Debates of Feb. 13th, 2004

The House resumed from February 9 consideration of the motion.

Act to amend the Radiocommunication Act

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank all my colleagues for their cooperation today. As expected, the House leaders of all parties came to an agreement on Tuesday.

Discussions have taken place between the parties concerning the taking of the division on the motion to refer Bill C-2 to committee before second reading, which is scheduled for right now. I believe that if you were to seek it you would find unanimous consent for the following:

That at the conclusion of today's debate on Bill C-2, if a recorded division is requested on the motion of referral to committee before second reading, the said vote shall be deferred until 5:30 p.m on Tuesday, February 17, 2004.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Does the House give its consent to the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to address Bill C-2, an act to amend the Radiocommunication Act.

I had an opportunity to review some of the debate in which I took part earlier in the week and I want to make a few points.

First, I want to focus on and at least highlight the bill in terms of what it does for consumers and the telecommunications industry. The government rationale behind the bill is to protect investments made by the broadcasting industry and the integrity of the broadcasting system as a whole by fighting satellite piracy. To do so, the bill will target unauthorized dealers and the pirating of signals.

In particular, the government wants current changes it deems necessary to stop the sale and distribution of devices used to decode encrypted direct to home satellite signals without authorization. It is an excellent example of the government not taking the proper steps on an issue that is going to lead to confrontation in Canadian society and is the reason I do not support the bill being moved to committee at this time.

To be specific, the problem is that the bill is coming forward without dealing with the issue of satellite access to many cultural and other programs that are currently available abroad to different communities out there, providing those opportunities for people to purchase into the systems. They will now be further criminalized by the bill if they are accessing products and services that are not available legally in this country. I think the government should have been honest and should have actually worked on producing those access points for Canadians, be it for cultural or other types of programming for which people have been clamouring and which keeps them in connection with the community.

A report that came out of the Canadian heritage committee identified this issue. It was a report about the black and grey satellite market: “Maintaining a Single System”. In chapter 16 the committee recommended:

--that the CRTC permit Canadian broadcasting distribution undertakings to offer a wider range of international programming, while being respectful of Canadian content regulations.

Now the government has come forward with this bill, which will further criminalize people for keeping in touch with their cultural communities.

I noticed in Hansard that previous supporters of the bill seem to be falling back on the whole issue of protecting artists and broadcasting integrity in Canada to ensure that those individuals receive funds and the proper recognition they deserve for their products, and to encourage our Canadian culture to flourish. That is very suspect, with the government's past.

I want to be very clear about this. If a person is in the black market system and is stealing a signal that is legally available in Canada, we should stop that. We should have punishment for those individuals. Whether it is Bell ExpressVu, Shaw or whatever is currently available in Canada, it should not be an option for people to steal the signal and they should be punished accordingly for that. The problem is in that grey market where the services are not available. This also provides a good connection for individuals and communities to reach back to their former homelands, to have education and entertainment and that connection. Those individuals will now be further criminalized into that black market. I cannot support the bill for that reason.

The government is falling back on the whole notion that the bill will improve the access for artists to be able to receive funds and to make sure Canadian content prospers, but it is not really an improvement on its past practices. We recently had a motion put forward by the member for Dartmouth from our party which called for a tax deduction for artists. That would have been far better for those artists. The government voted against that and stopped the motion from going forward.

One of the main issues that we have to identify is how to provide people with the actual access to those cultural programs. In my community of Windsor, we have many people accessing programs which they would access in a legal way if they were provided the opportunity to do so. They could do so and pay into a system that supports Canadian culture. They would all be happy to do that and would support it.

We have to wonder where this issue is going. We look at the fact that Bell ExpressVu Canada and Shaw Communications have contributed over $320,000 to the Liberal Party and Paul Martin's leadership campaign--

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

That is out of order.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

The Speaker has not ruled on that. You are no longer the House leader, thank you.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Hon. members cannot refer to other hon. members this way. In particular, they cannot use their names on the floor of the House of Commons. I will leave the rest of the insults aside for a moment, but members are to refer to each other by name of riding.

