John Bryden

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 15th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion to the effect that this House urge the government to place at the Prime Minister's disposal a long range executive jet aircraft of the Global Express type produced by Bombardier to be available when he is called upon on short notice to represent Canada at major national and international events.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 15th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I quite enjoyed the previous speaker's remarks. I have had the opportunity to examine the debate on this legislation. Generally speaking despite the complaints that closure is forthcoming, the debate has been of a fairly high order.

I particularly congratulate the Reform Party because it is touching some genuine nerves of concern. One of the concerns in this whole concept of transfers from the federal government to the provinces is that of giving money to the provinces with no strings attached.

The equalization program involves $8.6 billion being transferred to various provinces. When that is added to the Canada health and social transfer annual payments of some $12.6 billion, the total is $20 billion being transferred to the provinces by the federal government.

The difficulty I have is that traditionally the federal government has so respected provincial rights that it has not demanded any real transparency or accountability from the provinces in terms of how this money is spent. The idea is that both transfers are a provincial tax subsidy. They lower the taxes a province is required to charge in order to provide the same standard of social and health services that might be found across the country. The whole idea is, as we recognize in the Constitution, that the provinces have the right and the privilege to provide for the basic care of their citizens. There is controversy now that suggests the federal government should not be involved in any issues pertaining to setting standards or ensuring the type of programs have at least a reasonable quality all across the country.

When we come to the origin of this equalization program, it is to give some sense that no matter where Canadians are in the country they have the same opportunities to a minimum level of programs. This is so we are not in a situation where people in Newfoundland are at an enormous disadvantage in the types of social services provided to them when compared to people in Ontario.

We have a very peculiar situation. On the one hand we are asked to give the transfers because we want to see national standards, and on the other hand the instruments of transparency and accountability are not there. We cannot be absolutely certain that any of the provinces is using this money for the purpose intended. It is the same for the Canada health and social transfer. It is in the end simply a subsidy to the provincial taxes so the provinces will not have to raise them as high as they might ordinarily have had to and they will not have to take the flak. The whole idea is that the federal government is there for the provinces to blame for high taxes. We see this theme coming from the Reform Party all the time.

The member for Portneuf who is here for this part of the debate made the observation that Quebec is owed the money. I found that quite amusing. He basically said “Quebec is owed the money. Give us the money and keep giving us the money until we declare sovereignty”. And that would be the end to that.

I say to the member for Portneuf that Quebec would probably not be a have not province if it were not for the fact that Quebec governments over the last 20 years successively and even to a certain extent the Liberal governments have pursued an agenda of nationalism that has dampened investment in Quebec, particularly in the Montreal region. Montreal was the engine of the economy. At one time Montreal was a rival to Toronto. Since this whole thing about sovereignty really took root in Quebec there has been a flight of investment. It is not just a lack of investment, there has been a flight of investment. It is no wonder that the province of Quebec wishes to continue to receive its share of equalization programs and its share of the Canada health and social transfer.

Earlier the member from St. John's said that equalization transfers should continue to come to Newfoundland even if Newfoundland develops new resource wealth. It should continue to get 100% equalization transfers even if it enlarges its tax base as a result of the development of Voisey's Bay, Hibernia and other projects in Newfoundland.

This is the same type of difficulty as what that member was asking. He said give us our tax subsidy no matter what our resource income is. Give it to us because we would prefer that the federal government be blamed for charging high taxes than the provinces. In some respects, certainly in the sense of the Canada health and social transfer, this is precisely what we hear in my own province of Ontario.

In a way we may be looking at this equalization program in the form we see it for the last time. The whole of society is now moving to a position where Canadians in every province are asking their governments to provide a high level of transparency and accountability so that the people of those provinces can see that the money is being spent wisely and well.

The reason this is very significant is in the context of the recent social union talks, ten premiers signed a letter with respect to how health spending would be undertaken. The key element of those negotiations was the principle that if the provinces were to receive money for social and health programs from the federal government the provinces should be in control of the programs. But the provinces had to undertake to put in instruments of transparency and accountability so that all Canadians, including Canadians in those provinces, could see that the money regardless of where it is coming from is spent on the programs it is intended for.

