Wendy Lill

[Petitions, April 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present two petitions to the House today. One of them is a petition from over 200 Canadians across the country who are concerned that the Canadian government has been negotiating the FTAA in secret.

They believe that the clandestine nature of these negotiations must end. They are requesting that the documents of the FTAA agreement be made public for public democratic consultation.

[Parliament Of Canada Act, April 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to speak to Bill S-10 tonight, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act to add an officer of the Library of Parliament called the parliamentary poet laureate. I support the efforts of the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine for her tireless efforts to push forward this important initiative.

I support each and every effort to enrich the quality of discourse, the quality of thought and the standard of debate of this place, the largest stage in Canada, the House of Commons.

I see the creation of a poet laureate as one way in which we may symbolize the importance of language, the importance of literature and culture in Canada. I see it as one small step in retrieving much of the beauty of debate which used to exist here and I see it as a symbolic gesture that we value language and culture in government.

As the critic for culture for the New Democratic Party, I have spent the last four years in the House of Commons fighting for increased support for Canadian culture. I have spoken out widely and often about cuts to our public broadcaster and the impact that has had on silencing the quirky, irreverent, provocative, passionate voices that used to spring daily from dozens of regional and local CBC programs.

I have spoken out in support of the Canada Council for strengthening support for book publishers and sellers who represent part of a delicate but vitally important environment that allows diverse and unique voices which reflect the Canadian reality to sprout out of our regions.

The poets, novelists, essayists and playwrights all depend on small publishers and bookstores that will take a chance on new work, nurture new writers, hold book launches and readings and hold the hands of new writers as they work through the hard hours of creation.

Maritime poets, such as Alden Nowlan, Dawn Fraser, Milton Acorn, Rita Joe, Don Domanski, Maxine Tynes, Sherree Fitch, Carole Glasser Langille, George Elliott Clarke and Lyn Davies, are all part of a creative flowering that has occurred in Canada because of our government's recognition of the importance of supporting the arts.

Last year during national poetry month, the New Democratic Party used its statements for one week to showcase poetry from across the country. It was a profoundly moving event and I believe that in that short time we reintroduced a sense of wonder in the House.

We read poetry by Patrick O'Connell from Winnipeg, Susan Goyette from Dartmouth, Herménégilde Chiasson from the Acadian peninsula, Bud Osborne from Vancouver's east side and Ila Bussidor, who is the chief of the Sayisi Dene.

Northrop Frye said that culture is regional and local in nature, but of course it is also universal, and so is this place. Here we have 301 parliamentarians who come from coast to coast to coast to join and to bring together the needs, desires and concerns of millions of people. It is both a universal place and a place of many varying and often conflicting interests. The challenge is always to fuse those interests, to make that stretch, that leap into the lives of others, into the hearts of others, to make them one. That is the challenge of the poet and the challenge of the representatives of the House. It is one and the same.

Charles Bruce, a poet and journalist born in Port Shoreham, Nova Scotia, said:

Poetry is the art of striking sparks from the common and the usual. It is the discovery of wonder and strangeness in the normal, and the skill to pass the news along.

We are all here to pass along the news from the communities we live in. We are here to strike sparks from the common and usual. We are here to build a fire that will warm everyone in the nation. Poetry teaches us and guides us toward that end. It helps us to celebrate together and remember.

In 1915 Canadian surgeon John McCrae wrote:

In Flanders fields the poppies blow Between the crosses, row on row, That mark our place; and in the sky The larks, still bravely singing, fly Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, Loved, and were loved, and now we lie In Flanders fields.

It is a poem that continues to unite each and every Canadian in joint purpose around the memory of war and the valour of those who fell.

Where would we be without this poem In Flanders Fields ? It has so forged our collective understanding of war.

Poetry joins us together. It helps us to mourn together, to remember and to celebrate what is important to us all.

George Elliott Clarke, a black Nova Scotian poet and playwright, wrote a poem that speaks to thousands of black Canadians, past and present, but also to every other Canadian. It is called Revelation .

We turn to love before turning to dust so that the grave will not compress our lives entirely to insects, humus, ash Love is our single resistance against the dictatorship of death And for the moment of its incarnation we will worship God, we will make ourselves beautiful in the twinkling of an eye.

It is words such as this that ignite our sense of shared humanity.

I have just returned from Quebec City where I was taking part in the people's summit, marching along with my New Democratic colleagues and thousands of other Canadians to express our concern with the undemocratic nature of the FTAA. There was poetry everywhere in Quebec: on the placards, on walls, in songs and chants, and in the courageous actions people took to express their passion for democracy. It was so clear to me during that unforgettable march and the events surrounding it that it is past time for parliamentarians to begin listening to the poetry of the street and the voices of the people in our country.

We need our poets and our writers to guide us in this place. By creating this bill, by creating the position of poet laureate, we are taking one step toward recognizing that need. We are recognizing that it is artists who truly legislate the hearts of our nations. It is through efforts such as this that a feast of stories rises out of our earth to delight us, to lighten us and move us through the darkness toward the stars.

