Debates of March 27th, 2001

Income Tax Amendments Act, 2000

[Ovid Jackson, Liberal, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are two methods by which the dollar could go up immediately. We could raise interest rates or we could cash in the 63 cent dollar right now, join the United States and allow Washington to make decisions for us. I wonder if that is a method the member thinks we should use to get our dollar up.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. No, I certainly do not support a single North American currency.

We are not looking for a short term, band-aid solution for the dollar but a long term strengthening of our currency through fiscal policy levers. I would certainly not present fiscal policy as an immediate overnight solution to strengthening the dollar, but in the long term it can have a significant impact.

There are only two levers we can use to strengthen our dollar in the long or short term: monetary policy, which is in the hands of the Bank of Canada, or fiscal policy whether in tax and debt reduction policies or spending policies.

Those are the policies that in the long term will require vision and commitment. If we are to strengthen Canada in a comparative sense, particularly with regard to tax policy, we must cut not only taxes which are politically unpalatable but those which have the most deleterious impact on long term growth.

Also, reducing our debt over the long term, not simply as a percentage of GDP but in real terms, would have a significant impact on strengthening the Canadian dollar.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would not want to pass up this opportunity to speak to Bill C-22, the Income Tax Amendments Act, 2000, which was recently tabled.

We have examples from families in resource regions. I have here letters written in September and addressed to the Minister of Finance of Canada. Other letters were addressed to the Minister of Finance of Quebec.

I do not want to pit provinces against provinces, but as a result of the changes made by the Quebec government to its family policy in 1998, the amount of the Canada child tax benefit has been lowered.

Today I received a letter from Clémence Côté. Her husband, Louis Germain, works in the mining industry in Val-d'Or. She said “Today, my children are being penalized”. One must understand what it means when someone writes that her children are being penalized. She wrote “Today, my children are being penalized by the Canadian tax system. I have a large family; I have 10 children. Dear Minister, I would like to ask you for an exemption so that I may receive the full amount of the Canada child tax benefit regardless of our family income”.

The Canadian tax system does not make allowances for families with 10 children or some have 11 or 12.

Her husband, who makes a good living working in the mines, earns in excess of $60,000, $62,000 or $63,000, and does overtime in order to help finance his children's education. With 10 children, a mother has a lot of work at home.

This mine worker, Mr. Germain, does a lot of overtime because several of his children are in school and have been allowed to take up only one sport either at school or at the community level. Even if a child wanted to take up two or three sports, his parents could not afford to pay for it. The same is true of transportation for children who go to school in Val-d'Or. She pays the school board for their transportation and she still has to pay back her benefits.

What I found bizarre in all this is that several years ago, as a result of a 1999 letter from the Minister of National Revenue, they asked why the Canada child tax benefit had been changed in Quebec.

Provincial governments may enter into agreements with the Government of Canada to change the amount of the Canada child tax benefit that their residents will receive depending on the number or the age of children, or both.

Before July 1998, the method used to calculate the benefit was different for Alberta and Quebec compared to the other provinces and territories. These two provinces had chosen a calculation method based on the age of the child and his or her rank in the family.

This means that, before July 1998, Quebec residents were entitled to a base benefit of $869 for the first child, $1,000 for the second child, and $1,597 for the third child and each subsequent child. After making changes to its family policy, the government of Quebec advised the Minister of Finance of Canada that, starting in July 1998, the benefit paid to Quebec residents would no longer be based on the rank and age of the child.

Now the Canada child tax benefit is calculated the same way for Quebec residents as for residents of other provinces and territories, except Alberta. The base benefit is now $1,020 per child, regardless of his or her rank in the family, since the amount of the Canada child tax benefit to which a family is entitled has been reduced following a decision made by the government of Quebec.

Regardless of the two jurisdictions, we must realize that several families in Quebec have seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve or thirteen children. They have to repay the tax benefits when the husband's income is too high, because of overtime work especially.

That is the message I want to send. We have to find a way to help large families. Nowadays, families with five or six children are considered large families. For families with ten children, the Government of Canada should find way, through some kind of exemption, to help them out, especially in resource regions, but also in urban areas.

We all know how much it costs to look after children's education or to enrol them in a sport program. That is the message I want to send. We should take into account the number of children in all Canadian families. We count one, two, three, and then it seems that senior officials tell their ministers “We stop at three. Passed the third or fourth kid, it does not make any difference”.

On the contrary, it is important, which is why I want to send a message to the finance minister. We need to find a way to help out these large families.

I do not think members will find it surprising that I want to address another issue here today. A poll published on March 9, 2001, and I mention the year because some people might think it was carried out a number of years ago, show that four out of five Quebecers are in favour of a salary being paid to the stay at home parent. At least 82% of those surveyed said they strongly or somewhat agreed that a salary should be paid to the parent who stays at home to take care of the kids.

Why? There is another way about it. I have made several speeches on this issue in the House. I have tabled motions and petitions to have a salary paid to the parent, mother or father, who stays at home to raise children. This would actually help reduce poverty.

I saw an article written by a woman who lives in Montreal, which said “The important thing is to be at home with the children during their first three years of life”. Parents are given a one year parental leave. What should we pay a person who stays at home? Maybe we could, like Germany or other countries, provide a supplement of $250 a week in order to help the family or the person who stays at home with the children.

I would like to raise one final point. It is the issue of pensions, those paid to seniors living below the poverty line. Steps should be taken to increase their income upon reaching retirement age, especially after retiring. Members will recall that a few years ago, we had interest rates of 16%, 17% and 20%, and things were going pretty well. Today, retired seniors are relying on assets deposited in banks or invested mutual funds with a 2% or 3% rate of return.

This is why a majority of Canadians are in favour of pension reform.

The important thing is to raise pensions, to reform the pension system so that people, and particularly seniors, have a decent income. Some single seniors always receive the same amount. Sometimes, their cheque is increased by $1.04 for a three month period, as a cost of living adjustment. The pension system should be reformed and people should have a decent income.

That is why I mentioned these three cases. We often hear about them in my community. Long term solutions must be found.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's speech via the courtesy of the interpreters, since unfortunately I am unilingual.

I would like to ask the member a question with respect to what he was saying. He was talking about the problem of mothers and fathers who want to stay home with their children after the one year is up. Under the Liberal scheme, the only way that could be arranged is to have a child every year. The limit is a year. If a person has not worked in between, then they would probably be ineligible. After the first year, the second and third child that may come would not be eligible for those benefits.

Does the member have any solution to that quite clear dilemma in the Liberal plan?

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC]

Mr. Speaker, nobody can replace the mother during the first three years in the life of children.

The hon. member raises a good question. Regardless of the government in office, the important thing is to work together with the opposition parties in order to find real long term solutions. Now is the time to do it.

He mentioned the first year, but I can tell members that all Canadians think it is important that a mother stay at home during the first three years of her children's life.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in the debate. The Liberal government is getting slack. This morning we debated a bill which was over 900 pages in length. This little itty-bitty bill of 500 pages now seems like child's play in comparison. My party will have a look at it. We are debating it for the first time today, so the debate is on general principles. After this it will go to the finance committee where some of the details will be dealt with.

The whole study of taxation is intriguing in the academic sense. We have come to accept a level of taxation that is on the verge of being obscene.

