Debates of March 22nd, 2001

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think if I use a quick example I can perhaps put this into perspective. I will use the technology that is in the legislation. A person in one of the three contributing provinces who is making $20,000 a year is, by lack of subsidization of the program in that province, subsidizing the person in one of the seven receiving provinces who makes $100,000 a year.

I do not know why the socialists are upset about the fact that I am saying it is an anomaly to have a person earning $20,000 subsidizing one who is making $100,000.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

It does not work that way.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

That is exactly how it works.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. The time has lapsed, but I want to give the hon. member from Winnipeg—Transcona equal time to respond to the last comment and question.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

As you said, Mr. Speaker, I am glad that people have an opportunity to express themselves freely because I think the more the member for Elk Island expresses himself freely the more we come to understand the Alliance position on equalization.

I think most Canadians would find what the member just offered, a very odd critique of equalization. I am glad he had the opportunity to clarify because it reinforced the point that I made. I do not understand how someone can construe equalization as poor people in rich provinces subsidizing rich people in have not provinces. I also do not think a lot of other Canadians understand it.

I do not think one has to be a socialist to object to what the hon. member is saying. There are people here who probably would not call themselves socialists but who find the logic of the hon. member to be somewhat odd.

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the very nearly right hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest, who will continue with the second part of the discussion on this bill.

I must admit that when I was preparing my speech on this bill, when I saw that the minister was introducing a bill, and when I saw that the title on the first page was “an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act”, I was pleased. I said to myself that the people of Quebec, the maritimes and elsewhere do have some influence, because they have managed to convince the Minister of Finance.

Perhaps finally the Minister of Finance has listened, perhaps he has travelled around the country without anyone knowing. Perhaps he went to ask the provinces what they thought of the equalization payment system. Perhaps he did this without anyone knowing about it.

I asked my assistant “Did you just bring me the first page of the bill?” She told me “No, that's it”. The title of the bill is an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act. I said “There is a problem with the photocopiers at the House of Commons, something is going on. That is it”.

I must say that the Minister of Finance has not travelled in the country, he has not met the ministers of finance of the various provinces and he has not listened to what is going on in the maritimes or Quebec. So, there is a bill with fewer clauses than the clarity bill, but we will not get into that. That is to say that it is not very impressive.

I just want to add one small thing before I go on. Yesterday, it was announced that the former head of the Reform Party would be leaving in the course of the year. It was said that a page of history had been turned, that it was the end of the name Reform and its approach. It is a new century, a new approach. Not really. There he is today.

The government is trying to cover up the fact that, to please people in Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes, there must be no opposition to equalization. Out west, it has to say that it is against equalization, but elsewhere, it has to say it is not. Today, however, we realize that it is opposed to equalization. But there is more to it than that. It is the examples it gives in order to justify it being more or less opposed.

Basically, it is saying “If you get a welfare or an unemployment cheque from a government, if it involves an individual, or equalization payments, if it involves a province, then you are not worth much”. I remind members that they get cheques from the government themselves, and I am not sure what they are worth.

That said, for us, equalization payments are vital, but they need to be modernized. However, we realize that the Minister of Finance is under a lot of pressure. We say to him “You must change your system. It is not right. You are penalizing the provinces, and offending others. So, let us sit down and see what we can do together”. The minister's only reply, so that we will leave him alone, is “I introduced a great bill. I am removing a ceiling”. Yes, but where are the walls, where are the foundations of the equalization program? These are the things that must be rebuilt, with the provinces, with our partners in Confederation. But the government does not listen.

I heard the parliamentary secretary to the minister say “Listen, we are giving you a cheque”. He told the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona “You will get an additional $22 million”. This is a paternalistic system. One must practically get down on one's knees. Come on. This is a system that is in effect from coast to coast, not from minister's office to minister's office.

The government should listen to what is being said in all the provinces. I am not saying it should agree with everything. No. The Premier of Newfoundland is going around saying that changes are necessary. We want to make it and we will succeed. Give us a chance. But, no, that is no good, according to the government.

