Karen Redman

[Homelessness, March 23rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak about the Homeless Individuals and Families Information System known as HIFIS.

This new information system is created under the research and information transfer mandate of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. It is designed to assemble information which is both reliable and comprehensive on homelessness in communities across Canada.

For the first time shelters and cities will have an accurate count of the number of homeless individuals and families using shelters and to monitor the services used.

Developing a better understanding of homelessness through initiatives such as HIFIS is only part of the solution to this problem. On December 17, 1999 the Government of Canada committed $753 million for initiatives designed to help reduce and prevent homelessness in Canada.

The Government of Canada currently provides $1.9 billion annually to support approximately 644,000 community based housing units for seniors, people with disabilities and low income families.

[Petitions, March 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition requests that parliament take all necessary steps to ensure that the possession of child pornography remains a criminal offence and that police forces be directed to give priority to enforcing this law for the protection of our children.

[Petitions, March 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table two petitions in the House on behalf of my constituents of Kitchener Centre.

The first petition is from the rural route couriers who believe they are being discriminated against. They call on parliament to repeal section 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act.

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, March 13th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am truly pleased to stand in the House today as a member of the legislative committee that worked on the clarity bill. In a word I would describe the bill as brilliant.

The separation of Quebec would have profound effects on the whole of Canada and its citizens, including Quebecers wishing to remain in Quebec.

While I agree with this sentiment these are not my words. These are the words of Claude Castonguay, a former Quebec cabinet minister from the Bourassa government.

The clarity bill is a reasonable bill. It is made up of three clauses. It is brief and it is straightforward unlike the 411 motions brought forward by the Bloc Quebecois with which the House will deal later today.

In Motions Nos. 13 to 68 in Group No. 2 there are frivolous changes to the 30 day suggestion put out in the clarity bill. They range from 50 days to 250 days. They are not constructive and they do not improve this piece of legislation.

The message we all took from the 1995 referendum was that we came dangerously close to losing our country on a vague question and a dubious vote. In 1995 the referendum question asked by the Quebec government was confusing. It read:

Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign, after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership, within the scope of the Bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12th?

Quebecers who voted on this question felt they understood, but when they were polled there was a great disparity as to what they thought they were voting on. While individuals were clear within their minds it was not a shared vision that they were voting on.

The results of the referendum saw the yes side receive 49.6% of the vote and the no side receive 50.4%. Support fluctuated by 15 percentage points depending on whether sovereignty would be accompanied by economic partnership with the rest of Canada. Voter turnout for the referendum was high because Quebecers realized the stakes were high. Individuals, while convinced their interpretations were clear, did not share the common view.

The clarity bill states that within 30 days of a provincial government officially releasing a referendum question on secession, the House of Commons would express its opinion by resolution as to whether or not the question is clear. If the House found that the vote on the question could not result in a clear expression of will by the population of that province on whether or not it would cease to be part of Canada, it would no longer deal with the question.

In reaching its assessment the House would take into account the views of other political actors, political parties in the legislative assembly of the province whose government was proposing secession, other provincial or territorial governments and other legislatures.

Soliciting a direct expression of will of the population of a province as to whether the province would cease to be part of Canada is a huge question. This has results that could not go back four years and be reversed. The Government of Canada would enter into negotiations only if the House had concluded that there had been a clear expression of will by a clear majority of the population of that province.

In reaching the assessment the House would take into account matters it considered relevant. These kinds of issues need to be dealt with in context. The clarity bill spells out the qualitative aspect of both the question and the majority.

Secession would require an amendment to our constitution. It would involve at least the governments of all the provinces as well as the Government of Canada. We would have to discuss such things as division of assets and liabilities, perhaps border changes from the province and of course the rights, interests and territorial claims of aboriginal peoples as well as the protection of the rights of minorities.