I know perfectly well that I am not the House leader. That has nothing to do with it. It has to do with the unparliamentary language used by the hon. member across.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Let me see if I can be of assistance here. Certainly with regard to the practice of the House in terms of referring to one another, it is either by the portfolio one might carry or at the very least by naming each other's ridings respectfully. In terms of the contents, I will not engage in a debate, but certainly the practice as stated by the hon. member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell is correct. I failed in paying close enough attention and I do regret that.

With the little time the hon. member for Windsor West has left, I know he will want to make sure that we complete this intervention without any further mishaps.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for that. I was reading off my notes and made an honest mistake. I took offence because I was being shouted down by another member of the House. I apologize for naming an individual. I should have said the former minister of finance, the member for LaSalle--Émard. I apologize for that.

To wrap up, I do want to impress upon members that before Bill C-2 moves forward we need to clear up the issue of access to grey market products. That is very important. That should be the very first step because it is important to build Canada through our cultural diversity. That is what connects many people to information abroad, whether it is English language programming, whether it is Christian programming, or whether it is Middle Eastern programming like Al Jazeera. All these things have been asked for at the CRTC but there has been no response.

The government needs to solve that first as opposed to further criminalizing people for making sure that they have those elements that are so important to their lifestyles. Quite frankly, it could be accessed through other mediums we already have, such as the Internet or as in other communities by putting up regular airwaves. This needs to be resolved right away before the government moves forward. Nothing else will do.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the division stands deferred until Tuesday, February 17 at 5:30 p.m.

Bill C-18. On the order: Government Orders

February 12, 2004—The Minister of Finance—Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Finance of Bill C-18, an act respecting equalization and authorizing the Minister of Finance to make certain payments related to health.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, for the Minister of Finance]

moved:

That Bill C-18, an act respecting equalization and authorizing the Minister of Finance to make certain payments related to health be immediately referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place between all parties and if you were to seek it, I think you would find consent of the House to adopt the following motion:

That if a recorded division is requested on the motion to refer Bill C-18 to committee before second reading, it be deferred to 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 17, 2004.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to rise on Bill C-18, an act respecting equalization and to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments with respect to health, and to support the motion that the legislation be referred to committee.

The bill is designed to achieve two goals. First, the bill would enable the continuation of the equalization payments while the renewal legislation is being finalized. Second, the bill would provide the federal government with the authority to pay $2 billion to the provinces and territories for health, as confirmed by the Prime Minister following the first minister's meeting.

My hon. colleagues are aware that the federal government is in a partnership with the provinces and territories and it plays a key role in supporting the Canadian health system and social programs.

The large majority of federal transfers are delivered through four major programs: the CHST, the Canada health and social transfer; the equalization payments; the territorial formula financing; and the new health transfer.

The bill today only deals with equalization and CHST. However, collectively, those four programs actually represent 2.4% of the nation's GDP, a significant sum of money by anyone's standard and constitute 18% of the government's revenues.

The equalization program is a constitutional obligation that ensures that less prosperous provinces have the capacity to provide reasonably comparable public services according to their levels of ability. It is not a program that transfers wealth among citizens.

Payments are unconditional. Receiving provinces are free to spend the funds on public services according to their own priorities. Payments are calculated according to a formula set out in federal legislation. The formula responds to the changing economic fortunes and circumstances of each province. It is designed to measure a province's fiscal capacity relative to the average fiscal capacity of the five middle income provinces, which forms the threshold standard.

The formula puts 33 revenue sources in a basket to measure fiscal capacity. Each province's fiscal capacity is measured relative to the middle wealthy five provinces.

The formula is dynamic and, as revenues go up or go down over the year, the average moves as does the fiscal capacity of each province. If any province has a good year, that affects equalization and, conversely, if any province has a bad year, so also is equalization affected.

If a large province has a bad year, naturally there is a ripple effect. Population movement, as reflected in the 2001 census, also affects the flow of payments.

The good news is that over the past 20 years, with all the ups and downs of the nation's provinces, there has been a slow but steady narrowing in the fiscal disparities.

At the same time, equalization payments are subject to a floor provision, which provides protection to provincial governments against unexpected large and sudden decreases in equalization payments. The floor limits the amount by which a province's entitlements can decline from one year to the next.

Federal and provincial officials review the equalization program on an ongoing basis to make sure that differences in the capacity of provinces to raise revenues are measured as accurately as possible.

