversity and plurality of the religions in Canada.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present pursuant to Standing Order 36. It is signed by 119 people in my riding who petition parliament to fulfil the promise in the 1989 House of Commons resolution to end child poverty by the year 2000.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by constituents of mine and of the neighbouring riding of Nepean—Carleton.

They remind the House of Commons of the unanimous resolution to end child poverty by this year and that, rather, the number of poor children in Canada has increased by 60% since then. They call upon parliament to fulfil the promise in the 1989 House of Commons resolution to end child poverty this year.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, Question No. 64 will be answered today. .[Text]

Question No. 64—

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Regarding the recent Conference of Spouses of heads of State and Government of the Americas held in Ottawa from September 29 to October 1, 1999: ( a ) what was the total cost of the conference, including all breakdowns for accommodation: ( b ) how many spouses had their travel to, from and while in Canada subsidized, by the federal government: ( c ) if a spouse's travel was subsidized, how much was spent on her personal travel, including any travel for assistants and/or staff: and ( d ) how much was spent on security by the federal government for the conference?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Regarding the recent Conference of Spouses of Heads of State and Government of the Americas held in Ottawa from September 29 to October 1, 1999:

(a) Although all of the costs have not yet been tallied, Canada expects that the total cost will be in the vicinity of $3,439,000. Accommodation costs total $291,520, $87,235 of which is attributable to visiting delegations. The balance of $204,285 is accommodation costs associated with the members of the staff and contractors needed—conference co-ordinators, liaison officers, translators.

(b) None of the delegations had any travel to or from Ottawa subsidized by the federal government.

(c) See (b) above.

(d) Canada's security costs for the conference were $281,063.

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On October 15, 1999 I asked Question No. 28. That was first asked on the March 23 as Question No. 226 and never answered. On October 18, 1999 I asked Question No. 29. That was first asked on March 24, 1999 as Question No. 227 and was never answered.

These questions go to the heart of the misuse by the Department of National Defence of the anti-malarial drug Mefloquine and its misleading of the Somalia inquiry during that particular investigation. I would like those questions answered.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member's inquiry on this issue is quite appropriate. I would commit to him to take note of his representations on these outstanding questions, to get back to him at the earliest possible date, and to get answers to the questions he has tabled.

I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government; and of the amendment.

The Budget

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one way to judge the budget is not just by the debate that takes place in the House. It is also by what kind of response there is in the community from the various organizations that monitor what the government is doing and are involved in various programs and campaigns, for example, Campaign 2000 or the campaigns around housing.

On the day of the budget one of those organizations, a group of poor tenants from a Quebec social housing coalition called FRAPRU, occupied the offices of the Canadian Human Rights Commission in Ottawa. They sat in the offices of the Canadian Human Rights Commission because they wanted to hear what was in the budget. They were very worried that the government would turn its back on the needs of poor tenants and the homeless.

After they heard the budget they continued their occupation of the Canadian Human Rights Commission offices. It carried over 24 hours into the next day. I visited to speak to them about their concerns. They were pretty disappointed. More than that, they were outraged that the $100 billion surplus which had been built, as we have heard from our member for Winnipeg Centre, on the backs of the unemployed, the surplus from the unemployment insurance commission and the public pension plan, did not contain any money for a national housing program.

The budget basically reannounced the $753 million that had been announced by the minister responsible for homelessness prior to Christmas. Anyone who for a minute has been fooled into thinking that announcement will mean the construction of affordable, safe, secure and appropriate housing for families, children, seniors, unemployed people and low income people has made a big mistake.

I had a meeting in my riding with the HRDC officials who are responsible for carrying out this initiative and with community groups who wanted to find out whether the $750 million which was reannounced in the budget actually would build social housing, and the answer was no. It is basically a program that will institutionalize shelters. It deals with training programs, youth at risk and aboriginal programs, all of which are good measures, but the budget failed on the fundamental issue that needed to be addressed in terms of a housing strategy. It was completely absent.

It is no wonder that a group like FRAPRU and the organizations which it represents felt the need to take demonstrative action.

A few weeks later representatives from housing organizations came to Ottawa to bear witness to yet another death of a homeless person. Several homeless people died in the city of Toronto. Representatives of those organizations came to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, called on the government and demanded to know why in the budget, when there were such opportunities with the surplus that existed, the poor, the homeless and people who are underhoused in the country were completely forgotten.