Another issue that came up very many times when we were discussing this bill—and we heard from many expert witnesses during this process—was whether or not 50% plus one was an indication of a clear majority, a majority that would be irreversible. One does not break up a country with 50% plus one.

Quebecers have already said no twice to secession but the question keeps coming up. How many times is enough? Is it three out of five? Is it five out of seven? Is it seven out of twelve? How many times will we deal with this issue?

Members opposite would have us believe that 50% plus one is a telling majority, and yet they have received that from the no side and they continue to ask the question. No means no now but yes means maybe later. Yes is forever. Only a yes vote will give rise to irreversible change that will bind future generations of the country.

The supreme court requires political actors to assess the clarity of any future majority in favour of secession. It uses the expression clear majority 13 times in its ruling to underline how much it feels this is an issue to be dealt with.

The hon. member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok in Motion No. 2 states that the acceptable majority in the 1995 referendum was 50% plus one and therefore this is the threshold that should be used in any future referendum.

Quebec's own referendum laws set no threshold for an acceptable majority precisely because referendums in Canada are consultative. This was recognized by the PQ government in its white paper leading to its referendum law which stated:

The fact that referenda are consultative makes it unnecessary to include provisions about a required majority or a level of voter participation.

The supreme court's opinion made clear that there was no precise numerical threshold which would trigger negotiations but that:

It will be for political actors to determine what constitutes a clear majority on a clear question...in the circumstances under which a future referendum vote may be taken.

When we ask Quebecers what they think, on October 30, 1999, the Government of Canada released a poll that was conducted of 4,992 Quebecers. It is one of the most important and precise polls, with a margin of 1.6% error, ever conducted on the question of national unity. The will of Quebecers was never again to undergo a confused referendum process such as those that we saw in 1980 and 1995. Quebecers want the process for any future referendums to be based on the principle of clarity. Most say it is reasonable to require a clear referendum question; 93% versus 4% agreed with this statement and on a clear majority 72% agreed versus 24% before Quebec can become independent.

The majority of Quebecers say that the 1995 referendum question was not clear at a support level of 61% versus 36%. Quebecers are opposed to a unilateral declaration of independence if the yes side won in a referendum. The majority says it is reasonable that the Government of Quebec would have to reach an agreement with the rest of Canada before declaring independence.

Quebecers say there is also majority support for the supreme court's decision that the Government of Quebec does not have the right to unilaterally declare independence. That was supported 55% versus 36%.

During our two week consultation process when we again heard from many expert witnesses, many former colleagues at different levels of government came to talk to us. Ed Broadbent commented, when appearing before the legislative committee on Bill C-20, as follows:

Of the 13 new countries to emerge following referenda in the post-World War II, post-colonial era, nine had positive results over 95%; two over 90%; and the remaining two in excess of 75%.

He went on to say:

In my view, Premier Bouchard would be a wise man if he waited until he could expect comparable results. He would be even wiser to abandon his secessionist goal and acknowledge the evident truth that the majority of Quebecers have made great gains in recent decades. By means of the rights and freedoms enjoyed by all Canadians, they have created a wonderful and, dare I say it, distinct society. They are proud Quebecers and proud Canadians.

The clarity bill defines the real stakes in a referendum. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, when he appeared before the legislative committee, said:

On August 20, 1998, the supreme court gave a legal confirmation to that moral obligation. It is eminently desirable that we all respect that opinion, whether we are in favour of Canadian unity or Quebec independence.

Secession is a black hole and I am convinced that the clarity bill is the best guide in making our way through.

[Petitions, March 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the final petition is from the Mennonite Coalition for Refugee Support. They call on the House to immediately rescind immigration taxes on refugees and immigrants.

[Petitions, March 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present petitions from the constituents in my riding of Kitchener Centre.

The first set urges parliament to fulfill the 1989 promise to end child poverty by the year 2000. The petitions have been signed by the residents of the Kitchener—Waterloo area and the members of Rockway Mennonite Church. Campaign 2000 has also provided me with a copy of its petition calling on parliament to end child poverty.