I have told this story in the House before, and if any members recall it, my apologies, but it is very important. About three or four years ago I gave one of those one minute members' statements. I told the Speaker about a tragedy we had in our home. A guy came to the house. He backed his truck up to the door and proceeded to move everything out that we had accumulated over the years. He took half of our sofa set. He looked upstairs and saw four beds and he took two. He cut my beautiful old grandfather clock in half and took half of it and put it in the truck. I phoned the police before they took all the phones and asked them to get over to my place. I told them that we were being robbed. The police said that I should give them more details. I did and they said that they could not come and that they could not help. As a matter of fact the police did show up a little later and they insisted that I help the guy load.

This is an absurd story, but this is what happens every year to average Canadians. One half of our earnings are taken from us through the various levels of taxation from the federal, provincial and municipal governments. Tax freedom day in most provinces is around July 1, which says that half of our income is confiscated every year. If we do not help the guy who is owed and if we do not deliver the money that we have earned, we are held in contempt and can go to jail.

I do not want to characterize the levels of government as though they are crooks, yet I know I am right on the verge. I do not want to say that, so I will not. They are not really stealing our money because it is taxation. However it is still money I have earned that I cannot use for my family. I have very few needs. We can see that all I need is a square meal a day, or two, some basic clothing and basic shelter. Give me a bicycle to ride or preferably a motorcycle. My needs are simple and I simply want the best. I do not have many needs.

However I do have a great need to provide for my family. Fortunately my children are now grown up and on their own so things are a little easier. Now I only have a very expensive wife to provide for. When the children were younger I was teaching at a technical institute. All hon. members probably know this. I worked there for 27 years. We also made the decision that mother would be a full time mom. The children needed to have someone there when they came home from school to care for them and to show them that they were important.

In order to supplement our income, which even back then was not quite adequate to meet all our needs, including paying the mortgage, the utilities and everything, the decision was made that I would teach part time in the evenings. I taught a night class almost always two nights a week. This was way back and it dates me. Hon. members can tell by my grey hair that I am an old guy. I used to say that I worked Tuesday nights for Trudeau and Thursday nights for my family. It was a 50:50 deal.

Even though we are dealing with Bill C-22 to amend the Income Tax Act, the question that is not being addressed is the overall huge load of taxation which burdens our families and burdens individuals.

I have also indicated recently, and I will repeat this because I feel it is important, that my family and I not only pay our taxes but we also believe in charity. Due to the fact that we needed to look after our future, and as we have always felt insecure about the inadequate provisions of the government, namely the Canada pension plan, we have tried to put a bit of money into RRSPs. We ended up living on about 30% of my income as 70% of it was gone: 50% to taxation; 10% to charity, plus or minus a bit; and 10% to future savings, usually a little less because I could not afford that much. It was a struggle.

That is one of the reasons I became a member of parliament. In 1988, when the Reform Party was just starting, I picked up one of its brochures and all these things attracted me: the elected Senate, true democratic responsibility, and a justice system that would work on behalf of law-abiding citizens. However the one that really struck me was the belief that governments should live within their means so that we could reduce and not increase the debt. That was during the Conservative years when the debt was going up by $25 billion, $30 billion and peaking at $40 billion a year, just before they were finally turfed. That was one of the reasons they were turfed.

I was attracted to the principle that said we should have a balanced budget so that we would no longer increase the debt, the principle that we should start paying the debt down so that we could relieve ourselves of the necessity of interest payments and thereby have more money available to governments for programs that citizens value.

I guess the rest is history. We came here in huge numbers in 1993. When I first joined the Reform Party I did not anticipate that I would be transposed from my career at NAIT's teaching mathematics, computing and interesting things like that into trying to persuade a Liberal government to reduce taxes, balance the budget, hopefully pay down the debt and reduce interest payments.

However I stand here proudly this afternoon when I see what has happened in the last seven years. We have been the beneficiaries of a very robust economy in the United States which has a huge influence on our economy. That is undeniable. At the same time I believe it was our presence here which made it respectable to talk about fiscal prudence and to reduce the amount we were spending. The government was also able to exercise, with our help, a little discipline in not spending all the additional revenue that came rolling in that was beyond its expectations and certainly beyond its planning.

I like what happened in the year 2000. I am a little disappointed in the election. I wish we would have the Liberals in opposition. That would have been a lot more fun. One of the things which did happen just four days before the election was we had a mini-budget, the primary election document for the Liberals. That is what the bill is about.

I must give the Liberals a grudging commendation here. They sure do know how to run elections. I saw a cartoon of the Prime Minister right after the election. It showed the increase in the number of seats. He was reading a paper that said “Liberals re-elected with a resounding majority”. The Prime Minister, speaking to Canadian taxpayers, was saying that was the best $200 million of taxpayer money he ever spent.

We know that an election costs around $200 million. It is quite an expensive project. That is what it took to put the Liberals back into power. I am giving the Liberals a weak commendation in that their pre-election document showed they were ready to go the way we were saying Canadians were asking parliament to go, namely to exercise some fiscal responsibility and implement tax cuts.

If we look at the polling data right now and if we ask Canadians what they think is important, the number one issue is health care, and rightly so. Whenever we are ill and we need some help from the medical profession, we live in a country where we have come to accept that it will be available. It ought to be that way. I believe very solidly in our principle, which is also a principle of the Canada Health Act, that no one should be denied needed health care because of financial situation. I concur with that.

Canadians are saying that is the number one issue. The number two issue is either crime, punishment or the justice system. Down the line a bit comes tax cuts, as the member from the CCF said just a moment ago. He usually calls my party by the wrong name, so why can I not?

He said that tax cuts were actually quite low. That is because when Canadians are asked to priorize something they put these things in rank order. We make the mistake of drawing the conclusion, because tax cuts are maybe third, fourth or fifth on the list, that they are not important to Canadians.

If we look at the importance that Canadians place on those issues they would probably all be close to equal. If we asked how important health care was on a scale of one to ten, a person might say ten. When asked how important tax cuts are, they might say that is a nine. It is not as important so it ranks out that way, but it is still important to them. I hear that from many people who ask why they work like slaves from early morning until late at night and do not seem to get ahead.

Very frankly, even with these timid tax cuts that the Minister of Finance introduced in budget 2000—and of course most of the things in the mini budget from last fall have not yet been implemented—the actual reduction in the total deductions in the average person's paycheque is not huge, if it is there at all. As a matter of fact, with the new payments for Canada pension the bottom line for most families is about the same or sometimes even a little worse.

In broad generalities as I am leading up to my talk on Bill C-22 today, I really think we need to address very carefully the level of taxation in the country.

Second, I want to talk a little about the complexity of it. I talked a bit this morning on Bill C-8, the banking bill, but we have had other bills in the House that have to do with changing the taxation system or the revenue system, and sometimes we deal with government expenditures. I find it frankly astounding, and I hope I never lose my astonishment, that a week ago in one evening we sat here as members and in a matter of about 20 minutes approved the expenditure of some $15 billion or $16 billion. Those were the supplementary estimates just to get the government to the end of this fiscal year. The amount of money we approve here is amazing. I believe the responsibility we have as proper stewards of the money entrusted to us is of the utmost importance.

One of the things I want to see happen is a reduction in the complexity of our tax system. My goodness, I remember not long ago reading an interpretation bulletin on the GST which differentiated between buying cooked shrimp and cold, frozen shrimp. There is a different rate of GST applied to the two of them. In one case it was considered that because they were cooked they were a meal and therefore the GST applied. In the other case they were frozen, therefore they were groceries. GST is not charged on groceries. That is only one minute example.