I should point out that the Premier of Nova Scotia is a Conservative. So are the premiers of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. And the Premier of Newfoundland will also be a Conservative. The current Premier of Newfoundland, as the hon. member from Newfoundland rightly pointed out in his speech, was recently elected leader of the Liberal Party in Newfoundland. He has contacts in Ottawa and he told his people “They listen to me in Ottawa. I will get a commitment from the federal government to renew the equalization system. You will see. The Minister of Industry and the Prime Minister are good buddies of mine”.

Off he goes to Ottawa. He tells his people back in Newfoundland “It's settled. The Prime Minister agrees with us, and so does the Minister of Industry”. A few minutes later, the PMO says “Not true”.

I know comparisons are odious, but I still cannot help but think of the English Prime Minister who went to Germany, and came back with a piece of paper. He announced “I have settled things with the German boss” but war was declared just a few days later.

All that to say that this system does not work. The only thing Bill C-18 does is to try to silence those who want to see major changes. We are told that more provinces should be added to the five currently used as the basis for calculating the equalization payments. There are arguments on both sides, but our immediate answer is no.

The Maritimes have sufficient resources to return to what they once were, but are told that this is not good, that it will not work. A balance must be struck. There is much talk of openness. As I have said on many occasions, the ruling party's conception of this country differs from ours in a number of ways, and of course from the other opposition parties as well.

For us, the country is comprised of regions and provinces, which decided to join together. As we know, first there was Quebec, Ontario, the Maritimes and later the west and the north. They have joined together and have a central government for shared services. This is a principle we defend.

The Liberals' principle is a different one. Canada is Ottawa, which in its great goodness, its vast generosity, will give little handouts to the regions and the provinces. This is ignoring history.

These two conceptions mean that Ottawa's management style varies from one party to another. When it is them, it means we have to beg the whole time. When it is another conception, it means simply getting together, discussing and agreeing. That is the difference. True, it is not always easy, but it is an approach that must be changed.

On the question of equalization, I remind the House that Bill C-18 is simply a bandaid, what we call a plaster. Do you know where they stick the bandaid? It does not go on a leg.

I listened to the parliamentary secretary say “Stick your bandaid, Bill C-18, here, provinces. Stick it on your lips. That is the end of that. Until 2004, there will be no talk of equalization. It is finished”. Will the Minister of Finance still be here in a few months' time? We will see. We will see who is going to be the next leader of the Liberal Party. That is going to change, we know. We know the individuals are going to change.

Mr. Speaker, between you and me, I hope that the approach will change as well, that the government will connect again with what is going on in the provinces and regions. They will never listen to the argument that the poor in one province pay for the rich in another. If our tax arguments, our economic and political arguments are based on such demagoguery, this is not the country I know. Thank God that people will fight that.

That said, we are very disappointed by the first page of the bill, which could have had the government reconnect with the regions and with the economic challenges facing the various provinces. We do not have a bill, we have a first page, that is all. Together with our partners in the provinces, we will push to have the bill complete.

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member who just spoke for hitting it on the head, because what he just described is something we have been pointing out for some time now in Quebec.

It is for this and for all the reasons he gave, and others as well, that our dream is to see Quebec independent as soon as possible.

I have a question for him. Should the member not help us to get Quebec out of this system for all the good reasons he gave?

There is only one thing I would disagree with, and that is that whichever government is sitting opposite—I agree it is worse with the Liberals—the system is exactly as he described for Quebec. It is no longer any good for Quebec and Quebec wants to run its own show. Has he understood what I am getting at?

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard and understood. That said, it is certain that I am not a sovereignist, on that we agree. We have a different way of doing things. What we are saying is that we are not closing the door because there is a problem.

Certainly there are two different ways of doing things, but I would remind the hon. member that in Quebec, before a certain referendum was held, there was a commission on the future of Quebec. The premier of the day, Mr. Parizeau, asked me to sit on that commission in the Eastern Townships. I was sort of the token federalist on the commission. We asked questions and the Parti Quebecois came up with proposals on a sovereign Quebec.