[The Budget, March 1st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. I have two universities in my community and I hear from them all the time.

In the last three budgets this government has addressed some of the concerns surrounding student debt. Clearly, it is a topic that we have discussed. There are the millennium scholarships. We have changed the RESPs as well as RRSPs, which can now be used at any time for lifelong learning.

This is an issue that we need to work on together with the provinces. While we transfer money to the provinces, we see very different approaches. Quebec and Ontario have deregulated tuition fees, which has had an impact on students.

I believe that the federal government is trying to be part of the solution.

[The Budget, March 1st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, while I thank the member opposite for his questions, I despair over his mathematics. I happen to know one of his Reform colleagues and I wonder if they could get together with a calculator to figure this out.

Canadians get a lot in return for their tax dollars. One thing which the government has made very clear is that it will not run deficits. It will make sure that it is not giving tax cuts with borrowed money and that it will make strategic investments.

Health care is at the top of the list of all Canadians and we in the government are trying to work with the provinces and territories to make sure that structurally we change how we deliver health care in Canada.

There are many challenges. The problem is much more than money. I need to point out that it is not the intent of the government to make a down payment on a few hospital beds. We are creating the kind of economy that will sustain a medicare system well into the next century, and that is what defines us as Canadians.

[The Budget, March 1st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Guelph—Wellington.

I am pleased to speak to the federal budget that was tabled earlier this week. It is essentially a Canadian document. It is not radical; it is measured, it is well paced. It is irrefutably a strong pro-growth document.

This budget represents a long term strategy. The intention is not to create a boom tomorrow but it will provide sustained benefits for Canadians well into the future. I am pleased that the Minister of Finance has once again provided us with leadership, strategic thinking and prudent investment.

When the government was first elected in 1993 this nation had a $42 billion deficit and an unemployment rate of 11.5%. Canadians elected us because they wanted leadership, strategy and action. We have met that commitment and prudent planning has become our hallmark. Inflation is low, interest rates are low and our unemployment rates are at record lows. My riding of Kitchener Centre has an unemployment rate of only 4.6%.

Canadians understood in 1993 that we were between a rock and a hard place and that the government had to make difficult choices. Today the economic situation of the country has changed dramatically. It is because of the sacrifices made by middle class Canadians that the government is now able to give back to its citizens through tax cuts, indexation, investments in social programs, research and development and support for small and medium size business.

Yesterday I had the opportunity to speak with an economics professor from the University of Waterloo, Mr. Larry Smith. It is his view that restoration of indexation has restored a sense of equity to our tax system. He indicated that indexation was a prudent approach for stimulating our economy. Moving too quickly with tax cuts would be dangerous and may cause the Bank of Canada to have to raise interest rates.

I would like to take a few moments to highlight how this budget will benefit my riding of Kitchener Centre. Let me begin by stating that the focus of budget 2000 is the middle class. This budget is for the middle class families of Kitchener. Restoring full indexation to the personal income tax system protects against inflation. This will benefit every Canadian family.

I am pleased that Kitchener families receiving the Canada child tax benefit and GST credits will no longer see these things eroded by inflation. The government has set out a plan that reduces personal income tax. The middle tax rate will go down to 23% from 26%. This will cut taxes for nine million Canadians.

We have also increased the income thresholds at which personal income tax rates apply. We have increased the amount of income Canadians can receive tax free to at least $8,000.

On an annual basis residents of Kitchener will see personal income taxes reduced by an average of 15%. Low income Canadians will see an 18% reduction. For families with children, net personal income taxes will be reduced an average of 21%.

The Liberal government heard clearly from Canadians and I heard directly from my constituents how important the Canada child tax benefit is to families. By 2004 an additional $2.5 billion annually will be provided to low and middle income families with children, bringing the investment total to $9 billion per year.