Bill C-22 discusses proposals for amending the Income Tax Act as well as the Canada Pension Plan, the Customs Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act and another act related to the Excise Tax Act. All of this is included and does not increase the simplicity of it. It increases the complexity of it.

Already I am led to believe that there are very few Canadians, even among our best tax lawyers, who know that code. As a matter of fact, any of our citizens who have had the occasion to go to one of the tribunals to get a ruling on a tax dispute are hoping for some reasonable hearing there because, depending on who one gets, one gets different interpretations.

One person in my riding told me that he phoned Revenue Canada to ask about a certain issue. He got an answer that he did not think was right, so he phoned again, got a different person and got a different answer. Then he thought, just a minute, there are two different answers here, so he went for two out of three because he still did not really know. He phoned again, hoping that he would get one of the other two answers, and lo and behold, there was a third answer. The complexity of it is a great frustration. The bill, among other things, increases that complexity.

During the election campaign the Alliance Party was proposing that we go to a single rate tax. That is not a flat tax. That is a misnomer we are often accused of. A single rate tax is simply the same kind of a tax system we have now with basic exemptions and other deductions, but instead of three rates as we had at that time, we said we would reduce them all to the same rate of 17%. I suppose we could have achieved the same result by simply saying that the amounts where these rates kick in are some high number and it would have probably been more saleable than the way it was presented.

The fact is that we are proposing deductions. We are proposing huge tax breaks for middle income and lower income families. The Liberals are crowing about the fact that people who are now making a family income of $20,000 a year are going to get a tax break of maybe 16% or 20% or whatever number it is that they use. Under our plan that reduction would be 100%. They would be removed from the tax roll completely.

Under our plan, a family of four, a mum, a dad and two kids, would pay zero tax on the first $26,000 of income and then a straight 17% on the remaining, whereas the Liberal government goes on and on with exemptions of maybe $15,000 or $16,000 and then 17% on everything after that, although they are proposing to reduce that to 16%. That, by the way, is also a bit of sleight of hand. If we just talk about the rate but apply it on more of the income the total tax bill is higher than if there were a 1% higher rate but a great deal more of the income exempt from tax.

In wrapping up, I would simply like to say that some of the measures in the bill go in the right direction. I am rather concerned about some of them. They go in the right direction but not far enough. In any case, there are some things in the bill that are woefully inadequate. I am looking forward very much to hearing about the bill in committee, not only from officials but also from witnesses who will come to our committee and give us their read on it. I am sure that in the finance committee we will have a great time analyzing the bill and reporting back to the House in due time.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what my colleague opposite had to say, just as I have been listening to presentations all afternoon.

I know the member takes a great interest in these things. Frequently today concern has been expressed about the economy in one way or another and we have had suggestions as to where the problem is. I heard the member say that it was the dollar and so perhaps by manipulating the dollar we could help the economy. There are different things.

However, it does strike me that whatever we read in the media lately about the economy and what could be done about it, it is all speculation by economists. They all have different theories as to what we can do.

It seems to me, and this is where my question lies for the member, that in times like these we should not rely on economic theories which are just that, theories. In times like these, times of modest uncertainty, the only thing we can do that we know is going to pay off in the future is invest in the future. Our tax policies and our spending policies should be geared to that.

As we say, we should invest in people. We should invest in prenatal care and post-natal care. We should invest in our elementary schools and make them as effective as possible. For example, we should put them all on the Internet in the modern age so that kids in kindergarten can get used to computers and used to being on the Internet. Going further up the system, we should give scholarships to make it possible for young people to go to college and to university. We should make the tax environment as good as is humanly possible for research and technology. We should have tax breaks to educate not just scientists but people in the trades and things of that type.

My question for the member is this: what does he think about that? Does he not think that in fact what has been happening these last several years has been exactly that and that by investing in people in all of those ways we are laying the best foundation we can for a strong economy?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his astute question. I agree with a lot of what he says. I too believe that children ought to have a pretty good head start in their lives. I think it is primarily the responsibility of the parents to make sure it happens and the responsibility of government to get out of their faces so they can do it.

That is true for most of them. Then there are some who need assistance from the larger community, be it the municipal, the provincial or the federal community. Tax dollars are involved in giving grants and helping people in genuine need. I have some reservations about that, but I do agree with it in principle.

I regret, as I said in an earlier speech, that one of the things that has happened is that the Liberals, trading on the fact that as Canadians we are indeed compassionate, have instead taken away from us the fiscal room to be compassionate as individuals. They are taxing us to death, such that now when I see a needy person I am more likely, not speaking for myself personally but as an average citizen, to see whether I can help get them on some government program rather than simply ask them to come to my house for help in getting a job. That is what we did when I was a younger man. It worked well, because there was some personal accountability and mentoring. It works much better than a government program which unfortunately in many cases produces dependence.

With respect to the dollar, it is like driving along in my car in an 80 mph zone and my speedometer is telling me I am going 30. I say to myself that I had better get a new speedometer. No, the speedometer is showing my actual speed. I do not need a new speedometer. I need to step on it so that I can get with the program and get to the speed the traffic is moving at. To a large degree, I believe that is what our Canadian dollar is like. It is simply an indicator of our economic health. It should be of huge concern to the government that right now our economic indicator is showing that we are running at about 65% efficiency vis-à-vis the Americans, our next door neighbours. We are only about two-thirds as productive.

There is no excuse for that. We have a land that is rich in resources. I could list them all. We have a tremendously energetic population and we need to have to survive in our climate. There is no reason in the world why we would not have the capacity to be above the Americans on a true measure of standard of living, yet we know that our standard of living is way lower than theirs on many measures. It is indicated again by the value of the Canadian dollar.

Again, it is an indicator. I do not think one should fiddle with the indicator. Rather, one should try to correct the factors that have produced that particular measure in our productivity and economic efficiency.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I listened as the member for Elk Island described in his story the length of time it took him to get his tax holiday. As he talked some of the reasons suddenly began to emerge. I saw the scenario wherein he had big parties and invited people over and they had tons of shrimp and then ran around his house using six or seven phones to make phone calls. I am sure that the average Canadian gets his or her tax holiday much sooner than the member for Elk Island.

He talked about positioning for elections. He also talked about the single rate tax, not the flat rate tax, and of course we know that leading up to the election the member's party went from 17% to 17% and 25% because of concerns the party had.

I was in British Columbia not too long ago. A lot of good parts of B.C. are Alliance territory. A lot of people told me that the single rate tax would be great because they could take their incomes and multiply by 17% or 25%. However, the member today and at other times in the House has really affirmed the fact that they would still have all the deductions, such as medical expenses over a certain amount, the charitable donations, RRSPs, et cetera. I suspect we would still have a big Income Tax Act. I wonder if the member could talk about how we would reduce complexity under the 17% and 25% scenario he described earlier.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that cleaning up the complexity of the tax act goes far beyond just going to a single rate or even to two rates.

It is interesting that under Bill C-22 the government proposes to go from three categories to four beginning next year. That is because it loves high taxes.

We must look at the complexities of the issue. Some formulas in the bill are illustrated very well, but others are really quite convoluted. The Income Tax Act is full of that. The question of what applies must also be addressed. The categorization of which tax bracket a person falls into is one question but it is a minor one. I will concede that.