I must tell hon. members that I raised questions about equalization. The documents available at the time, when we were discussing preparations for the referendum, were an accurate reflection of this country's old equalization system.

The frustrations, which are in many ways understandable, about the Canadian system for a province within Canada would be the same for a region within a sovereign Quebec, if the equalization system retained were the same, but even more centralized, even more severe and involving fewer elements than the present Canadian system.

There is one thing that must be said. We all know the old saying that the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. In this case, I believe the members of the Bloc Quebecois would have everything to gain by again becoming partners in improving the system instead of slamming the door on a system that has, overall, been extremely positive from sea to sea.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, with the announcement that the former leader of the Reform Party was departing, it is too bad that he did not also announce that he was departing with some of the attitudes that still permeate throughout the Alliance.

How quickly the members from the great province of Alberta forget the dirty thirties and how Atlantic Canada sent food, money, people and help to assist those people during that time.

Does the hon. member not believe that all Canadians deserve equal levels of education, health, infrastructure and standards so that we can all be proud to live here and share in the natural resources that Canada provides for all of us? Would he not agree in that equality?

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is certain that we should agree with the fact that people are equal in this country. But equality is one thing. We do not all have the same resources. Two individuals are different from one another just as two provinces may differ. The needs of one individual may differ from those of another, as the needs of provinces may differ. Demands and support may be different.

What we want to do in our party and in the other, the Canadian Alliance, is tell those who contend that everybody is the same, individuals and provinces, that it does not work. Across this country, things differ. That is the beauty of our country. At this point, we have to act, react and interact according to the needs of the community and the individual. However, it is clear that we must be there to help people, the regions and the provinces needing it.

Those who can help are those, in short, able to do so according to a formula.

We are proposing to improve the system, to bring it up to date, to modernize it and, finally, to take into account the current realities of certain provinces and the future reality these same provinces want to attain, but are having a little more trouble today doing so. The equalization system should be a development tool rather than a paternalistic tool of a central government.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-18 is certainly an interesting debate. I guess it brings out the best and the worst in us. Some members in some parts of the country forget that Canada is a very generous country. Canada, as we well know regardless of our politics, has been defined by the United Nations as the best country in the world.

One of the reasons for that is equalization. It is an accepted reality in the country that not all the provinces are equal in terms of resources and richness. The government and the governments that preceded it, going back to the early sixties, recognized that and have been very generous over the years.

We can argue on points of generosity and whether or not the present formula works. However, if we were living in a perfect world and Canada was absolutely perfect, we would not need equalization. Unfortunately Atlantic Canada and some of the western provinces are not blessed with oil in the ground at $40 a barrel. That is a reality. Who do we blame for that, the Prime Minister or the Almighty? It is beyond the Prime Minister's capacity to put oil in the ground in every province, although I guess if we want to be entirely political we could attack him on that as well.

I wish to point out, and I hope that my colleagues from Alberta are listening, that from 1957 to 1965 Alberta received equalization from Ottawa. What does that tell us?

It tells us that it was not always rich and that it was not always prosperous. The energy there in its early years was just as Nova Scotia's is now, in its infancy. The major difference was that at the time Alberta received 100 cents of every royalty dollar that came in. For every dollar that it took out of the ground in oil, it kept it.

What we are arguing in Atlantic Canada, and especially our friends from Nova Scotia who are now blessed with natural gas, is that it should have the same formula applied to it as was the case in Alberta.

If logic prevails, and it does in this argument, and if we want to raise ourselves to a level of sustainability in terms of the economy and diversifying the economy, we need the tools to do that. The biggest tool of all is a financial tool, the financial resources to build a strong economy as Ralph Klein has done in Alberta and Premier Lougheed before him. It is building on the principle that what is ours is ours and we will use it to benefit the people of our province. That is what we are talking about in New Brunswick. The formula has to be revisited. Mr. Speaker, with your permission I will revisit—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member will have permission and have about six and a half minutes to revisit the issue after question period.

