Sarmite Bulte

[Interparliamentary Delegations, March 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34 I have the honour to present to the House reports from the Canadian branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association concerning the Conference on Parliament and the Media, Building an Effective Relationship which was held from February 14 to February 19, 2000 in New Delhi, India, and the 49th Commonwealth Seminar which was held in Westminster, United Kingdom from March 7 to March 18, 2000.

[World Theatre Day, March 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, March 27 marked World Theatre Day. Thirty-nine years ago this day was first proclaimed by the International Theatre Institute, a non-governmental organization founded by UNESCO and international theatre personalities to recognize the universal importance of theatre. It also promotes the importance of artistic creation to cultural development and the exchange of knowledge and practice in the performing arts.

This year the International Theatre Institute chose Canada's Michel Tremblay, the world-renowned Quebec playwright, to pen the International World Theatre day message. The message was read in countless theatres around the world and embodied within it Canada's value for theatre and the performing arts as a vehicle for creative expression and international harmony.

From Vancouver to Halifax, theatre groups celebrated the occasion in many different ways. This year, events were made possible through new and innovative partnerships among the Department of Canadian Heritage, its portfolio agencies and theatre organizations across Canada.

[Alex Pauk, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my constituent, Alex Pauk, for being named Musician of the Year by the Toronto Musicians' Association.

For 30 years, Alex Pauk has been championing the cause of new music in Canada.

Alex is the founder, musical director and conductor of Esprit Orchestra, Canada's only orchestra devoted exclusively to contemporary music.

Alex was chosen artist of the year for his work with the Esprit Orchestra in programming, obtaining funding and commissions, keeping musicians working during difficult times as well as encouraging education and outreach programs.

Alex Pauk has also won acclaim for composing more than 35 works and commissions for music and dance groups as well as writing for film, television, radio and musical theatre.

In receiving this award, Alex's name has been added to that of past honourees including Rush, Barenaked Ladies, Rob McConnell, Peter De Soto and Henry Cuesta.

Congratulations, Alex. This is an award that is well deserved.

[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]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to participate in the debate on Bill C-20. I would like to do so by referring to some of the motions or the amendments that have been put forward today.

Today and this evening at 6.30 the House will be voting on 411 motions or amendments by the opposition parties. Pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(5) the Speaker has grouped the motions for debate into five groups. I would like to speak to the motions in Group No. 1.

Group No. 1 deals with the preamble of the bill. The preamble itself contains eight clauses. In addition to the preamble the clarity bill itself is actually very clear and straightforward. It contains three operating clauses.

There is a reason I have chosen to speak on the preamble and on the motions within Group No. 1. I ask the Canadian people to decide for themselves tonight as they watch the House of Commons start to vote at 6.30 p.m. whether in fact what they are experiencing here is democracy at work, as my friends in the Bloc have said a number of times today, or is it really an abuse of the parliamentary process and parliamentary rules and procedure.

I do so by looking specifically at Motions Nos. 5 and 9 and talking a bit about the preamble. The bill closely reflects the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec secession reference. Each of the preamble clauses is drawn from elements of the court's judgment. Despite Premier Bouchard's attempt to conveniently ignore certain parts of the judgment, it is important that all the elements be reflected in the clarity act preamble.

When we look at Motions Nos. 5 and 9 which are the motions I would like to start with, we will note that Motion No. 5 seeks to delete a word from the first clause of the preamble. So that Canadians know what we are talking about, clause 1 of the preamble states:

Whereas the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that there is no right, under international law or under the Constitution of Canada, for the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally;

Instead of a motion being brought forward by my friends in the Bloc to question or to amend this, because I have heard time and time again the amendments are here to make the bill better, what does Motion No. 5 say? Motion No. 5 states that Bill C-20 in the preamble be amended by replacing lines 1 and 2 on page 1 with the following, and it deletes the words that the Supreme Court of Canada “has confirmed” and replaces them with the words the Supreme Court of Canada “is of the opinion”.

