Wendy Lill

[Holidays Act, February 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today to Bill C-401 which would establish a flag day on the third Monday of February as a national holiday to be observed throughout Canada.

I appreciate the genesis of the hon. member's bill and his studies with Pauline Jewett. I also appreciate his faithfulness to the idea of heritage and I share that with him.

I was interested in the fact that the original concept was to have a heritage day and then it moved to a flag day. I must say that I have some concerns with the name.

I am not going to dwell on anybody's devotion to the flag as a national symbol, but I recall an uproar which occupied the attention of some in this place some time ago and it was all for the sake of a flag. That rancorous debate did not feed one child, improve our health care system, create a job, cut a tax or in any way benefit a Canadian. Therefore, I am reluctant to dwell too much on the flag, given the fact that it causes a great deal of problems for some people.

This debate allows for the dream of a well earned holiday for hardworking Canadian workers in the dead of winter, and I appreciate that. However, do we need a day to commemorate the flag? I think not. I appreciate the sense of inspiration which my hon. colleague gets from the flag and I respect that, but I do not think a day should be named after it.

I agree that Canadians should recognize their roots and their symbolic heritage. It is very important for us to draw strength from our roots. We need to find inspiration and guidance from the people who came before us. But I think that each of us looks to different people for inspiration.

I have found inspiration in an early suffragette named Francis Beynon. She was a journalist in Winnipeg in the 1910s. She worked for a newspaper called Women Grain Growers . For many years she spread information and communicated with isolated women on the prairies who lived on mile-wide farms and had no contact with anyone.

Francis Beynon taught women a lot about their rights. She was very involved in the struggle to get the first vote for women. When the first war came along she fought very hard to get the vote for immigrant women. That was not an easy battle because unfortunately there were a lot of women, even in this country, who were unwilling to allow foreign women to vote during the war.

Francis Beynon showed her patriotism not in her flag, but in her actions. She took this very important democratic stand. I respect her for that. It was not a popular stand. She also fought against conscription. I believe that she passed out of history because she did not take a popular stand.

I respect and find inspiration in people like Francis Beynon. I wonder whether I should suggest a Francis Beynon day. Instead, I think I would look at the concept of an ancestor day.

Other people might look to someone like Agnes MacPhail for inspiration. As we walk in the door every day we see the statue of Agnes MacPhail. She was the first woman member of parliament. She served in the House from 1921 until 1940. In 1943 she was one of two women to be elected to the Ontario legislature. She was also the first woman appointed to the Canadian delegation of the League of Nations, where she insisted on serving on the disarmament committee.

She is another important ancestor for many of us in terms of our political beliefs. She was a very important woman in Canadian history. She was a peacemaker and an inspiration to many women. Maybe we should have an Agnes MacPhail day.

Recently I had the privilege of being part of the unveiling of a plaque for Portia White in Preston, Nova Scotia. She was a very famous and inspirational black Canadian woman from my community.

Portia White was the first African Canadian woman to win international acclaim as an opera singer. She was a famous musician in our country. She was born into a musical family and taught choir in her church. She was a teacher and a community person who is remembered by thousands of people scattered all over the country. She has become well known as an inspiration for thousands of young black Nova Scotians.

I believe we should all celebrate our roots and our ancestors. They are the root to our patriotism. We should be helping young Canadians to find inspiration wherever they can. Instead of having a day that represents one inspiration, a piece of fabric with some red and white on it, it may be more appropriate to have an ancestor day. We accept the fact that we all have ancestors who we gain strength from. We should try to recognize them in a public way. That would go a long way in encouraging us to gain strength from our roots and in helping us to understand our roots better, and perhaps one another.

I do not agree at this time that we need a flag day. I do not think that is a wise option. Instead, I suggest that we have an ancestor day.

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, February 10th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I want to assure all members of the House that the NDP's lukewarm support of Bill C-55 still holds. It is possibly now stronger due to the bullying noises coming from Washington.

We still believe the bill is too weak because it does not contain provisions to improve the situation for Canadian magazines. We still believe the main premise of the bill is false, that the cultural protections offered under NAFTA or by the WTO are inadequate.

The WTO does not protect culture and the FTA and NAFTA continue to remain untested with fatally flawed exemptions for culture. We know that half a loaf is better at this time than no loaf and therefore we support the bill.

A lot seems to have happened on the volume front concerning Bill C-55 since the heritage committee heard witnesses on the bill. The Reform Party has decried this bill, saying we have no need to protect culture, that we should simply promote it.