World Water Day

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today, March 22, 2001, many Canadians are celebrating World Water Day. Started by the UN in 1993, World Water Day is meant to raise the world's awareness of the importance of water and to bring attention to the 40% of our population that has no adequate drinking water.

I congratulate the efforts of one of my constituents, Pauline de Gonzague, who has garnered support for this year's celebration by converging interest groups including the Toronto Environment Alliance and the Festive Earth Society.

Water and health are linked in many ways and it is important to address the increasing need for adequate and safe water to protect both people and the planet. Concrete efforts are necessary to provide clean drinking water and improved health, as well as to increase worldwide awareness of the problems and the solutions.

World Water Day is a good opportunity to remember the importance of this resource.

Member For Calgary Southwest

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to share with the House and the nation my thoughts on an outstanding Canadian who changed my life.

Years ago I heard the hon. member for Calgary Southwest talk about how we are all Canadians. No matter where we came from or how long we had been here, to him we were all Canadians. It was then that I became a member of the Reform Party of Canada. Later I won the nomination as a candidate for the party, and finally in the 1997 general election I was elected to this House.

Many of my colleagues here today and I still carry on the work of this courageous and highly principled Canadian. I only wish that House protocol would permit me to name Preston Manning as the man of whom I speak in the Chamber today—

[The Speaker]

I know the hon. member is referring to the hon. member for Calgary Southwest.

Figure Skating

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great day in the world of figure skating in Canada.

Jamie Salé of Red Deer, Alberta, and David Pelletier of Sayabec, Quebec, teamed up to win gold in the pairs event, Canada's first medal of the 2001 world championships.

Their memorable performance yesterday caps a successful season, all the more impressive when we consider that these young athletes have been skating together for only three years.

After some suspense-filled moments, they were declared the winners, leaving the silver and bronze medals for the Russians and the Chinese.

Canadians have a highly respectable record at the world championships. Every year, we bring home at least one medal, but this the first time in seven years that a Canadian pair has placed first.

This is a momentous occasion for Jamie and David, and it is equally momentous for Canada. On behalf of all members of the House, I offer the pair our warmest congratulations.

Jamie Salé and David Pelletier, the people of Canada are proud to share in your success. Bravo.

Member For Mississauga Centre

[Beth Phinney, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of one of my colleagues on this side of the House. Yesterday the hon. member for Mississauga Centre was elected chair of the Parliamentary NATO Association, a culmination of five years of involvement. It is with pleasure that I note that she is the first woman to be elected to this important position.

I know how much effort the hon. member for Mississauga Centre has made on a number of issues relevant to NATO. In particular, her diligent efforts on behalf of the Ottawa convention on landmines have garnered an excellent response within NATO and its allies.

I know all hon. members are confident that the hon. member for Mississauga Centre will continue to demonstrate leadership in her new role as chair of this association, both for parliament and for all of Canada. I congratulate the member and wish her good luck.

Greece

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for Canadians of Greek origin and especially for those of my constituents who are of Greek origin, Sunday, March 25 commemorates a key event in the history of Greece—the day it attained independence.

March 25, 1821, marked the end of 400 years of occupation of Greece by the Ottoman Empire and at the same time the creation of the modern Greek state.

The celebrations marking this day will culminate in a parade in Montreal on Sunday, March 25.

I urge all members of the House to take part in the commemorative events this Sunday, and I wish all Greek Canadians: Zito i Ellas . Zito o Kanadas . Long live Greece. Long live Canada.

Russel Goodman

[Werner Schmidt, Canadian Alliance, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents it gives me great pleasure to bring to the attention of the House the achievements of Mr. Russel Goodman of Kelowna, who was honoured yesterday by the Governor General and became a recipient of the Governor General's Award in Visual and Media Arts.

Russel Goodman is responsible for the stained glass panels that grace the House of Commons. Amidst the daily mayhem of parliamentary business, these works of art enable us to momentarily pause and contemplate the beauty of the country. Within these panes of glass, I believe, the heart of the Canadian spirit resides.