Are we talking substantive amendments or are we talking as in my days as a lawyer of what we would call frivolous and vexatious motions? Let us look at that.

Let us move to Motion No. 9 which again is a substantive amendment with so much rhetoric across the way saying that they are are trying to make this bill so much better. What does Motion No. 9 say? Let us look at clause 4 of the preamble. It is important for Canadians to know what we are talking about. We are not talking about the government abusing democracy or wanting to invoke closure so that we do not have the ability to debate or make substantive comments. We are talking about proposing frivolous and vexatious motions.

Do the people of Canada know that today in the House of Commons when we start voting at 6.30 we will be potentially voting continuously until 2.30 a.m. on Thursday morning? Is that democracy at work or is it again an abuse of parliamentary procedure at best?

Let us look at what clause 4 says:

Whereas the Supreme Court of Canada has determined that the result of a referendum on the secession of a province from Canada must be free from ambiguity both in terms of the question asked and in terms of the support it achieves and that result is to be taken as an expression of the democratic will that would give rise to an obligation to enter into negotiations that might lead to secession;

What part of that section of the preamble has been moved to be changed? Are we amending ambiguity? Are we amending that there is an obligation that negotiations be entered into? Are we amending anything substantial?

Let us look at what Motion No. 9 says. It is a funny thing. It sounds like Motion No. 5 because again they want to delete a word. The word this time is not “confirmed”. It is the word “determined”, whereas the Supreme Court of Canada has given an opinion, instead of using the word “determined”.

Those are the substantial democratic amendments the members of the Bloc have proposed. Is it so substantive that we change the word “confirmed” to “determine”? What is wrong with those words?

I remind members of the House of Commons that certainly as a lawyer who practised 18 years and as a member of the Ontario bar, I knew that when the supreme court made a pronouncement it was regarded as highly persuasive and binding on all lower courts.

Governments in Canada have always acted as though reference opinions were binding on them. Governments not acting in accordance with reference opinions risk legal challenges on any aspect of opinions dealing with legal issues. Is this a question of semantics or is this a question of substance?

I would also like to quote what the supreme court noted in the reference regarding remuneration of judges of the provincial court. The court stated: “The fact that this court's opinion is only advisory does not leave the parties without a remedy. They can seek a declaration. This court's opinion will be of highly persuasive weight”.

Opinion, determination, confirmation; is it truly necessary that for this first group of amendments, Motions Nos. 1 to 12, that we sit here for two or three hours to determine on the preamble? What in substance is talked about in the preamble?

Motion No. 2 did address the fact that whereas when the Quebec people were consulted by referendum in 1995, the winning choice was the one that obtained the majority of the votes declared valid, that is 50% of the votes plus one.

That could possibly be a substantive amendment, but what is intended and what does that accomplish by putting that amendment in? We could also go into the history of Canada from the date of confederation and the British North America Act and what powers were given to the provinces and Quebec's special status in Canada. We could do that as well.

Sometimes people just say things for the sake of saying things. I would submit that Motion No. 2 is exactly that.

If my friends in the Bloc were actually true to their substantive amendments, why is it that they propose in Motion Nos. 5 and 9 that the words “confirmed” and “determined” be substituted by the words “of the opinion”, but at the same time in previous Motion Nos. 4 and 8, they seek to delete both paragraph one of the preamble and number four? And if they do not get away with that, then in Motion No. 3 they completely seek to strike out the entire amount of the preamble.

I say to all Canadians, is what we are seeing here substantive amendments? Is this how we try to make our lives better? Is this what the Canadian taxpayers are paying us to do, to sit here for 55 hours to vote on, with all due respect to some who may claim in the House of Commons, substantive amendments?

I would submit that that is not the case. In fact this is not a case of democracy at work, but it is truly a case of parliamentary procedure being abused at best.

Why is the federal government taking this action in the face of such strong opposition? I would submit that the government has taken this decision because Quebecers have a right not to lose their country unless it is clearly expressed in their will and unless negotiations are concluded that respect the rights and interests of all Canadians.