With respect to the tax itself, we must recognize that when taxes are reduced there is a tremendous spinoff in the economy because the money is not destroyed. When taxes are reduced taxpayers do not throw that money into the fireplace. They use it to provide for their families and give the local economy a kick. I would much rather hire a guy to fix my leaky roof, which would give him a job and get my roof fixed, than send the money to Ottawa where it is spun in circles and nothing really happens with it.

I appreciate the question from the parliamentary secretary, although I did not have time to give him a full answer. He is certainly on the right track by asking if we should simplify the code. My answer is a resounding yes.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to point out that I raised this issue in the House during the 36th parliament, in our reply to the economic statement or mini-budget. Bill C-22 is the exact copy of this mini budget.

I am surprised that nothing has been changed. The government could have addressed certain problems or weaknesses in the economic statement that was made just before the election. Throughout the election campaign, the Liberal government boasted a lot, through its members and candidates, about the upcoming tax reductions. There would be something for everybody, they said, because they had put the nation's finances in good shape, and were making a surplus. They said they would help all those that had been affected by drastic cuts. The finance minister had room to manoeuvre with $147.9 billion, including the agreement on health signed with the provinces on September 11. We can safely guess that right now his room to manoeuvre is much bigger, but today our discussions centre on the $147.9 billion.

Tax cuts can be expected for 2004. I think that this is the time of year when everybody in Canada and in Quebec is checking their tax returns before submitting them to the Department of National Revenue. Few are lucky enough to be able to say “I have benefited this year of a real tax cut that has allowed me to put my finances in order”.

Here are some examples of what tax cuts will probably look like in 2004. A single parent family with an income of $30,000 and one dependent child would have a $550 tax cut and would still pay $1,545 a year. That is for a family with a $30,000 income.

With a $50,000 income, the same family would have a tax cut of $1,200 or twice that of the single parent family with a $30,000 income. With a $80,000 income, the same family would have a $2,300 tax cut or four times more than that of the family with a $30,000 income. With a $100,000 income, the tax cut would be $3,200, or 5.8 times more than that of the family with a $30,000 income. The tax reduction for Canadians earning $250,000 would be $6,500, 11 times higher than the tax reduction for a family earning $30,000.

For the more than four million women, that is 60% of women, earning less than $30,000, this statement is a slap in the face. A family with an income of $30,000 and one child should not pay any taxes.

The reduction of the capital gains inclusion rate means average gains of $11,600 for taxpayers earning $250,000 or more, compared to average gains of $320 for those earning between $80,000 and $150,000, 36 times less than the average gains for those earning $250,000. As members can see, these tax reductions are for the rich.

There is nothing in this bill for women, for young persons, and for single senior citizens, most of whom are women.

In your riding, Mr. Speaker, there are probably many single senior citizens. Unfortunately these are mostly women who are poor. Their pension income comes to about $12,000 a year. What can one do with $12,000 a year? It is a shame that the government did not think about these people.

Since our population is aging, there will be more and more single older women. These are women who have lost their husbands. We tend to forget widows. With huge surpluses and $147.9 billion to play around with, it is unacceptable that the government did not think about those single women.

There are no provisions for the basic financing of women groups working within organizations. They were completely forgotten. These women are often volunteers. They earn unacceptable salaries in those organizations. Their work is aimed at keeping the centres open in order to help and support single women, older women, women going through difficult times or facing problems of domestic violence. These women groups do their best to keep the centres open, and there is nothing in the budget to help them carry on their work.

There is nothing either for old workers, men and women, who lost their jobs. We had been vocal in the House, trying to convince the Minister of Finance to take into account people hit by plant closures. There will be others, because it is a given with globalization. There will be plant closures. New plants are opening, but there is also rationalization. Big companies are rationalizing.

In my riding, Celanese was the backbone of the economy in Drummondville. Some 50, 40 or 30 years ago, everyone in my riding knew someone who worked at Celanese. That company once had 6,000, 7,000 and 8,000 employees. It was really the cornerstone of the region's economic development. As the years went by, transformations took place, and the plant moved to Mexico last year.

There was a good proportion of middle-aged workers, between 50 and 60 years old, who were nearing retirement and who received early retirement benefits. These people were not eligible for employment insurance. They had to use money they received as separation pay. After a year, they had to rely on employment insurance and, later, on social assistance.

In the past, we had measures aimed at helping older former workers. Perhaps they were not the best measures, perhaps they had shortcomings, but at least these people could keep their pride because they did not have to rely on social assistance while waiting to receive their pension.

They were totally abandoned. These people who worked hard for 30 or 40 years in the same factory, for the same employer, were forced to retire because of globalization and the closing of factories. They were told “Go home now; you must rely on social assistance”. It is totally scandalous.

There is nothing for social housing either. There is nothing for international assistance. There is nothing for transfers for health and education. Now, I want to say a few words about indexation, because we know that even if funds were injected into health, costs were not taken into consideration. As the population ages, the cost of equipment, new technologies and drugs is skyrocketing, and we have to take this into account.

There is nothing for shipbuilding. The government has earmarked $1 billion to cover the increase in heating costs, but is sending each person a small cheque. We talked about it in the House. I met with single elderly people with incomes of $13,000 or $14,000 a year, who heat their home with oil, and have seen their heating bills double and nearly triple.

Someone who used to pay $400 for heating oil will have paid by the end of this winter between $800 and $1,000. This is outrageous when their yearly income is $13,000. The government issued cheques for $125 instead of keeping the money to target people who really needed it. The government took this initiative and sent cheques to help with heating expenses to everybody, including those who do not use heating oil. It does not make sense.

I have nothing against giving money to people who qualify for the GST rebate; I am happy for the people who received a $125 cheque. It was certainly welcome, especially during the holiday season. However, what did the government do for people such as single women who have only $13,000 a year to live on, whose heating expenses went up? It could have tried a bit harder.

It is similar to distributing goodies before an election is called, to make everybody happy; this creates a lot of visibility but solves nothing. People will get even deeper into poverty to avoid freezing this winter, as their heating bill doubles and nearly triples.

What does one do when one is poor and does not want to freeze? One goes without food or without heat and one literally freezes in order to be able to eat a little bit. This is unconscionable on the part of a government with a $147.9 billion surplus.

It has done a lot to pay down the debt. This is called fancy accounting. The finance minister has been very cautious. With the surplus he did not announce, he was able to reduce the debt. I have nothing against reducing the debt, but people who were put through the wringer and literally bled to death should come first.

A lot has been done for debt reduction and for millionaires. As a matter of fact, a family with one child and a $250,000 income will benefit from a tax reduction. However, a family with one child and a $30,000 income will not get much of a break. I would call that exploitation.

With these huge surpluses that made the Minister of Finance burst with pride, we were expecting him to give a break to those who were really instrumental in getting our fiscal house in order, those to whom we owe the fact that we have not had a deficit for four years, those who continue to be bled white by federal taxes, those thanks to whom the finance minister can be thrilled about having these surpluses right now.

We thought the main beneficiaries of these tax cuts would be low and middle income families, not very high income families that can benefit greatly from tax loopholes. With the help of a good tax expert, people earning $250,000 can save a lot of money.

The government has the audacity to say that surpluses will not exceed $6 billion this year, whereas close to $12 billion has already been accumulated in the coffers of the federal government. I know my figures are not correct because it is actually more than that.

The Minister of Finance could have done more for the disadvantaged, and for low and middle income taxpayers. I am talking about the workers who contribute to the EI fund as well as small and medium size businesses. They are the ones that end up paying for tax cuts for the rich.