I see one of the members of the Bloc Quebecois shaking his head. I point out that the province of Quebec is to be one of the provinces best able to meet this requirement because that province happens to have one of the best freedom of information acts of any province. There is no reason why the member should shake his head because it is precisely the type of program he should support. If I had my way I would like to see the federal government adopt some of the provisions that exist in Quebec with respect to privacy and access to information.

There is no reason why Quebec or any other province should be opposed to better transparency in the application of equalization payments. If we are to transfer $8.6 billion a year or $12.6 billion, a sum total of $20 billion, I agree with my Reform members opposite that we should be calling for better levels of transparency. Perhaps it is a little premature right now because this legislation has to go forward in order to get the money in train.

This bill is not cast in iron. There are opportunities two or three years from now to look at it again and to make amendments that require better levels of transparency and accountability. All of us on all sides of the House and speaking for all Canadians would agree that is what is required.

[Division No. 316, February 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, near as I can gather from the member's remarks, he is saying the equalization payments which are designed to bring all the provinces up to the same sort of minimum national standards and opportunities should continue to be paid even when a province on its own back can raise the money through its own resources.

In other words, what he is saying is that if a worker is on employment insurance, for example, he should be entitled to get a job as well with which he doubles his income, one from the government and one from the job. Or that a person on welfare should be able to get the social assistance and also get the money from a job or any other resources. What he is saying if I gather correctly is that rather than the people of Newfoundland wanting to earn their own way from their own resources, they should continue to tap the governments, the federal resources, federal social assistance.

I submit this is indeed the type of agenda, the type of pattern that we saw in the Conservatives of the past. I do not believe it speaks actually to the other parties in Newfoundland, the Liberals perhaps or the NDP. I think it is a Conservative philosophy where not only do we get as much money as we can from our own resources but we get as much money as we can from the central government.

I submit that is not what produces independence, that is not what produces dignity among people. I suggest the Conservatives should understand that people now have to get off the gravy train unless they need help. If they need help, yes.

The member suggested that closure has somehow been something that is interfering with the ability of Newfoundlanders and other people in the have-not provinces getting these equalization payments. Rhetoric is not what these people need right now. What they need is this legislation to go through as fast as possible.

[Supply, February 11th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, the member pointed out there is a flaw in the motion and he has moved an amendment correct that flaw.

The member for Mississauga South pointed out that the two other aspects of the motion would have very little effect. Limiting bracket creep to all incomes means that it would affect all Canadians and it would have very little effect on the impoverished. The member for Mississauga South also pointed out that the recommendation with respect to the child tax benefit would result only in a net benefit of about $14 a year.

A motion like this really is a partisan motion because it is not so much the content of the motion or whether the content of the motion is worthy or practical. It is a motion that is designed to put us in the situation where, if we voted against it, it would appear we were voting against combating poverty.

I hope the member and his party will examine this motion on its merits and show courage when they vote, and not support it simply because they are afraid to be branded as being against combating child poverty. They should treat this motion for what it is worth, and it is not a very practical motion.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the member's remarks give me an opportunity to express feelings that I have with respect to gaming. Mr. Speaker, if you will forgive me I will go slightly off the topic but I hope that the member will react to my comments.

I have been increasingly uneasy with the way provinces have more and more been exploiting casinos, gambling and lotteries in general. I fear that this is creating as many if not more problems than is worth the money that is being collected. In other words the provinces are causing addiction, breaking up families, contributing to all kinds of problems that in the end the federal government will have to address by increases in transfer payments for social and health spending.

Gaming is becoming a serious addiction, on the same order as alcoholism and drug abuse. We, as legislators, be we at the federal level or the provincial level are forgetting our duty to the citizens by allowing the spread of this terrible problem simply because provincial governments want to make money easily without having to raise taxes. They want to make money by exploiting the weakness of people. This is a serious problem that the governments are going to have to address eventually.

I ask the member whether he agrees that gaming has become a serious sickness in society, that it is aided and abetted by the provincial governments and that sometime the federal government should intervene in order to protect the interests of Canadians who obviously cannot protect their own interests.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I was intrigued by the member's suggestion that the new Canada act will not be introduced until the Reform Party forms the government. I would suggest that the new Canada act may never be introduced at all.