We are debating today the 21 amendments proposed by the Reform Party, amendments that tersely delete ever section of the bill until nothing is left. The amendments to methodically delete every trace of the bill seems to reflect its approach to Canadian culture, methodically and clinically delete, delete, delete.

The irony of this position is that Reform then puts forward budget plans which would inevitably decimate the Department of Canadian Heritage, the only mechanism in place to promote our culture. The Reform Party position smacks of hypocrisy and of an opportunism that I believe comes painfully close to being anti-Canadian.

The Americans have turned up the volume by threatening, albeit verbally, to countervail steel, plastics, lumber, textiles and God knows whatever else if we pass this law. This kind of bullying is not unique. The committee heard similar threats coming from the New York based president of Time magazine at the hearings. He suggested that we were preparing to confiscate his property without compensation and compared the Canadian government to some old-style communist regime. I must admit that this is the first time I have ever heard this particular criticism levelled at this government.

What the Reform Party and the Americans believe is that this is not about culture but that it is about money. They think that magazines, and music, and books, and videos, and films, and paintings, and fragile artifacts are not to be valued as culture, they are goods to be priced for sale. They do not believe that writers are creators, but are potential profit centres only if marketed properly.

I can categorically say that Canadian culture is not a commodity. Margaret Atwood is not a soap pad. The Group of Seven is not an international trading cartel. The Canadian book publishing industry, a group of visionary business people who have made our great writers a possibility, should not be allowed to be shipped south as if it were a roll of newsprint.

The fact that only 2% of Canadian film screens show Canadian films is not a reflection of the quality of our films, because they are excellent. Instead it is the reflection of the fact that Hollywood spends more money promoting a single film than most Canadian filmmakers will ever have to produce their films in their lifetimes.

Sadly, this government and the official opposition continue to bow at the altar of Jack Valenti and his Hollywood version of reality.

Our culture is constantly under attack from south of the border. We as parliamentarians have a duty to stand in our places and say that we are different.

We need a government which will stand up for our creators, not reluctantly pick and choose cultural winners and losers.

I can see the talk around the current cabinet table: “This time we will hold the line on magazines but we will let books go. This time we will have the CRTC promote Canadian content through the CBC but we will kill the mother corp with underfunding. We will promote access to Canadian national museums, but we will abandon the regional and local museums. We will talk tough on trade but do nothing to fix the problems which exist in our current trade agreements. In other words, we will play both sides of every cultural issue”.

This may be the Liberal way of politics, but our cultural legacy deserves the full support of the Canadian government, not half a loaf.

Culture is something which Canadians have a right of access to, not simply because some American conglomerate has decided that it may be marketable, but because it has intrinsic value.

We should promote, but we also have a responsibility to protect.

I call upon this government not only to draw the line at magazines, but also to get active protecting our culture across the board. Do not continue to stand idly by while our book publishers are sent offshore with the obligatory nod from the Minister of Industry. Do not further gut the CBC and the NFB to shuffle funds to Canadian film producers. Take action on allowing Canadians to see their own product by bringing Canadian content to our screens. Do not listen to voices who believe there is a price for culture but ignore the value of culture.

Do not believe that the Minister of Canadian Heritage is the great protector of culture until the title is earned. I would say that the jury is still out on this minister's legacy.

Again, Bill C-55 is something that we will support in the House, but we continue to hold our praise for the minister and her efforts on Canadian culture.

[Publishing Industry, February 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to cultural protection and specifically Bill C-55, this government seems to have a split-run policy. When the Americans are playing the bullies, the minister plays the great nationalist. At the same time, the government likes secret meetings and now proposes an amendment that cabinet and not parliament determine the future of Bill C-55. Canadians want some clarity on this issue.

Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage now commit to make Bill C-55 the law of the land, call the Americans' bluff and stop setting our cultural policy behind closed doors?

[Supply, February 9th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I would just like to ask the hon. member about being compelled. That is part of the amendment we have put forward here.

I would like to ask him how he would describe the whole MMT issue that occurred recently with the federal government. The federal government was challenged on its legislation banning MMT by the Ethyl Corporation which sued it for damages and won.

It seems the federal government capitulated entirely in face of the NAFTA challenge. I would say it was compelled to capitulate by the nature of the trade agreements we have entered into.

Compelled is a strong word but we have to start using some strong language at this point given the history of what we have seen happen on the trade floors and in the courts.

[The Late Alan John Simpson, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, 59 years ago Alan John Simpson was born in Winnipeg and was an active, athletic boy until he came down with polio at 14.

After three years in the hospital and at home, he told his parents “I want to go back to school”. Alan was the first student in a wheelchair at Gordon Bell High and then went on to graduate from University of Manitoba.