This award deservedly makes Russel Goodman one of a very prestigious group of Canadians honoured for their life's work in the arts. I am sure members of parliament will join me in thanking him for his generous contribution to the House, to parliament and to Canada.

Governor General's Awards

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

Mr. Speaker, the Governor General's Awards in Visual and Media Arts were struck to honour the creative power of Canada's artists.

Given out annually since their creation in 1999 by the Canada Council for the Arts, the awards recognize the exceptional careers of six Canadians in the visual and media arts.

The winners of the Governor General's awards are: architect Douglas Cardinal; Tom Dean, Jamelie Hassan and Liz Magor, internationally renowned artists; Russel C. Goodman, whose stained glass creations grace the House of Commons; Alanis Obomsawin, whose work has led to a better understanding of the history and culture of Canada's aboriginal peoples; and Joan Chalmers, a tireless arts advocate and generous philanthropist.

I hope this House will take advantage of this opportunity to thank each of the award recipients for their remarkable contributions to the arts in Canada and the pride they inspire in us.

World Water Day

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on this World Water Day we need to remind ourselves that water constitutes an inestimable resource for humankind and is, contrary to long-standing belief, one that can be exhausted.

Quebec is a land of water, with a million water courses, including 700,000 lakes and numerous underground basins. Although our population represents less than 1% of the total population of the globe, we have 16% of the world's soft water reserves. Economically, it is essential, and biologically, it is vital. We have a duty to protect it.

Water is under attack from all sides, whether as the next target of private interests, under direct threat from the federal government, or the object of contamination of all kinds. Just ask the people of Shannon, of Lake Saint-Pierre, of the North Shore, of Walkerton. Water is vital to us and we must act accordingly.

World Water Day reminds us of how indispensable water is and of our obligation to protect it.

Maple Syrup Industry

[Claude Drouin, Liberal, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as you already know, Canada is the world's largest producer of maple syrup, with 80% of its production.

The maple syrup industry in Canada is no holdover from the past. It is a veritable industry comprising over 12,000 producers and having an economic activity of some $150 million annually.

Some 80% of our maple syrup is exported, and we have customers in 25 countries around the world.

I am very proud to represent the region of Beauce, a major player in this area. Indeed, the region, with its 8 million taps produces over 20 million pounds of maple syrup, about 25% of Quebec's entire production of maple syrup.

Maple syrup proudly represents our country the world over.

I take this opportunity to invite the public to the Festival beauceron de l'érable, the maple festival now being held in Saint-Georges de Beauce until March 25. This event heralds the opening of the sugaring season.

Come give your sweet tooth a treat in Beauce.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in this era of rapid globalization, Canada's cultural institutions bind us together as a nation. As Canada's public broadcaster, the CBC has an obligation to be accessible to all Canadians.

The decision of the CBC to cut off service to the more than one million Canadians living primarily in rural and remote communities by discontinuing English language transmission of large dish C-band satellite signals is wrong.

At a time when the CBC is being watched by smaller and smaller audiences, it demonstrates just how out of touch CBC management is when it looks for ways to shrink its number of viewers. Canadian taxpayers have a right to service from their public broadcaster regardless of where they live.

It is time for the CBC to admit its mistake and restore service to the large C-band dish owners of this country.

Camille Thériault

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to pay tribute to Camille Thériault, who has announced his intention to leave active politics in New Brunswick.

First elected in 1987, Camille served as the MLA for Kent South, as minister of fisheries and aquaculture, advanced education and labour, economic development and tourism, and as our premier. He brought to the job a unique blend of genuine passion for justice and equity, a belief that government is an instrument for good, and a realization that wealth not generated is wealth not shared.

The pride of his own remarkable family, Camille glows in the company of his wife and children. Although Camille and I are contemporaries, I have always considered his father, Norbert, a hero. I could pay my friend no greater compliment than to recognize his contribution to New Brunswick to be equal to that of his father. To Camille, Gisele, Sophie and Sebastien—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.