I would also suggest that he kindly consider calling it something other than an act which suggests that it is already legislation that has passed. He could call it a bill but it has not actually been submitted before parliament. Would the Reform Party be up front and call it what it is, which is simply a proposal?

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost the Canada act to which the member refers is a misnomer. This is not legislation. This is merely a proposal on the part of the Reform Party. If that party were very serious about it, it would introduce it as legislation, possibly as a private member's bill.

I would like to take the member to task slightly in his suggestion that the way to correct or to reform the equalization process is to treat all Canadians equally. The problem with that concept is that there is great disparity across the country. In fact Canadians do not have equality of opportunity either in terms of their resources or their industrial base.

The member suggested that 70% of Canada is have not because seven provinces are recipients of equalization payments and three are the actual ones that give out the equalization payments. This illustrates the weakness in the submission in the Canada act that the key is to treat everyone equally.

In fact, 70% of Canada does not quite describe the situation when the member was talking merely about provinces. The three have provinces probably account for 80% or 90% of the actual industrial and resource base of the country.

Would the member perhaps reconsider his approach to treating everyone equally and consider the disparity of opportunity that exists among Canadians rather than ignoring the inequalities among us all?

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 5th, 1999]

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that God is excluded from very few people. I think the god that we refer to in any oath that emanates from this parliament or from this country is a god of all people in all religions, or all religions and all people, if you will.

In this sense, even the atheist has a place with God and it is appropriate for any of us to acknowledge that there is something higher than humanity. We may define it in many different ways, but there is something higher than humanity. We know that when we see things beautiful. We know that when we see our freedoms.

The mistake that has occurred in the past is that people thought when they put God into oaths it was a god of some particular religion, but it is not. It is the God eternal.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am actually nervous about speaking to Bill C-63. I, who have spoken in the House perhaps 60 to 70 times without notes, am nervous this time. It is because of the nature of the subject.

First of all the circumstances of my speech. I learned that Bill C-63 was on the order paper just late Wednesday morning. I hurried over for question period to get a copy of the bill and to study it, because I had not looked at it before, just in time for the opening ceremonies on Wednesday which involves, as the House knows, the singing of O Canada. I came in here just on time. I was not on House duty, but the others were gathered on the other side and I stood next to the member for St. John's and sang with her. In O Canada is “God keep our land glorious and free”.

Then I sat in my place as question period unfolded and the Prime Minister answered questions from the opposition on various subjects. I read the proposed oath of citizenship that my colleague has just mentioned that has been put forward with Bill C-63. My heart sank.

I am sorry I do not share the view of the parliamentary secretary that this oath of citizenship really does reflect what we are as a country. The parliamentary secretary explained to me subsequently that it was something created by consensus, by consultation.

I suggest that sometimes consensus and consultation is not the way to go and where really one has to come to that place and to those people who deal every day with what it is to be a Canadian as part of their lives, as part of their professions perhaps to get an idea of what an oath of citizenship should be all about.

The oath begins: “From this day forward I pledge my loyalty and allegiance to Canada”. Loyalty and allegiance are synonyms. They are the same words. So we begin the new oath to take us into the next millennium with a redundancy.

It goes on: “We pledge allegiance to Canada, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada”. This is another redundancy. When I pledge allegiance to Canada I pledge allegiance to all Canada's democratic institutions. I pledge allegiance to this parliament. I pledge allegiance to the Queen. So long as the Queen is the Queen of Canada I pledge allegiance to the Queen whenever I pledge allegiance to Canada.

In other words, I am a monarchist. It is just that I am not so sure that we need in this part the Queen along with pledging allegiance to Canada, because I feel it is something of a redundancy.

The oath goes on: “I promise to respect our country's rights and freedoms and defend democratic values and faithfully observe our laws and fulfil the duties and obligations of a Canadian citizen”.

This does not capture what it is to be a Canadian. These are generalities. Yet in this place every day we debate very fundamental values that drive this country. One cannot be a member of parliament for more than a week or two before one realizes the five real principles that drive this country, that make this country free, that make this country Canada.

Those five principles are equality of opportunity, freedom of speech, democracy, basic human rights and the rule of law.