Over his life Alan helped create 30 international and national organizations, including the Council of Canadians with Disabilities.

Alan did all this with humour, passion and common sense. One neighbour remembers the day Alan wheeled up while he was surveying his newly purchased property. “What are you going to do right there?”, he said. The neighbour said “I am going to put my front door”. Alan said “If you put in a ramp too, then I will be able to come up and water your plants when you are away”. He did put in a ramp.

Alan Simpson had an impact on people. In the late 1980s he pressed for inclusion of disabilities in the charter of rights and freedoms. Last October Alan received the Order of Canada.

In December Alan died due to complications from surgery. I would like to join with all Canadians and members of the House of Commons to remember Alan John Simpson, revered, loved and never forgotten.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-43 on behalf of the New Democratic Party.

Bill C-43 will repeal the Department of National Revenue Act and convert Revenue Canada from a fully accountable government department to an autonomous arm's length business oriented agency. The proposed legislation, Bill C-43, sets out new powers of the minister, the structure of the new agency and its authority over all matters relating personnel management, contracting, organization, the prescription of user fees, general administrative policy and real and intellectual property. In addition, the agency is given authority on legislation which for most other federal departments and agencies is vested in the Treasury Board and the Public Service Commission. For instance, the agency will have full authority to enter into agreements with its bargaining units.

The objects of the agency reflect the current mandate of Revenue Canada such as customs services and trade administration, tax administration, for example the GST, and the delivery of social and economic benefits for provinces and the federal government.

The New Democratic Party opposes the passage of Bill C-43 and has since it initial introduction. Why do we oppose Bill C-43? We believe the creation of the customs and revenue agency would for all intents and purposes be an abdication of political power. We believe the agency is the largest Liberal Trojan horse for privatization. Revenue Canada's 40,000 employees make up about 20% of the federal public service. The move would involve the transfer of more than $2 billion in annual parliamentary estimates. This is way beyond the concept of delivering better services. It is part of the government's drive to privatize and downsize the public service in the name of cost cutting. The government glorifies the role of private sector appointees and seems to think the public sector can only run on private sector principles. The government would also take credit for slashing expenditures by $2.2 billion.

We believe it is appalling that the control of tax collection which is an historical prerogative of the state is abandoned by stealth to the private sector. Even the most right wing economists and classical philosophers such as Adam Smith and John Locke acknowledge that collecting taxes is the raison d'être of the state. Even Margaret Thatcher and Helmut Kohl, both champions of privatization, never went so far as to privatize their tax agencies.

The NDP opposes a single privatized tax collection agency for political reasons as well. The government is moving toward an independent agency without the support of the four major provinces. Nor does it have the support of the majority of its workers. The major stakeholders are not buying into this idea. The majority of public service workers oppose the concept of the independent agency and stress that there is no valid reason for it. There is no firm support by the provinces for a single taxation agency. The federal government has reached no agreement with the provinces, not even a non-binding letter of intent.

Ontario, Quebec and P.E.I. are firmly opposed to Bill C-43. B.C. and Saskatchewan have not endorsed the concept. Alberta has supported the concept of an independent agency for ideological reasons. While Alberta does not have a sales tax and administers its own programs, there is a fading possibility that it might sign on the administration of its provincial income tax to the agency.

While Mr. McKenna's New Brunswick supported the concept, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland have not bought into the concept but are bound by their tax administration agreements to the federal government and are unwilling to cede further authority. It is clear that all provinces generally see the agency as an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction.

Canadian businesses have major reservations about the proposed agency. The public policy forum study commissioned by Revenue Canada found that 40% of businesses surveyed by the PPF saw no advantage to a single tax collection agency. Sixty-eight per cent thought that a single tax agency would either increase their compliance costs or have no impact at all. The NDP opposes the creation of a single privatized tax collection agency as well for economic reasons. There is no valid case for an independent agency. The government claims that the agency will bring about significant cost savings or stronger partnership with the provinces. These are at best exaggerated.

For example, the economic rationale for the proposed agency originated in 1996. It was seen as a means of administering the planned harmonized sales tax that would blend the federal GST and provincial sales tax. The idea was originally set up so that the Prime Minister could keep his promise to harmonize tax and hide the GST. The agency's biggest savings were to come from the harmonization which is a non-starter in all but three of the Atlantic provinces, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. The initial plans for a federal-provincial council on tax administration were quietly dropped from the original agency proposal.

Harmonization occurred in three of the Atlantic provinces while Revenue Canada was a department. The overwhelming unpopularity of the HST in the Atlantic provinces has eliminated any talks of further extending it to the rest of Canada. Canadian taxpayers are asked to support the creation of a new layer of bureaucracy in the hope that the provinces might participate.