I have been working closely with people concerned about the so-called children's agenda. I wanted to know their reaction to the budget. How many times have we heard government members talk about the children's agenda? How many times have we heard government members talk about the platitudes of wanting to end child poverty? Even today in the House there were three petitions presented by government members from their constituents in Liberal ridings who want the government to end child poverty.

There was a lot of expectation that the budget would be a children's budget, but it failed on that score. There was no money in the budget for a national child care program or an early childhood development program. There were no funds announced to ensure that the child tax benefit would be passed on to children and families on welfare.

Is it any wonder that a group like the Canadian Teachers' Federation in its analysis of the budget said that it falls short of fulfilling the federal government's promise of implementing a national children's agenda as outlined in the recent throne speech. It goes on to say that the budget repeats the same promises that appeared in the Speech from the Throne and in statements made by first ministers in 1997 when they agreed to accelerate work on a national children's agenda.

There are no dollars allocated for this purpose. Canada's children deserve more than rhetoric. That is what the Canadian Teachers' Federation had to say.

If we go back to the October 1999 throne speech, the commitment made by the Prime Minister was to take the action necessary as a country so that every Canadian child could have the best possible start in life. The government has failed miserably on that score. Not only has it not taken action to ensure that all children have a good start in the early years of their lives, the situation has deteriorated considerably since the resolution which was passed unanimously by the House in 1989, introduced by the then leader of the NDP, Ed Broadbent, to eliminate child poverty. There are now 50% more children than there were in 1989 living in poverty. Why did this $100 billion surplus not address the needs of those kids?

We have a very credible organization, the National Anti-Poverty Organization, headquartered in Ottawa. It works at the grassroots level in social justice and anti-poverty right across the country. What did its analysis say? That the budget would widen the gap between rich and poor. It pointed out that while the finance minister spoke about the gap between the rich and the poor, the measures in his budget not only failed to reduce the problem but would actually make it worse.

The real proof is in the numbers. As NAPO has pointed out, if we compare the situations of two single people, one who has an income of $10,000 and another with an income of $100,000, the gap between those incomes will actually increase by $2,377 because of this budget. It begs the questions: Is this a budget that is based on any sort of principle of equality? Is it a budget that deals with the horror of what poor children, families and the unemployed have to deal with? The answer is no. As we can see clearly, this budget actually increases the gap between those who are wealthy and those who are poor.

I also have information that was provided by groups like the Canadian Federation of Students. One of the things I was really interested in seeing in the budget was whether there would be any real relief for students who are facing crushing debt loads because of their post-secondary education. Let us make no mistake, student debt in the country has increased threefold, from about $8,000 to about $25,000. That has been the average student debt since the Liberal government came to power.

There are no two ways about it, the reason is because of the massive retreat in public funding of more than $3 billion which has been cut from post-secondary education and training. Is it any wonder that the Canadian Federation Students came out with its analysis which said that the federal 2000 budget did nothing to fix the funding crisis in post-secondary education. In fact, the $600 million in additional annual funding for health care and education falls far short of the $3.7 billion which the premiers have publicly stated is immediately required for post-secondary education. It will not even cover inflation.

This is particularly offensive. In the throne speech we heard various platitudes and commitments to a knowledge based economy and to helping young people in the future. If we look at the reality, young people are facing debt loads and increasing inaccessibility to our schools.

Finally, it is no better on the health care front. I am proud to say that the NDP has campaigned rigorously day after day in the House to point out the shortcomings of the budget when it comes to health care. We have made it quite clear, and the numbers tell the truth, that even with the so-called increase in health care we will still be short $3.3 billion more than when the Liberals came to power in 1993.

One of my constituents, Mr. Harvey Dueck, wrote to the finance minister. He said: “I am writing to add my voice to those who are asking you to favour funding health care and other social programs above tax cuts in this and future budgets”. He continued: “I am in an income tax bracket where I would benefit more than most from any proposed tax cut, but I beg you not to tread that path until social programs are once again secure and the debt, not merely the deficit, has been vastly reduced or limited”.

He went on to tell of the difficulties that he had when he visited the emergency room because there were not enough nurses, there were not enough doctors and there were not enough records management people to provide the information that was needed.

The budget fails on that score as well. I want to say that we in the NDP believe that the government missed the opportunity it had to deal with poverty and to deal with growing inequality. Instead it decided to implement tax cuts, which basically favour the rich over the poor. For us, that is simply appalling.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's remarks and I would like to respond to her remarks concerning higher education.