I am also talking about the unemployed men and women who are not receiving any EI benefits because of the drastic cuts made and because of the tightening up of the eligibility criteria. The ones who are paying now for the tax cuts to the rich are rural families, and I think my colleague from Jonquière, who has responsibility for this issue, knows this well and will no doubt inform the House at some point about what is going on in the regions, young people, women and seniors.

We know why the government has presented this statement that has now evolved into Bill C-22. It was because the election was about to be called and they wanted to thumb their noses at the Canadian Alliance. What the Alliance was proposing at that time was a uniform rate, and the government wanted to win over the electorate. So, it adopted as its own the Alliance's uniform rate, which was universally denounced as favouring millionaires. It now has included it in its bill.

The $100 billion in surplus has come from the pockets of low and middle income taxpayers and, let me say again, from the unemployed, women, young people, sick people and the most disadvantaged members of our society. This is absolutely indecent.

We must not be too hasty with our rejoicing. Tax cuts are always welcome. Certainly, no one can be opposed to a tax cut. We must not be too quick to rejoice, however, because, as I have said, it will not show up in our tax returns this year. It will probably be in 2004.

The Minister of Finance could have had a budget this year, not a year and a half down the road, and let us have the benefit of these tax cuts this year. I mentioned earlier that, according to the information available, a single parent family with an income of $250,000 and over will benefit from a far greater relief to its tax burden, 40 times greater, than a family with one dependant and an income of $30,000.

Families with an income of $250,000 get a $20,000 net tax reduction, while those with an income of $35,000 and one dependent get a mere $500. These families should not pay any taxes. They do not in Quebec.

With all the money it has, the government still manages to go after these families. There are 1.5 million children living in poverty in Canada. Does that make any sense? Children are poor because women and families who are poor.

A family with a $35,000 income and one dependent is poor, but still must pay taxes. It will pay $1,425 in taxes. It will benefit from a $500 tax reduction, but not this year, only in 2004.

The minister kept saying, even in this House, that people with an income of $35,000 do not pay any taxes. He said it several times in the House. It is strange to hear him say that they do not pay any taxes and then announce that they will get $500 in tax reduction. Very strange indeed.

I would rather rely on the figures from our own research. People cannot be fooled that easily. The minister said repeatedly that those families do not pay any taxes and then announced that they would bet getting a $500 tax reduction. I truly believe those families are paying taxes.

We can also see in the budget that the government shamelessly keeps on accumulating surpluses, because, as was mentioned earlier, the tax reductions will take effect in only a year and a half. Meanwhile, the government keeps fiddling with the figures.

I can say that we were opposed to the statement and to the mini budget, and that we will not support this bill because it does not meet the needs of the Canadian and the Quebec society.

[André Harvey, Liberal, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague from Drummond for her comments.

I know that the Bloc Quebecois has to kill time between now and the next referendum is held. Everybody knows that. In that spirit, I would like to note and ask my colleague—

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I raise on a point of order. The member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord is mocking the intelligence of my colleague from Drummond. I find it totally unacceptable.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I would not want to serve as an advisor to every member's conscience. It would certainly be advisable for everyone to choose their words carefully, but if the member wants to defend himself, he may do so.

[André Harvey, Liberal, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will do just that and ask the member for Jonquière whether she received a response from Mr. Clinton to her letter.

I was elected to represent the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area. It does not seem possible to me that the federal government can be held responsible for all the problems in Quebec.

In that vein, I would point out that this year the federal government is going to make $14 billion in equalization and Canada social transfer payments. The problem does not always lie with the federal government. The problem is that the Bloc Quebecois does not direct the equalization and social transfer payments to the regions in accordance with objective guidelines.

I will give an example. It is too bad that the member has fled the House of Commons.

In the area of health, our region has an annual deficit of $75 million. This is not the federal government's fault; it has been going on for years and years, to the point where I would like to tell the member for Drummond that more and more people in our region would like the federal government to transfer less money to the government of Quebec and invest more money directly in the region, so that we can manage our own development.

The losses we are suffering in the management of natural resources, such as aluminum and lumber, are occurring in sectors that do not come under federal jurisdiction. We have lost 8,000 jobs in the aluminum sector. It is not the fault of the federal government if we have not yet begun to process aluminum.

I would like to take this opportunity to point out that the federal government is going to invest $52 million in an aluminum processing research centre.

Would the member for Drummond agree to let the federal government invest more directly in resource regions, because everyone agrees that the government of Quebec is neglecting the resource regions in all sectors? As for regional development, all it is doing is creating committees, such as the CRCD, and the CSD. The PQ has a bad case of committeeitis.

Enough of saying that the federal government is responsible for all Quebec's problems. One might wonder whether the problem did not lie with the government of Quebec's management and its lack of respect for the regions. I am in favour of the federal government investing directly in the regions.

[An hon. member]

That was not what you said when you were on this side of the House.

[André Harvey, Liberal, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

It is what I have always said.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

If members want to ask questions, they may take advantage of the question and comment period to do so. The hon. member for Drummond.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, what is outraging is the fact that this hon. member was not saying the same thing when he was on this side of the House. Now that he is on the other side, he has changed his tune.

When plants were closing and my colleagues and I were raucous in the House, calling for help to be provided to former older workers of the Canadian Celanese and the Cavalier Textiles in my region, as well as in his, he told me “When my party gets into office, we will restore measures for former older workers”. He is now on the other side and his party is in office, but I am still waiting for the measures that will be implemented to help these people.

With regard to the CHST, I would point out to my hon. colleague that initially the federal transfer for health and education was supposed to be 50%. Since 1993, the federal government has withdrawn support and its share has now declined to 14%. That doesn't make sense.

There have been drastic cuts. All the provinces, not just Quebec, but all the provinces agree that, if our provincial health systems are in danger, it is because of the cuts made by the federal government. So it is very insulting to come and tell us things like that.

When the minister made his financial statement, for once we had calculated the same flexibility as the finance minister. We too had calculated $147.9 billion. We had the same forecasts. Each year we used to come up with forecasts and the finance minister would say that we were mistaken. However, we were right, our figures were right and he had to recognize it.

This time, he came up with the same figure as us, as I was saying, that it $147.9 billion, but it is probably more than that now.

With regard to the tax burden reduction, the Minister of Finance forecast personal income tax reductions of $75.2 billion over five years. What I wanted to say it that we were suggesting a different way of allocating the $147.9 billion to assist those who suffered drastic cuts, particularly in the area of health.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The Acadians

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

moved:

That a humble Address be presented to Her Excellency praying that she will intercede with Her Majesty to cause the British Crown to present an official apology to the Acadian people for the wrongs done to them in its name between 1755 and 1763.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pride and pleasure that I rise today in the House to launch the debate on Motion No. 241, a highly solemn and truly historic motion for Acadians and everyone throughout the world who is of Acadian descent.

I think I understand the symbolic and historic meaning of this motion that I have the honour to sponsor. It reads as follows:

That a humble Address be presented to Her Excellency praying that she will intercede with Her Majesty to cause the British Crown to present an official apology to the Acadian people for the wrongs done to them in its name between 1755 and 1763.

In spite of its very formal presentation normally used for communications between parliament and the British crown, this motion may, at first glance, seem impertinent and even slightly offensive to Her Majesty.

I submit respectfully that it is not so. The motion does not violate the oath of office that each of us has taken in order to sit in this House. It is not disloyal to ask for formal recognition of indisputable historical events and for the presentation of an official apology, which should have been made a long time ago.