With this motion, with this small act, we are collectively thanking and saluting these creators and telling them that we need them. We do not want them to ever stop. They are our heritage and our hope.

[Crtc, April 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, there is more to freedom of the press than the freedom to own all the presses and control all the news, and yet it is reported that every morning there is a conference call between newsrooms at Southam and at Global TV to set the day's agenda for Canadians.

Given these circumstances, I call upon the CRTC to set out strict conditions of licensing on both CTV and Global: to establish only one year renewals; to establish rules preventing the exchange of stories, sources and information between television and print media outlets owned by the same company; to compel the television stations to increase their Canadian programming in prime time; and, most important, to attach significant financial penalties to companies that break the conditions of licensing.

Voluntary commitments will not work. The CRTC has an important decision to make. That decision will either help expand or strangle the oxygen of our democracy, the free flow of ideas for Canadians.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in a time of enormous surplus I think it is immoral for us to be putting a cap on the amount of money we will be spending for health care, for education and for the very services that allow our people to be strong. I would say that the best investment this government can make now is an investment in a healthy, well educated population.

In a country where we have one in five children living in poverty it is very hard to feel too pompous or too cheerful about the economic prospects we are facing, because clearly that is not being shared across the board. As the income gap between poor and wealthy people in the country continues to increase, we are sowing the seeds of some very deep misery for an enormous number of children and vulnerable people.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, that is indeed the case. For many reasons, the province of Nova Scotia is clearly very concerned about what it feels is the unfair equalization formula that now exists. Certainly we in Nova Scotia do not feel we are getting enough to run our education and health care services.

Another issue that is very important right now is Nova Scotia's concern that there be a recognition and a commitment from the government to allow Nova Scotians to maintain more of our offshore development resources. If we did not have the excessive federal government clawback, we would be able to use more of the resources coming in from our new offshore development to pay down our debt. Certainly that would go a long way in helping us to get on an even footing with the other provinces.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand today to speak to Bill C-18. I will be splitting my time with the member for Acadie—Bathurst.

Bill C-18 is an act to remove the cap on equalization payments for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 1999. The act concerns me and the other members of the New Democratic Party a great deal because of the implications it will have for the have not provinces in Canada.

The equalization program has enabled less prosperous provincial governments to provide their residents with reasonably comparable levels of public service and taxation. Equalization payments are unconditional in that the receiving provinces are free to spend them in public services according to their priorities.

The NDP has always supported transfer payments and equalization payments as a way of cementing the country and its provinces together. Many years ago we had the EPF, the established programs financing program. It was equal, with 50:50 funding for established programs within the various provinces. The NDP believes it was of far greater benefit to the provinces when we had the federal government in control of implementing national standards with the funding formula of 50% and 50%. It was simple. If one of the provinces chose not to comply with the national standards that were in place, it was jeopardized in that the 50:50 funding formula was pulled back.

The established programs financing worked very well. We then saw CAP, the Canada assistance plan, come in, followed by the cap on CAP. Then came the CHST. Now we are seeing a removal of the cap of the new ceiling imposed in a temporary way.

In earlier debates, New Democratic Party members pointed out the devastating impact of the CHST on social programs in the country. It should be stated clearly and abundantly, so the public hears it over and over again, that the government stripped 33% of the funding out of federal social transfers with the CHST. I believe the total figure since 1995 is $23 billion. The government went from $19.1 billion to $11 billion in social transfers.

When the equalization program was renewed in 1999, the ceiling was reduced by roughly $1 billion per year to an arbitrary level of $10 billion in 1999-2000, in spite of the broad objections from virtually every finance minister in the various provinces. It was then indexed by GDP growth in subsequent years.

Adequate levels of equalization and social transfers are critical to provinces like Nova Scotia. Otherwise Nova Scotians would not get what they are entitled to under the constitution, namely, reasonably comparable services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.

Why do we need federal transfers to ensure that services in Nova Scotia are reasonably comparable to those elsewhere? We need them because our economy is smaller and weaker and does not produce as much wealth as the economies of most other provinces. Because there is less wealth, tax rates in Nova Scotia need to be higher to raise the minimum revenue needed to maintain public services. However, even though we pay a higher rate of taxation than most other Canadians, when it comes to public services Nova Scotians pay more and get less.

Nova Scotians value education and the role that good education plays in making possible a better and more prosperous future, and we in Nova Scotia invest our scarce resources in education. In 1995 Nova Scotians invested 8.4% of their gross domestic product in education. That was the highest rate of investment in education of any province, higher than Alberta, Ontario, B.C. or Quebec. Only Newfoundland put a bigger share of its collective wealth into education.

What did we get as a result? Did we get well funded schools, low pupil-teacher ratios and gilt-edged support services? Not a chance. Because our economy is small relative to other provinces, putting more of our economy into education still left us at the bottom of the class in terms of educational expenditures per student. I have spoken with many people in my riding who do not believe for a minute that Nova Scotia students are enjoying reasonably comparable services when it comes to education.