In the recent budget scholarship income was made tax free up to $3,000. In previous budgets there was the RESP, the registered educational savings plan program, which included not only tax breaks but actually a grant for each child in a family, up to a considerable amount. These were the first new grants in higher education for many years.

Also in this budget there were the 2,000 funded research chairs, funded research professorships, which will have a direct affect on students. There will be junior and senior professorships. Students will be employed.

The granting councils over the last several years have received considerable additional funds. This year, for example, the social sciences council alone received an additional $10 million. All of those grants go to help students on the campuses to get jobs working with professors and that kind of thing.

As well, the government put all colleges, universities, high schools and elementary schools on the Internet, which is a very important step.

I have not even mentioned the millennium scholarships.

The member said that the government has not done much to help higher education. I know that more must be done, but this time university groups, students and others, have said to us that we should increase transfers to the provinces so that core funding for universities, not more scholarships or research help, which is supplied by the provinces, could be strengthened.

If the member reads the budget, this time the transfers to the provinces were referred to as higher education and health. Our concern on the government side was that if we transferred this money for higher education and health, how would we know, in either of those fields, what the provinces would do?

Has she heard of any province which has used the increase in the block transfer this year for higher education purposes? If she has, I would be glad to hear it. If she has not, could she suggest to us ways in which we could be sure that the money we transfer to the provinces will be used for the purposes for which it was intended, higher education and health?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question. It is a very good question and it gives me an opportunity to say a bit more about the concerns we have with post-secondary education.

It is fair to raise the question that if there is an increase in the Canada health and social transfer, how could we provide an assurance that the money would actually be used for education. I know that is the case in my own province of British Columbia. Our government has put a freeze on tuition fees and has made sure that accessibility to post-secondary education will not be eroded.

I would suggest that if the member is concerned about where the dollars are going for health care, social programs or post-secondary education, he should be supporting the initiative which the federal New Democrats put forward both at the HRDC committee and in the House to say that the federal government should bring in a new national standard based on accessibility to post-secondary education.

We believe very much that there must be federal dollars. The measures that the member outlined do not even come close to making up for the billions of dollars that have been stripped away and gutted from our colleges and universities.

Whatever increase there is, the government should be implementing a standard based on accessibility precisely to ensure that students across the country, whether they are in Ontario, New Brunswick or British Columbia, have access based on affordability to post-secondary education. Unfortunately that does not exist.

I remind the member that it was his government that brought in the CHST. It was his government that cut the strings and said to the provinces, “Do whatever the hell you want”. That is why we are in a mess now.

Perhaps I could throw the question back and ask the member to support the initiatives from our party to make sure that there is accessibility based on a national standard.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Secretary of State (Children and Youth)]

Mr. Speaker, I am splitting my time with my hon. colleague the secretary of state for parks and rural development. I should not forget rural development. We know how important that issue is to all the rural regions of Canada, my constituency being one of them.

Budget 2000 is an achievement of historic proportions. The third successive balanced budget of this government is a feat not seen since the days of C. D. Howe. We have tackled the burdensome and ballooning deficit left by the previous government. We have increased job creation. We have launched a strategy to invest in Canadians.

Canadians now have every reason to feel confident and secure about the economy. A bright future lies ahead for all thanks to the sound fiscal management of this government.

In relation to my riding, it has been an extremely interesting time in the Northwest Territories. We have a new government. We have a new premier, Premier Kakfwi who is of aboriginal descent. We have a cabinet the majority of whom I believe are aboriginal, as well as the MLAs from the various parts of the territory.

The new commissioner is to be sworn in at 3.30 p.m. this coming Friday. This Inuvialuit woman is a widow who has been very much a community activist on health and social issues and educational issues. She is raising four daughters on her own. She was a very steady companion of her husband who passed away from cancer a couple of years ago. It was a very long and tough journey for both of them.

This is the way through which I have become familiar with the circumstances of these individuals who take the lead in our territory.

We also have a new senator, the first ever to make the history books for the Northwest Territories, Senator Nick Sibbeston. He also is of aboriginal descent and is a Dene speaking individual from the Deh Cho region.

We have many unsung heroes in the north who work toward the development in the most exciting time in the north.