When one asks for an apology, does it mean that one is prepared to forgive the descendants of those who were responsible for the exactions? Most certainly. We should not be spiteful toward those people who cannot be held responsible for the actions of their ancestors. However, we cannot ever forget.

More than 200 years after these tragic events, nobody has ever admitted to responsibility for, and hence the occurrence of those events. It is as if, historically, it were a non-event.

Curiously, this matter is both taboo and ubiquitous. The British crown did some serious wrongs to the Acadian people, who is very aware of that wrong; it even strengthens its national identity. However, it would appear that no one dares to ask for an accounting, probably because people fear it will spark a painful debate. Yet, we should be able to look at our past with lucidity and serenity.

While we cannot judge the past by today's values and principles, some people state without hesitation that such exactions, if they were committed today, would be considered as genocide or as a crime against humanity.

In situations such as this, experts generally agree that impunity and more particularly the refusal to acknowledge the facts are the main breach of elementary justice, something that can prevent forever normalization of relations after the events.

Maybe that is why, more than 200 years later, these events are still taboo and ubiquitous, as I said earlier, as they still permeate the collective psyche of the Acadian people. In my opinion, acknowledging the facts and presenting an apology would be the least the British crown could do to make amends, in view to the abuse committed on its behalf against the Acadian people.

If the House of Commons, which is supposed to be the embodiment of Canadian democracy, refuses to look back at our past and to ask the British crown to acknowledge these historical facts, who will do it?

Of course, I know that this initiative of mine does not meet with the approval of all members. I have to admit I expected that kind of reaction. Everything the Bloc Quebecois does on behalf of francophone and Acadian communities in Canada is almost always viewed with suspicion.

When my party takes an initiative on behalf of francophone and Acadian communities in Canada, somebody always finds a way to accuse us of trying to make political hay at the expense of these communities. However when the Bloc Quebecois makes the mistake of remaining silent on a problem they have, we are accused of not caring about them because we are too concerned with separation.

I must stress right from the start that it is not as a member of the Bloc Quebecois that I took this initiative. I say to my potential critics that I have a right to exist outside of my party.

It is rather as a Quebecer of Acadian descent that I took this initiative. If today I am a Quebecer it is because my ancestors had to take refuge in Quebec, more specifically in Saint-Grégoire-de-Nicolet, as a result of the deportation of the Acadians.

My first ancestor to come to America, Barthélémy Bergeron, came from Amboise, in Touraine. He landed in New France in 1684 as a volunteer for the King. He first settled in Quebec City where he is thought to have worked as a baker. A member of the first Compagnies franches de la Marine, created to serve in the American colonies, he took part in campaigns and raids led by the famous Pierre LeMoyne d'Iberville. After 1673, he settled in Port-Royal, in what is now Nova Scotia. He married Geneviève Serreau de Saint-Aubin, the daughter of an Acadian nobleman, with whom he had several children.

In 1704, after the raid led by Colonel Church against Port-Royal, Barthélémy Bergeron and his family were taken prisoner and kept in captivity in Boston for two years. After the Treaty of Utrecht was signed in 1713, Nova Scotia fell into the hands of the British.

Since 1604, the control of Acadia had switched between France and England no less than seven times. In 1730, at the urging of church authorities, Barthélémy Bergeron and his family moved to what is now New Brunswick, becoming one of the pioneering families in the village of Sainte-Anne-du-Pays-Bas, which is now called Fredericton, the capital of the province.

Faced with an impending war against France and doubtful about the loyalty and neutrality of His Majesty's French and Catholic subjects in Acadia, British colonial authorities came up with a strategy which has unfortunately been a source of inspiration throughout human history, and which the Romans had successfully used many years before. They were simply going to deport these supposedly subversive populations and scatter them throughout the various British colonies in America.

On September 5, 1755, in the Minas area, Lieutenant-Colonel John Winslow read the deportation order to the men of the community who were held captive in the church. Here is an excerpt from that order:

—it is ordered that your lands and tenements, cattle of all kinds and livestock of all sorts, be forfeited to the British Crown, along with all other effects, saving your money and household goods and you, yourselves, be removed from this Province.

Between 1755 and the months following the signature of the Treaty of Paris in 1763 more than 10,000 Acadians were deported. Of that number, at least one third died in shipwrecks, from diseases due to the terrible conditions on the ships carrying them to unknown destinations or from the weather conditions and the hardships they faced once they had arrived at their final destination.

To the physical suffering were added the pain of exile and the humiliation of destitution and poverty felt by this peaceful people who, through effort and ingenuity, had succeeded in making the salt flats of Acadia productive, to ensure their subsistence. For many of them there was also the heartbreaking experience of the forced separation of families.

This is what explains the poignancy of Longfellow's epic poem about the tragic destiny of Évangéline, who was separated from the man she loved at the time of deportation and spent her life trying to find him.

For many, the exodus lasted many years, because most of the colonies where they were intended to settle did not have the infrastructure to integrate these unexpected immigrants, often seen as undesirable.

During that exodus, many of them were brought to the colonies in New England and others ended up in the Caribbean, in France, in England, but also as far as French Guyana or the Falkland Islands.

A number of these exiles later settled in Louisiana, then a Spanish colony, while others began a long and difficult journey back to Acadia. However, they were never again to see the beautiful and fertile land they had cleared and farmed, because it now belonged to English settlers.

At the beginning of the 19th century, close to a third of the Acadian people had found a safe haven in what would later become Quebec. After 1763, tired of hiding to escape from British troops, the children, grand-children and great-grand-children of Barthélémy Bergeron were among the last to leave Acadia to take refuge in Quebec.

After a winter in Cacouna, most of them finally settled, along with many other Acadian refugee families, in Saint-Grégoire-de-Nicolet, which came to be known informally as “Petite-Cadie”.

Other members of the family of Barthélémy Bergeron, though there were fewer of them, chose to settle in the Gaspé Peninsula, in the area of Carleton, and in Louisiana.

For four generations, my ancestors contributed to shaping the face of Acadia. Besides the Bergerons of Amboise and the Serreaus of Saint-Aubin, I also count the Héberts, the Bourgs and the Moricets among my ancestors.

I am proud of my Acadian origins and, despite what some might want to say or do today, nobody can make me renounce them. Some may suggest that I am not an Acadian and that I therefore have no authority to take this initiative, but one undeniable fact remains: if it had not been for the deportation, I would probably be an Acadian today.

This is why the Acadian diaspora resulting from the deportation is directly affected, as much as the Acadia of today, by the motion now before the House. As a matter of fact, the deportation made us what we have become today.

It was a few years ago that I really became aware of my Acadian origins. This new awareness prompted me to embark on a real search for my roots, which led me to visit the Atlantic provinces several times.

I travelled throughout historical Acadia and today's Acadia, from Port-Royal to Louisbourg, from Fredericton to Plaisance, from Grand-Pré to Moncton, from the Acadian peninsula to Prince Edward Island, from the Magdalen Islands to Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon, and as far as Louisiana. I met many people who are interested in this issue as well as experts, including Stephen White, genealogist at the Université de Moncton's Centre d'études acadiennes.

However, it is a combination of three events that led me to bring forward this motion in the House of Commons. Having attended the last Congrès mondial acadien held in Louisiana, I was able to see the considerable damage caused by the assimilation of the descendants of exiled Acadians in those areas. I have since come to espouse the powerful idea of a great Acadian community, proud, united and transcending borders, an idea that permeated the latest Congrès mondial acadien.