As the only government representing all Canadians and as one of the parties in possible negotiations, it is important that the Government of Canada signal the circumstances under which it would enter into negotiations that could lead to the breakup of this country. Given the dramatic consequences of secession, it is in the interests of Quebecers and all other Canadians that such negotiations only be undertaken if it is the clear will of Quebecers that they no longer wish to remain in Canada.

When we talk again about substance or frivolity, when we talk about democracy or abuse of process, I would ask all Canadians as they watch tonight and for the next 54 hours that they determine what truly is happening here.

[Commonwealth Day, March 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, today I invite Canadians to celebrate Commonwealth Day, remembering our shared heritage and ready to work together to tackle the challenges that lie ahead.

This year's theme, the communications challenge, is highly appropriate at the start of the new millennium. Recent advances in communications technology bring the challenge of ensuring that the advantages of modern communications are available to all and that they are used to bring us closer together.

Just a few months ago the Commonwealth held its heads of government meeting in a democratic South Africa. There leaders praised the role that the Commonwealth played in bringing an end to apartheid. Nigeria, fresh from its own elections, also expressed its gratitude for the Commonwealth's efforts to restore democracy there.

Clearly the Commonwealth is making a positive contribution in the world today.

[International Women's Day, March 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, next Wednesday, March 8, is International Women's Day. The theme for this year's celebration is “Women Taking Action to Make a Difference”.

To commemorate International Women's Day, on March 8 I will be hosting a breakfast to acknowledge the accomplishments of women in my riding. On this day I will be honouring and celebrating six local women who have not only taken action, but who have truly made a difference. My special guests will include Anne-Marie Gardner, executive director of the Redwood Shelter; Alexina Louie, composer in residence at the Canadian Opera Company and winner of the Jules Leger Prize for music; Madeleine McDowell, heritage advocate, educator, social and environmental activist; Alicja Pietrus, president of the Toronto branch of the Canadian Polish Congress; Piera Pugliese, owner of Vesuvio's Pizzeria and Spaghetti House; and Anne Wright-Howard, producer of CBC television's Undercurrents .

This is an occasion to reflect on the progress made to advance women's equality. But more importantly, it is a day to celebrate the lives of ordinary women as makers of history.

[The Budget, February 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to assure the member that I have not been passed any notes by any officials of any department.

I would also like to take this opportunity to tell the member and all of my constituents that I actually wrote my own speech. I do not read speeches of the Department of Finance.

The important thing is when we talk about the budget that we also talk about the things we ask our constituents. In the economic update in November, the finance minister asked Canadians to join in the debate as to what to do with that surplus. What we are going to do with that surplus will determine the Canada of the future. That is what we did. We went out and sought Canadians' input, me in my riding. With all due respect to the member, whom I respect very highly, when she claims that we are trying to confuse people with tax points, she is trying to confuse people by saying tax points do not play a role. Where—

[The Budget, February 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was right. He did hear that 40% of my constituents advocated debt reduction but I also stated very clearly that no one in my riding suggested that debt reduction should be the government's singular priority. Most people felt that we were now in a position to reduce debt, address social needs and cut taxes.

There were three approaches and three priorities. One perhaps is a little ahead, but no singular one was there alone. We looked at three priorities and that is exactly what this budget addressed.

With respect to the debt repayment, the hon. member has said that we do not have any plans at all to reduce the debt but that is not the case at all. We have reduced the debt by $6 billion. In fact yesterday in his speech the Minister of Finance also noted that market debt, the debt which is issued in financial markets, has fallen even further and by the end of this fiscal year we will have reduced it by close to $20 billion. So in fact the plan is in place.

Let us also not forget what the Minister of Finance said yesterday in his opening remarks. We will not abandon our balanced approach, the approach that this government has taken since it was elected to office in 1993. Again we are following what we said we are going to do. We are tackling the main priorities of Canadians but we are doing it in a balanced and comprehensive manner.