Health spending is another case in point. Last year Nova Scotians spent 11.3% of their provincial gross domestic product on health. The national average was just 9.3%, but because we are taking a larger piece of a considerably smaller pie the slice was not big enough to adequately serve our population. Once again we paid more and got less. The health care we can afford left our per capita spending the second lowest in the country. It was a full 9% below the national average. With that, we are expected to serve a population that needs more health care, 10% or 15% more than the national average. With those kinds of numbers, we have to wonder whether Nova Scotians are getting health services that are reasonably comparable to those enjoyed by many other Canadians.

Rather than improving, it is a sad fact that financial support has been declining since the promises of comparable service levels were put into the constitution. In 1980 federal transfers amounted to almost 48% of the revenues available to the province of Nova Scotia. By 1993 when the Liberal government took office, the percentage had dropped to 38.6%. Last year it was down to 37.2%.

By lowering the level of equalization payments, which is indeed where Bill C-18 will take us, the government will be moving us even further away from the goal of providing reasonably comparable services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.

We in the New Democratic Party oppose Bill C-18. We oppose further cuts to the baseline equalization payments. In fact, in a time of galloping surplus we see the need to augment our equalization payments to allow for equal standards of education and health care across the country.

Now is the time to correct the crippling impact of inadequate funding on our education and on our health care, on our schools and on our hospitals. Now is the time to revisit the equalization formula to ensure that all provinces are afforded an equal level of services and all Canadians an equal level of citizenship.

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his comments about child poverty and ask him a question on the idea of strengthening democracy.

Last week a Quebec man went into a Quebec superior court to ask if his constitutional right to peaceful assembly is going to be denied by police security in Quebec City at the summit of the Americas. His question is a very good one. The police will be sealing off the heart of Quebec City for the summit, with a 3.8 kilometre security perimeter. Mr. Tremblay is a solid citizen. He is a 41 year old Montreal bankruptcy lawyer and he believes, as he says, that “I am no protester but I know that why this country of ours is so beautiful is because of its democracy”.

He wants to argue that the essence of democracy depends upon the free market of ideas. He will argue that his right of entrance to the marketplace is being excessively limited by the distance police are keeping him from the venue where the 34 western hemisphere heads of government will be meeting.

Does the hon. member feel that Canadians' right to democracy will be compromised by the 3.8 kilometre security perimeter and that their rights to open debate are being compromised and jeopardized?

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I was also at the heritage meetings the member was at recently where the chief negotiator for the FTAA was present.

At that meeting I asked if he could tell me where the interconnection between culture and commerce met, given the fact that we now see Nike International, Michael Jordan, Benneton and all sorts of multinational corporations involved in what they would say are cultural enterprises, and how would they would fit into Canadian culture. The chairman also asked the same question. The negotiator said that he had to beg “incompetence” on that question. That response did not give me a very strong feeling.

The government continues to say that culture is not on the table and the idea of a stand alone international instrument is one that many groups globally support and I support as well. The coalition for cultural diversity supports that. I want to quote one comment about its concerns and I would like the member to address these concerns. It said:

—that Canada continue to resist the U.S. pressure that is certain to escalate as these negotiations unfold. What also remains is that Canada show proof of extreme vigilance in these meetings as the United States undoubtedly attempts to push through the adoption of certain general principles that apply to all sectors across the board, principles that could seriously reduce the ability of the other countries to refuse specific trade liberalization commitments in the cultural sector when the time comes.

Could the member address that because it is a major fear that I and many people in cultural communities across the country feel?

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about cultural diversity and the safeguarding of Canadian culture within the FTAA and also within the larger WTO agreement.

We know that the Americans have put their negotiating position forward and it includes putting culture on the table. It also includes full coverage of the cultural sector and the extensive application of the most favoured nation status and the national treatment.

There is a great deal of enthusiasm right now amongst cultural coalitions in Canada and around the world for a new international cultural instrument which is separate all together from the trade agreements. We also know that any separate cultural agreement would mean nothing if the government locks itself into certain clauses in the FTAA, such as the most favoured nation status and national treatment. Our ability to subsidize our cultural industries, to safeguard Canadian content, to protect our public broadcaster, all of those things would be in jeopardy.

Will the government guarantee that our negotiators will not sell Canadian culture down the drain by allowing the most favoured nation rule to be applied across the board in all services?

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a question about the upcoming agreement of the Americas.

We have been living under NAFTA and the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement for over decade now. These have been years during which we have been forced to give up access to affordable generic drugs, to support for Canadian magazine publishing, to standards for toxic fuel additives and to the right to ban bulk water and PCB exports.

In return for giving up democratic sovereignty, those deals were supposed to give us free access to the American market for our goods. However, as recent disputes over P.E.I. potatoes and softwood lumber demonstrate, things have not worked out that way. When their economic interests are threatened, the Americans ignore trade deals or insist on exemptions to protect their own producers.

Instead of dealing with these problems, our federal government is taking the lead in promoting, through the FTAA, the expansion of a trade deal that further weakens democratically elected governments while strengthening the power of global corporations.

Since the hon. member seems to be promoting the fact that this is a good deal for Canadians and Canadian industries, I would ask him this: with the examples I have just given, how is this deal going to strengthen our position as a country and our position as a trading partner?