I was also troubled by the controversy surrounding the choice of Moncton to host the latest Sommet de la Francophonie. It will be recalled that a number of activists criticized this choice as being too symbolically charged. We need only remember that Colonel Robert Monckton, whose name the city now bears, was guilty of behaviour toward the Acadians that would today earn him, as I mentioned earlier, an appearance before the international criminal tribunal.

However, this apparent downplay by Canadian authorities of the tragic events surrounding the deportation of the Acadians might have been considered negligible had a member of this House, a member of the federal cabinet at the time, not also tried to minimize the effects of the deportation by saying, in France, that she had forgotten the year this unfortunate operation had begun.

In order to put an end to this apparent offhandedness of Canadian authorities with respect to this tragic period of our history, it became important to me to have the House of Commons give formal consideration to the matter and recognize officially, for the first time in its history, that these events did indeed occur.

I therefore put this motion on the order paper of the House of Commons at the end of October 1999. However, losing out in the draw, it died on the order paper with the dissolution of parliament last fall. I therefore put it back on the order paper of the House with the start of this parliament.

I did this in good faith, wanting to pay tribute to the courage, tenacity and determination of the men and women who valiantly faced adversity and assured the survival of these astounding people, the Acadians. I would like to pay tribute to our mothers and fathers and to our sisters and brothers who have tirelessly defended their language and their culture in the past and who keep on doing so today in many corners of America, promoting them in a colourful way well beyond Acadia. I want to pay tribute to the organizations that defend and promote the rights, interests and specificity of the Acadian communities.

They should not be forgotten, or their struggles, and their ceaseless efforts will have been in vain. This motion is not about changing history. History cannot be changed and there is nothing we can do today that will take away the sufferings of the past.

However, if we want to be able to learn for what happened in the past, we need the courage and the vision to face facts.

The Pharaohs of ancient Egypt had understood that the only way for them to guarantee their own immortality and to ensure that their achievements would not be forgotten was to carve them in stone, as if engraving it in the collective memory. They therefore thought that hacking out such carvings, making them disappear, would automatically doom the events and the people they depicted to indifference and oblivion.

We have no right to maintain this apparent indifference toward one of the most dramatic events in our history, as we dooming it to oblivion.

Imagine that, on hearing about the motion being debated today, some members of this House had never heard of the events surrounding the deportation of the Acadians, and could hardly believe that such events could really have happened in Canada. This gives some idea of the scope of the problem is, and shows that we should address it immediately.

As elected representatives of the population, we have a historical responsibility. We do not have the right to commit a sin of omission. The memory of a people is at stake. The memory of what happened should not be mere folklore for Acadians only. Our duty today is to officially acknowledge these historical events and ask that an official apology be made. It is that simple.

This is all the more important since the deportation order, which was in effect until 1764, has never been officially lifted, it would appear.

I should mention that this motion does not provide in any way for the compensation of families and descendants of those who were deported.

We will soon have in the House the great privilege of making a historic gesture by voting on this motion. I urge all my colleagues in the House to set aside partisan considerations and support this motion massively. This is a fundamental question that transcends party lines. The House should make the necessary solemn gesture toward history and toward the Acadian people.

[Jeannot Castonguay, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to answer the member for Verchères—Les Patriotes and his motion asking the Governor General to intercede with Her Majesty the Queen of England to cause the British crown to present an official apology to the Acadian people for the wrongs done to them between 1755 and 1763.

The history of Canada, like that of any other country, has its sad moments of which we all agree we have no reason to be proud.

These moments are made up of events sometimes centuries old. This is the case with the deportation of the Acadians. History is sometimes cruel. However, the history of Canada is not made up of injustices only. It is, for the most part, based on progress, advancement and growth. Today, we must look toward the future.

The least we can say today is that the sudden interest of the member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes is surprising. Surprising, indeed, because if we go back a little in time, it is quite obvious that this initiative goes against the logic of the Bloc Quebecois. I know that the Bloc's logic may sometimes remind us of the Twilight Zone . Nevertheless, the colleagues of the member of Verchères—Les-Patriotes and even the leader of his party have rarely shown a true and honest open-mindedness regarding the fate of Acadians and of francophones outside of Quebec.

Not so long ago, in October 1997, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois said in an interview to the Fredericton Telegraph Journal that the salvation of Acadian artists was conditional upon their exiling themselves to Montreal.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

This debate in incredibly non-partisan.

[Jeannot Castonguay, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

To be recognized, to reach the top, in other words to succeed, every Acadian artist must pack up and move to Montreal. This reasoning is simplistic but not new. Outside Quebec, there is no salvation. We have heard that one before.

But what we had never heard is what the Bloc Quebecois leader added at the time. He said, in reference to Acadian artists that “they themselves were proof that it simply does not work outside Quebec”. Allow me to be sceptical as to the real intentions of the Bloc Quebecois in bringing this motion forward in the House.

Bloc Quebecois members are interested in our history or our existence to the extent that it serves their interests and their objective. They want people to believe that they are trying to correct the mistakes of the past, to shed light on a dark episode of our history. One would think that such an initiative would be made in consultation with those concerned, namely the Acadians. That is the least the Bloc Quebecois could do. But its logic does not work like that.

The Bloc Quebecois' logic is based on an out of date and disrespectful paternalism toward Canada's francophone and Acadian communities. Again, this is nothing new. In 1994, the member for Rimouski—Neigette-et-la Mitis, whose riding is close to Acadia, told the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne to mind its own business, because that organization had dared get involved in the debate on sovereignty. Now, they are telling us not only to mind our own business, but that they will meddle in our affairs, with or without our agreement. Let me make one thing very clear: Acadians are not the wards of the Bloc Quebecois. Acadians form a thriving community that is proud of its roots and that is looking to the future. We do not need a self-appointed guardian.

The average observer of the Canadian political landscape can easily be led to confuse the logic of the Bloc Quebecois with that of the Parti Quebecois. This is perfectly normal, since one complements the other. It is particularly easy to illustrate. Again, not so long ago, the PQ government refused to take part in the Year of La Francophonie in Canada. That was not long ago, that was in April 1999.

The Quebec minister responsible for Canadian intergovernmental affairs, Joseph Facal, explained his government's refusal by pointing out that “Quebec cannot, within the Canadian Francophonie, be put on the same level as francophone minorities in the rest of Canada”. So it all comes down to the statement by the Bloc leader: there are those who are saved, who live in Quebec, and those who are lost, who live outside of the promised land.

It is not easy for Acadians to listen to such remarks. Remarks inspired, as I said, by the offensive, insulting and hurtful paternalistic attitude of the Bloc Quebecois separatists. Who has forgotten the now famous words of the member for Rimouski—Neigette-et-la Mitis “They have been assimilated—the francophones—poof.”

The Acadians helped build this country. They worked hard and with determination for the conservation and protection of their culture and of their identity.

The Acadians have founded schools, colleges and universities. They have created playhouses, newspapers and publishing houses. They have made exceptional breakthroughs in the areas of culture, such as theatre, movies, visual arts, music and literature. They have given the world writers, poets, artists, dancers, musicians and singers. They have set up an impressive network of businesses and have created jobs. They did not wait for anyone to take them by the hand and decide for them.

The Acadian community in Canada is not comprised of one, but several communities spread out across the whole Atlantic region and elsewhere. In New Brunswick, the Acadians are concentrated in the southeast, the northeast and the northwest of the province, and there are also Acadian groups in Fredericton and Saint John.