In addition, and central to today's debate, is the fact that equalization legislation is renewed every five years to ensure that this review is undertaken and that the integrity and fundamental objectives of the program are preserved. The last renewal was in 1999. The current legislation is set to expire on March 31, 2004.

Discussions on the full five year renewal of the equalization program are underway but may not be set by April 1, 2004, which would leave a gap in the government's authority to make equalization payments.

Briefly, the bill before us today would provide the Minister of Finance with the authority to continue to make the equalization payments according to the current formula for up to a year in the event that the new legislation is not ready before April 1.

The bill would ensure an uninterrupted stream of equalization payments following March 31. It is basically an insurance policy to ensure the continuation of payments while renewal legislation is finalized.

Passage of the bill would ensure that public services provinces fund through the equalization program will continue to be protected for the benefit of their citizens.

Of course, when passed, the renewal legislation would supercede this extension. When the full renewal legislation is passed it will be retroactive to April 1, 2004. The renewal legislation would ensure that the program remains up to date and that the best possible calculations and data are used to determine equalization payments.

As I indicated, until the renewal legislation is introduced and passed, hon. members should regard the measures in Bill C-18 as insurance to continue payments and minimize the impacts upon the receiving provinces.

I want to turn now to the other provision in Bill C-18, which is the Prime Minister's commitment to provide a further $2 billion to the provinces and territories for health.

As the largest federal transfer, the CHST provides provinces and territories with cash payments and tax transfers in support of health care, post-secondary education, social assistance and social services, including early childhood development and early learning and child care. It constitutes 1.7% of the nation's GDP.

Since the CHST was created in 1996, the federal government has strengthened the transfer numerous times and it will continue to be a key priority for the government.

Let me take a moment to review the major funding increases.

In September 2000, Canada's first ministers reached a five year health renewal agreement under which the federal government made its largest ever increase to the CHST. The September 2000 agreement provided $21.1 billion to the provinces and territories for health care and early childhood development, bringing CHST payments to their highest levels ever. To support the agreement, the federal government also provided an additional $2.3 billion in targeted advancements for medical equipment, primary care reform and new information technologies such as electronic patient records.

When that money came to the hospitals in my riding the CEO of that hospital identified information technologies as his critical need and, in some direct measure, the federal government responded to that.

Drawing on the commitments supporting reform and renewal outlined in 2000, the 2003 budget confirmed $34.8 billion in increased funding over five years to meet the goals outlined in the 2003 health accord.

As a result of the investments I have just outlined, in 2003-04 the federal will provide a total of $37.9 billion in support to the provinces and territories through the CHST.

That brings me to the second measure in the bill, which is the $2 billion from the consolidated revenue fund in 2003-04 for health.

Additional funding for health care was committed under the 2003 health accord where the government indicated that in an addition to $34.8 billion over five years, it would provide an additional $2 billion for health at the end of the fiscal year 2003-04 if the Minister of Finance determined during the month of January 2004 that there would be sufficient surplus above the normal contingency reserve to permit such an investment. The commitment was reiterated in the February 2003 budget and again in the November 2003 economic update.

This government intends to live up to that commitment. This money is in addition to the increased federal investment of $17.3 billion over three years and the $34.8 billion over five years already confirmed.

The passage of the bill before the end of the fiscal year will provide provinces and territories with the flexibility to begin drawing down these funds as they require, which will help them better plan for the future.

The bill would ensure that Canada's health care system continues to be, in the words of the Prime Minister, “A proud example of our national values at work”.

In considering the equalization measures of the bill, I urge hon. members to also keep in mind that the bill underscores the priority the government places on equalization and ensures uninterrupted funding until renewal legislation is in place. This would ensure that the receiving provinces continue to receive the resources they need.

I encourage hon. members to support the motion.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, anybody who did not know the difference and who listened to what we just heard from the government member would think we have a wonderful government. It is giving all this money to the provinces and now, because it thought there might be some disruption in the program, it will extend the current program for another year.

Has this not been a very familiar ring in the Chamber over the last few months? The government is going to extend, going to put off, going to refer to the courts. When is the government going to make a decision on something? What more important decision can it make than on the equalization payments to the provinces?