Last October in the Speech from the Throne the Governor General stated, “The government will extend and make more accessible employment insurance benefits for parental leave, to help parents take more time from work to spend with their children”. We have now met this commitment. Maternity and parental leave will be increased to one year starting December 31, 2000. This leave will be made more flexible and accessible. This measure will provide additional benefits of about $900 million a year.

The government is also fulfilling an earlier announcement to provide $753 million to aid in finding solutions for homeless Canadians.

We have also invested in programs and tax relief for disabled Canadians. In Kitchener the Independent Living Centre has received funding from the opportunities fund. According to director Paula Saunders, those in the program found full time, part time and self-employment opportunities with a success rate of 80%. The government has renewed its commitment to the opportunities fund, investing $30 million a year to ensure that groups such as the Independent Living Centre can continue this good work.

The federal government has also allocated funding to cover 75% of the cost of diagnostic assessments for Canadians with severe learning disabilities.

Finally, in the area of assisting special needs people, the government has expanded the disability tax credit and the medical expense tax credit. In total these measures will increase tax assistance to persons with disabilities by an estimated $45 million annually.

This is not wasteful spending as the opposition would have us believe.

Kitchener is a hotbed for small business and high tech industry. We have strong dynamic companies in our area such as GFI Control Systems, Research in Motion, Devtek and Intelli-Tactics. The government's five year tax reduction plan will assist companies such as these to become more competitive. Our tax system is now more conducive to investment and to innovation.

Kitchener's high tech businesses will benefit from the reduction in corporate tax rates to 21%. Smaller area companies will also benefit from the reduction on small business income between $200,000 and $300,000.

We know the importance of risk taking and the greater access to finance for small businesses. Therefore we are responding by reducing the capital gains inclusion rate from three-quarters to two-thirds.

We are postponing the taxation of gains on qualifying stock options to when the shares are sold rather than when they are exercised. Finally, we will allow a tax free rollover of capital gains on qualified investment from one small business to another.

The government has been working hard to put in place the key measures to improve the economic environment for aggressive business growth and competition. This exciting news should be good news for all Canadians, especially young Canadians. They want to be part of a dynamic business industry where there is opportunity to learn, expand and prosper. If the economic climate is right and graduates see the growth of aggressive companies in their own backyard, such as Research in Motion, they will choose to stay in Canada.

Our students are an extremely valuable resource and we have made some important commitments to them in this budget. These commitments will also benefit institutions such as Conestoga College, Wilfrid Laurier University and the University of Waterloo.

Having met with student presidents from these schools, I have heard the need. I have heard them request that we move from a $500 tax exemption for scholarships, fellowships and bursaries. Students from across the country delivered a strong message. We have responded by raising the tax exemption limit to $3,000. We have also committed to maintaining the Canada student loans program.

Budget 2000 has allocated $900 million over five years through the granting councils to establish and sustain 2,000 Canadian research chairs by 2004-05. This is an important initiative that will attract world class researchers to Canada and it will keep world class researchers in Canada.

At a post-budget breakfast Dennis Grimm of PricewaterhouseCoopers commented:

Yesterday's budget is a plan to address the international competitiveness, productivity, brain drain, and the capital needs of Canada's technology triangle.

As a former regional and municipal councillor, I have seen firsthand the positive impact of the infrastructure program.

The mayor of Kitchener, Mr. Curl Zehr, said:

The federal budget provides a catalyst for partnering with the province and our municipalities, to begin to address some of our urgent infrastructure deficiencies such as transit and roads, environmental initiatives and affordable housing.

Truly we have set forward a plan on which Canadians can count and on which they can judge us by our actions. We wrestled down the deficit and now we are investing in the things which Canadians say they want. With a strong economy we will continue undoubtedly to be the best country in the world in which to live through the 21st century.

[The Environment, February 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the finance minister pumped $700 million into the environmental agenda. Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment tell us how this money will enhance the environment for the people of my riding of Kitchener Centre as well as all Canadians?