That day in question period we dealt with all those issues because always, in a country like Canada, the issues that have to be dealt with in parliament are the issues where we try to balance those five principles, where we balance the rule of law with basic human rights.

On that day in question period we dealt with hepatitis C, the problem of a ruling on child pornography and similar things. All these things deal with this balancing act on the five principles of Canada and Canadian freedom.

My biggest disappointment when reading the new oath was that there was no reference to God. Do members realize that among all the major nations that accept new citizens, we are the only country that has dropped God from our oath of citizenship. Australia has “under God” in its oath. Great Britain has “Almighty God” in its oath. New Zealand and the United States have “so help me God” in their oath.

We did have it at one time, 1976 I think it was, but for some reason it was decided that “so help me God” was not important in Canada's oath and it was dropped subsequently.

I am not a deeply religious person but I believe there is an eternal presence, there is something more, some higher authority, a higher authority than parliament, a higher authority than the country. We have reason to count our blessings as Canada. Those blessings emanate from a higher presence, from God.

I am a member of a village church, the United Church of Canada. I am not a terribly regular churchgoer but I do go. The stained glass window is yellow. As the minister may be speaking or the choir singing, that window lights up with sunlight. I sit in my pew and think how grateful I am to be among my people, my community, how grateful I am to be a Canadian where there are no wars and no strife, where I can feel at home with people who love one another. I know that is a heck of a thing to say but that does happen in church. That is what church is all about.

During the referendum crisis in 1995 the Liberals had a lot more seats than now and there was an overflow on the opposition side. I had a seat on the opposite side, right next to the opposition, that faced toward the Prime Minister.

One of my most moving memories was during that debate on the referendum crisis to see the Prime Minister attempting to defend the country he believed in, in the most crucial moment of his life trying to defend Canada against what was a real questioning of whether Canada should stay united.

I could see the Prime Minister trying to find the words and trying to speak and he would look over my way because I suppose the camera was directly behind me and he could address the Canadian people. I could look into the Prime Minister's eyes as he spoke and I knew the passion he was feeling.

In the context of that I could look up to the northwest window, the Ontario window, and the sunlight would invade the glass of that window. That window is comprised of trilliums and at the very top the three maple leaves of Canada. The trillium of course is the trinity and the trillium that was chosen for that glass is not all white. It is stained red.

When we make these associations we realize there has to be a bit more than just words, more than just things, there has to be something that is greater than all of us that does give these blessings that make us Canada, that make us Canadian.

I have to think that 99.99% of new people coming from anywhere in the world come from cultures where there is a god. It may not be the God of Christ. It may be the god of another great religion but still there would be a god and I think they would expect to see an oath of citizenship that contains the word god, an invocation to God.

I sat here today among my colleagues with the encouragement of the members for Brampton West—Mississauga and for Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey. I made an effort to write a new and different oath of citizenship. I wrote it right here. This is not a prop. This a piece of paper on which I jotted my notes during question period. This is what I wrote.

I wrote “In pledging my allegiance to Canada and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second”, and the next part was difficult because I did not want to say promise. I did not know what words to use and then it occurred to me with the encouragement of my colleagues: “I take my stand, I take my place among Canadians”, and the rest of it flowed very easily, “united before God whose sacred trust is to uphold five principles: equality of opportunity, freedom of speech, democracy, basic human rights and the rule of law”.

It flowed so much more easily in French:

En prêtant allégeance au Canada, je me compte au nombre des Canadiens qui sont unis par leur foi en Dieu et leur attachement à cinq grands principes: l'égalité des chances, la liberté d'expression, les valeurs démocratiques, le respect des droits de la personne et la primauté du droit.

[Supply, February 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. We have to recall that it was the Conservative government which managed to transfer these tax points to the provinces and essentially created the situation where the federal government lost control of federal spending in health care. That is very sad.

As far as employment insurance is concerned, we are talking about apples and oranges, as the member well knows, because we are talking about a situation in which the demand on the employment insurance fund is met by the money that is there.

I do not know what the member actually means. Would he increase the amount? Perhaps he is suggesting that we should cut employment insurance premiums. Perhaps that is what he is driving at. I am not sure, but I know it is not the same situation whatsoever.