This budget is not separate from that. We look to a strong partnership with the federal government. We have major issues to bring together for the benefit of all of Canada including the north.

The national unemployment rate is at its lowest level in 24 years. Inflation remains in check. The debt burden is dropping. The Canadian economy is growing. These are facts that not even the opposition can deny.

It is precisely in the hope of achieving such impressive results that Canadians elected us to office. Our government followed up on its commitments and will pursue its efforts to continue to improve the tax situation of all Canadians.

This record of achievement is what Canadians elected us to do.

Under this budget Canadians will reap the rewards of sound fiscal management through tax savings and investments in our children through increased investments in health care and education.

The government is committed to invest in social and economic development for all Canadians. We recognize regional inequities in opportunities. We will not leave anyone behind as we move forward in this new century. We do not believe in leaving the most vulnerable in our society to fend for themselves. We believe in access of opportunity.

We do not believe in setting one Canadian against another. We believe in pulling together as Canadians by investing in all Canadians. Above all, investing in our children will secure a better future for all Canadians.

The government is committed to work with our provincial and territorial partners to develop an action plan by December 2000 to support early childhood development. We have identified six priority areas: strengthening the family; early childhood development; economic security; readiness to learn; adolescent development; and support of communities. These speak loudly to my constituents.

In the Northwest Territories we are in the midst of the biggest development my territory has realized in the last number of decades. Two diamond mines are in operation. Within six years the exponential rate of return to the federal government from those mines including the others that are potentially to come onstream is going to be very high. Presently we get $19,000 per capita for the individuals in my riding.

With the generation of revenue from these various industries, including the development of a major pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley which is now being studied, a number of options are being proposed. The potential performance of that major pipeline perhaps will make us a have territory some day. We will be able to carry our own weight by virtue of the fact that we we will be taking these resources out of our own area.

We hope to develop a partnership with the federal government on devolution. That means a sharing of the revenues, a sharing of the authorities, powers and responsibilities. This is what the government in my territory is proposing to do. This partnership is a sound approach for prosperity, for participation and for equity.

The aboriginal people at one point many decades ago were opposed to building the pipeline for their own reasons. Now the aboriginal people are saying they want this development. Not only do they want to build it, they want to own it. They want equity ownership. That means a great deal of self-sustainability for our community.

The budget is not separate from that. This all comes together. We do not pretend we are a region onto ourselves, that we can do it on our own. We believe we can do best in partnership.

In addition, the budget will increase the Canada child tax benefit by $2.5 billion a year by 2004. This is a significant investment. We cannot separate those things that are child specific from the other fiscal issues and say they do not have an impact. That is not the way in which governments or economies work.

Our five year tax reduction plan will ease the tax burden for low and middle income families with children beginning with the current fiscal year. The maximum leave period for employment insurance maternity and parental leave will be doubled to one year. There will be $29 million allocated for family law related services to support parenting information programs.

This budget will increase support and tax initiatives for persons with disabilities and their families. That is of particular concern to me. I have a great deal of concern for young people with disabilities, those young people who are the most vulnerable, those who need that hand up.

This budget also speaks to an issue of great importance to the north, the environment. Global environmental changes have a special impact in the western Arctic and northerners have a special relationship to that land. This budget will now support new environmental initiatives.

I have a delegation in town from the community of Deline who are seized with the issue of uranium contamination from the mine at Port Radium. There is contamination of the community and its environment through the waterways all the way down the Mackenzie through the Great Bear Lake and the Bear River.

These people are looking at the incidence of deaths related to cancer. They are concerned not only about the people but also the environment, the fish, the animals, the caribou, all of these issues combined. They have a deep and abiding concern about the wellness and the health of their people. This working group and others have shown a great deal of concern and initiative.

In Yellowknife 270,000 tonnes of arsenic is sitting under the city in silos from a mine that is still plagued with labour issues as well as other things.

An hon. member from the other side presented a petition today. I support that petition. I cannot put forward a petition as a minister, but I agree that those people's views should be heard. I support that.

In future when people who have worked under the condition of being guaranteed a pension, I hope we can create the conditions so that their pensions are protected and their conditions of employment are respected.

There is much more I could say but I am sharing my time with my colleague. In light of that I want to say that we are in an exciting period in the area which I come from. We do not separate ourselves from this budget. This budget is very relevant to the things we want to do. We are proud to be part of the government and in partnership with it to do what has to be done to make a better country and a better community for our people.