Both the auditor general and internal Revenue Canada reports confirm that the government has lost billions of dollars because of unaudited tax statements due to a shortage of qualified auditors. The Provincial Institute of the Public Service of Canada estimated that over $2 billion of tax revenue was lost in 1997-98 alone. The federal Liberal government gutted the civil service workforce, inflicted a six year tax freeze to the survivors and allowed executive managers an increase in compensation of up to 19%.

It now has the gall to say it needs an independent agency to afford hiring qualified auditors. Nothing prevents the government from hiring these auditors now. The cost of hiring these auditors is ridiculously low compared to the billions of losses in tax revenues and to the lethal blows inflicted on the morale of civil servants and thereby on the public in general.

The government is jeopardizing the careers and stability of 40,000 civil servants, the cost of which will be far exceeding the tax and cost savings estimated at $116 million to $193 million for Canadian business and $37 million to $62 million in administration costs for all governments.

The agency is an excuse to cut out workers and inflate executive salaries, a worst case scenario for the civil service. Professor Vern Krishna, head of the CGA tax research centre, University of Ottawa, stated that these executive salaries could double or triple. The 40,000 employees moving to the agency will be considered to have transferred outside the federal public service and receive reasonable job offers with only a two year employment guarantee.

The plans to exclude the agency from the Public Service Employment Act and establish it under the Public Service Staff Relations Act means that employees will lose job security and the right to negotiate staffing and classification matters. Thousands of Revenue Canada employees will likely pay the price with their jobs, as this was the case in Australia.

Employees of the agency will have no guarantee to the same right of third party redress as other public service employees in case of non-disciplinary demotion or termination. Details of the recourse mechanisms are not available and are not provided by the legislation.

The agency will impose user fees for specific services, for example services that provide a specific benefit to service recipients. The agency has every incentive to slap on user fees because unlike revenues from tax proceedings that have been paid into general revenues, the proceeds can be accumulated. Tax collection is big business in Canada and this has the potential for abuse.

The agency has the potential to attract more business by provinces and municipalities that will turn over to the agency's administration more taxes and programs, including a property tax and even payroll taxes such as workers compensation. This is a lose-lose situation for jobs and will result in downsizing of administrative and collection departments at the expense of provincial and municipal civil servants.

The NDP opposes Bill C-43 for philosophical, ethical and economic reasons. We believe Bill C-43 is both bad legislation and dangerous legislation. To borrow from a slogan which we have used regarding banks, we need a better taxation system, not a bigger, privatized tax collection system. Canadians need a better taxation system to move us into the 21st century, a taxation system which is fair and equitable for all. For all these reasons the NDP will be voting against Bill C-43.

[Petitions, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my second petition is from over 100 citizens from Dartmouth who are also concerned about the passage of Bill C-225.

They are in favour of the act to amend the marriage and interpretation acts in order to define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female.

[Petitions, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to submit this morning. The first one is from over 100 residents of Dartmouth who are concerned about the future of the Halifax regional cultural museum.

Because the level of support from the federal government to local and regional museums has declined from 29% to 5% over the last decade and because many regional and local museums in Canada are facing financial shortages so severe that the preservation of their artifacts is in question, the people of Dartmouth call on the House to urge the Minister of Canadian Heritage to restore the federal government funding level for regional and local museums to at least the level of 1998.

[Petitions, November 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition on behalf of over 150 residents of my riding who live in a subdivision called Lancaster Ridge. The petition outlines the grave concerns they have regarding a longstanding dispute between the Gay family and the Department of National Defence concerning property known as Cannon Crescent which is situated on the Albro Lake Road.

This dispute has caused enormous problems for this community and the petitioners pray that the House of Commons will urge the Minister of National Defence to bring all parties together in this dispute with a view to finding a reasonable and equitable settlement.

[Governor General's Literary Awards, November 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome, recognize, celebrate and thank the artists who are with us today, the poets and playwrights, the storytellers and translators, this year's winners of the Governor General's Literary Awards.

Those stout hearts who wrestle with characters and words and story arcs and stories that fall apart and Canada Council grants applications and sleepless nights and cold light of day reviews; wet babies and telephone bills and no money or diapers or printer ribbons; long dry years where no praise comes; kids who ask “why don't you get a real job”, and you asking the same question.

Yet because of it all and out of it all springs new life. A feast of stories rise out of our earth, our precious northern souls to delight us, to lighten us and to move us through the darkness toward the stars.

We thank you, we salute you and we need you, so do not stop, do not ever stop. You are our heritage and our hope.