In Nova Scotia, there are vibrant Acadian communities in St. Mary's Bay, on the southwest shore, on Madame Island and in the Chéticamp area, in Cape Breton.

In Prince Edward Island, the Acadians live in the Évangéline region. In Newfoundland, they are concentrated near Cape St. George, in St. John's and in Labrador City. Many also live on the Magdalen Islands, in Gaspé, in the Montreal area and in western Canada. All of these communities, some of them large and others not so large, illustrate the vitality of the Canadian people and of its two official languages.

The Acadians take part in the success and prosperity of our country. The Government of Canada recognizes their vitality and their essential contribution to Canadian society. They are part of the seven million people in Canada who speak, sing, write, work and live in French. These francophones are evidence of the vitality and the extraordinary determination to move ahead and to flourish in a continent where the majority is anglophone.

The English and French languages and the people who speak these languages have shaped Canada and helped define its identity. Canada's linguistic duality has its source in the very roots of our country. It is impossible to be interested in today's Canada without acknowledging the importance of these two languages and these two linguistic communities in Canadian society.

I will get back to the main subject of this debate. While Bloc Quebecois members claim the opposite, recent history has taught us that the interest this party shows for francophone and Acadian communities in Canada is always motivated by a hidden political agenda. This motion hides the real intentions of the mover, and we cannot accept it. In this sense, intellectual honesty demands that we refuse to support this motion and this is why I invite members of this House to oppose it.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate today on private member's Motion No. 241 which reads:

That a humble Address be presented to Her Excellency praying that she will intercede with Her Majesty to cause the British Crown to present an official apology to the Acadian people for the wrongs done to them in its name between 1755 and 1763.

I appreciate the sentiment, the emotion and the sense of personal justice at the heart of the motion. For the benefit Canadians watching the debate, I will sketch some of the details that have given cause for the motion.

Acadia was explored initially by the Italians who named the region Arcadia in 1524. A treaty passed the area back to the French in 1697. Beginning in the 1670s French colonists left the major settlement at Port Royal to found other centres.

After the war of the Spanish succession of 1701 to 1713, Acadia came under English rule. From 1713 to 1744 the relatively small English presence permitted the Acadian population to grow at a pace that surpassed the average of the whole region. This period was referred to as Acadia's golden age.

England demanded from its conquered subjects an oath of unconditional loyalty, but the Acadians agreed only to a position of neutrality. This was accepted at that time. England began bringing its own settlers into the area around 1749. The British in Halifax decided to settle the Acadian question once and for all. By refusing to pledge an unconditional oath of allegiance, the Acadian population risked deportation.

The Acadians initially refused to make the pledge, then acquiesced. Lawrence, the English gentleman in charge of the settlement, was unhappy with a reluctant oath and executed the plan for deportation. Why deportation? Lawrence feared a combined attack by Louisbourg and Canada against Nova Scotia joined by the Mi'kmaq and the Acadians.

According to historical record, the deportation process lasted from 1755 to 1762. The Acadians were put onto ships and deported to English colonies as far south as Georgia. Others managed to flee to French lands to hide in the woods. It is believed that three-quarters of the Acadian population was deported.

There was no distinction whatsoever made between the innocent and the guilty. The tyrannical decision to deport was carried out under circumstances of the harshest cruelties. More than 7,000 third and fourth generation persons were transported from their homes and dispersed among the colonies bordering on the Atlantic, from Massachusetts to Georgia. Their lands and possessions were forfeited to the crown without compensation. What is to be done now? The motion demands an apology.

Let us review a recent apology made by the Canadian government. Let us consider an exchange between Brian Mulroney and the late Pierre Trudeau concerning the apology to Japanese Canadians for their internment during the second world war. Mr. Trudeau said, as per the June 29, 1984 Hansard :

There is no way in which we can relive the history of that period. In that sense, we cannot redress what was done. We can express regret collectively, as we have done.

He further stated:

I do not see how I can apologize for some historic event to which we or these people in this House were not a party. We can regret that it happened. But why mount to great heights of rhetoric in order to say that an apology is much better than an expression of regret? This I cannot too well understand.

He went on to say:

Why does Mulroney not apologize for what happened during the Second World War to mothers and fathers of people sitting in this House who went to concentration camps? I know some of them, Mr. Speaker. They were not Japanese Canadians. They were Canadians of Italian or German origin, or some old French Canadians who went to jail, who went to concentration camps during the Second World War. Why do we not apologize to them?

He further said:

I do not think it is the purpose of the Government to right the past. It cannot re-write history. It is our purpose to be just in our time, and that is what we have done by bringing in the Charter of Rights.

On December 14, 1994, the Liberal's position on redresses was articulated by the then secretary of state of multiculturalism and status of women, and not the one who is not apologizing for our gaff. At that time it was Sheila Finestone. She said:

Seeking to halt the wounds caused by the actions of previous governments, 6 ethno cultural communities have requested redress and compensation totalling hundreds of millions of dollars. The government understands the strong feelings underlying these requests. We share the desire to heal those wounds.

By the way there are now eight ethnocultural communities. She continued:

The issue is whether the best way to do this is to attempt to address the past or to invest in the future. We believe our only choice lies in using limited government resources to create a more equitable society now and a better future for generations to come. Therefore the government will not grant financial compensation for the requests made. We believe our obligation lies in acting to prevent these wrongs from recurring.

I believe this latter quote is most significant because this is what the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois is up against in trying to have the government support his motion.

I seriously doubt that he will be successful. The apology and compensation package given to the Japanese Canadians has sent a precedent from which Italians and Ukrainians interned in World War I and World War II have also demanded apologies.

The Ukrainian group, according to the recommendations issued by the Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association, has requested principally that Ottawa fund educational programs and provide for historical plaques, not direct compensation to victims.

The Italians were not happy with Mulroney's expression of regret issued November 4, 1990 and are seeking a full apology and compensation. Both these groups cite the apology given to Japanese Canadians as the reason they are deserving.

Let me also remind the House of another situation. One of the political parties in the House was in power in 1914, when 376 passengers who were British subjects arrived on a ship named Komagata Maru . They were not allowed to land on Canadian soil because of an exclusionist immigration policy based on race and the country of origin.

The policy had its origin in the 1880s when the Canadian government first imposed a head tax on Chinese immigrants. The government erected a variety of barriers until 1962. The passengers on the Komagata Maru thought they had the right to enter Canada because they were British subjects. Ninety per cent of the passengers on the ship were Sikhs. The rest were Hindus and Muslims, but they were all from Punjab.

Sikh soldiers who had served throughout the British empire thought they should be able to work wherever the British flag was flying. The passengers went without food and water on several occasions for more than 24 hours and the immigration officials held them incommunicado. Even the lawyers hired on their behalf were not allowed to see them.

The Punjabi residents of Vancouver raised money to pay for the charter. After two months of detention in the Vancouver harbour, the government brought in the cruiser the Rainbow and aimed its guns at the Komagata Maru . The ship was escorted with 352 passengers still on board. It was a bitter and disappointing moment for the friends watching the ship disappear.

A voyage that began on April 4th did not end until September 29th in Calcutta, India, where the police opened fire on passengers and killed 19 of them. Others were arrested. In a more tolerant Canada, the Komagata Maru remains a powerful symbol for Sikhs and one that other Canadians should understand.

As a consequence, we are beginning to reassess our past. Will the government offer an official apology?