The provinces have known for years that the present equalization payment agreement would end at the end of this fiscal year. They have been working extremely hard and have been placated by little bits and pieces.

The member says that the government is giving more in equalization payments than it ever did before. If people worked for me in 1970 and I paid them $5 an hour and I now give them $5.25 would I ask them why they were complaining since I was paying them more? We must look at the effect in real dollars. The provinces have been shafted entirely.

Let me read into the record what the Constitution says. Section 36(2) states:

Parliament and the Government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.

It does not say comparable levels of service. It says reasonable, meaning close.

Perhaps we should look at some of the provinces we refer to as have not provinces. Why are they have not provinces? It is because we have not. The federal government takes it away.

One of the reasons we have to fight for equalization is to make sure we can provide these reasonably comparable levels of services. Can it be done? Let me be parochial and talk about Newfoundland and Labrador. Can we provide reasonably comparable levels of services? The answer is a blatant no.

Why is that? One just has to look at the geography of our province and the infrastructure necessary to deliver reasonably comparable levels of service to our people. Let us look at the health care funding, which the government has scuttled. The CHST payments have been reduced to almost non-existence despite the promises of an extra $2 billion that we have heard about for three years.

Most of the premiers come up and take the money begrudgingly and go home. However the bottom line is that they are worse off than they were before they took the money. We are not even close to keeping up with regular payments. In fact, at one time the provinces and the federal government shared the cost 50:50. Now some of the provinces are down to a 14% federal contribution. The burden is on the provinces and then, of course, it is on the municipalities and on the taxpayers and the services cannot be provided. Is this reasonably comparable? That is poppycock. Services are not reasonably comparable.

When we again look at the geography of Newfoundland and Labrador, or anywhere in rural Canada, can we provide reasonably comparable services under the present system? The answer is no.

What are the premiers looking for? The premiers and the ministers of finance are looking to the government to give them what the Constitution requires, nothing more and nothing less. They only want adequate funding to provide reasonably comparable levels of service.

What difference does it make to Newfoundland, under the present arrangement, where we see the average based upon not only five provinces, but which also excludes a number of different factors that affect what we would call equalization?

When look at the 10 provinces and we base it on equality, the difference to Newfoundland and Labrador is about $200 million annually. Where can we find that money? It is about the same amount as we have now seen wasted on the sponsorship program. Right now we are talking over $100 million, and every day we see other bits and pieces come out. With the sponsorship program alone, the money that has been squandered and covered up could have equalized the payments to Newfoundland and Labrador.

That $200 million is only 20%, or one-fifth, of the money spent on the gun registry. If we had taken the gun registry money alone, five provinces, like Newfoundland and Labrador, would have received proper and adequate equalization payments. It is incredible to think that the government blatantly can throw away such money.

The Liberals can go behind closed doors and in five minutes make a decision to bring in the foolish long gun registry that has wasted $1 billion. They can go behind closed doors and pass out $100 million to their friends. It is unbelievable. Yet they cannot, within two years, sit down with the provinces and come up with a reasonable agreement on equalization. This is completely and utterly unheard of.

What can they do to correct this inadequacy?

First, if they moved to the 10 province formula instead of the five province formula, it would be a major factor and it would help all the provinces.

Second, and more important, let us take this designation of have not away from the provinces by letting them develop their own resources. The development of natural resources and the economy generated by that should be taken out of the equalization formula if they are non-renewable resources. Let the provinces benefit from their own resources. If that happened, provinces like Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador and the developing north would do very well on their own. Not only would we be equal in the economic standards of the country, we would be contributing partners. We would not have other provinces complaining about paying more than their share, and perhaps rightly so. They would not have them dumping into the public purse to equalize provinces like ours. We would be able to pay our own way and help maybe a few provinces who could not.

The Liberals look at us, the new Conservative Party, and ask where our policies are. They will see them when we hit the campaign trail. However, I will tell them one right now. In relation to equalization, we would move to the 10 province formula for which all the provinces have asked. We would remove non-renewable natural resources from the equalization agreement which would give provinces that have these resources a chance to get on their feet and become contributing partners. Then the services across the country would be comparable. We would be contributors and would not be held subservient to a central government that just does not care.