[The Budget, February 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Stoney Creek. I rise today to congratulate the Minister of Finance on budget 2000, the first budget of the 21st century and the next step in the government's balanced and comprehensive plan to make Canada the place to be in the 21st century.

I would like to use my time to highlight parts of the budget by comparing it to the main priorities of my constituents, which were elicited during prebudget consultations last year. Prebudget consultations have become an annual event in my riding. Every year I meet with local business representatives, community activists and members of various community organizations.

Last year I also distributed a prebudget questionnaire in my riding and solicited responses through a local newspaper. Following the consultations I prepared a report which was then forwarded to the Minister of Finance, the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance and to the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance.

Yesterday the Minister of Finance thanked Canadians who shared their ideas and insights with the Standing Committee on Finance. Today I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who participated in my consultations.

When asked what should be the government's main priority in terms of investing the projected budget surplus, the great consensus among my constituents was a balanced approach. However, three major priorities dominated these consultations. First, 40% felt that the government should continue to repay the debt. Second, 35% felt that the government should renew spending and investment in key sectors. Finally, 25% advocated tax cuts.

Virtually everyone during my consultations felt that some action was necessary to pay down the debt. Every year I am finding increased understanding of the debt issue: how large it is in terms of the government's overall finances and how much of our revenues are eaten up in interest payments. I am increasingly hearing that if we are unable to retire a substantial part of the debt during the current relative boom, how will we be able to do so when some day we face a recession?

Others have pointed out the riskiness in very deep tax cuts while the debt and interest payments are still so high. Once again the concern is centred on the prospects of an eventual recession. If taxes are substantially reduced now, it will be politically difficult to raise them again in recessionary times. However, no one has suggested that debt reduction should be the government's singular priority. Most people felt that we were now in a position to reduce debt, address a host of social needs and cut taxes.

What did yesterday's budget say about the debt? The Minister of Finance confirmed that we would not abandon the balanced approach which the government adopted from the beginning, an approach which recognizes that debt reduction, tax relief and spending on health, post-secondary education and other priorities are not competing claims but complementary components of a fair and effective plan.

Let us not forget that the government inherited a record $42 million deficit in 1993. Yet Canada has not just eliminated this deficit. We are one of the few countries that is now reducing the absolute amount of its debt and will indeed continue to do so.

Over the past two years we have paid down the debt by $6 million, resulting in interest savings alone of more than $300 million a year each and every year. The budget also confirmed that we would continue to set aside a $3 billion contingency reserve to protect against unforeseen events. In accordance with our debt repayment plan we will continue to use the contingency reserve fund to reduce the debt when it is not needed.

Canada's debt to gross domestic product ratio, which measures the amount of debt against the size of our economy, has markedly improved. In 1995 Canada's debt ratio was 71%. Today it has dropped to 61% and we predict that it will fall to 50% by 2004. Beyond this the downward track must continue. We are still a long way away from the 25% ratio Canada enjoyed in the late 1960s, which in fact was the last time our books were in the black.

The second priority of my constituents was increased social spending with health care, a children's agenda, the environment, affordable housing and eased access to post-secondary education being most often recommended. Several constituents in fact pointed out that spending such as this should indeed be looked upon as investment in human capital.

I am delighted to advise my constituents that all their top priorities were also the government's top priorities. In fact the very first announcement the Minister of Finance made in his first budget of the 21st century was to increase funding for post-secondary education and health care. Moreover the Minister of Finance confirmed “these are priorities of Canadians and they are ours”. That is why budget 2000 transfers an additional $2.5 billion over four years through the Canada health social transfers to help provinces and territories to address pressing health care and post-secondary education concerns.

In addition, the Minister of Finance acknowledged that scholarships and bursaries were an important part of expanding our access to higher learning. Therefore, to ensure that more students receive their full value the budget increases the tax exemption from its current level of $500 to $3,000.

The environment was also addressed in this budget. The Minister of Finance has made it absolutely clear that protecting the environment is no longer an option. It is something that we must do. For Canada to be the place to be in the 21st century our lakes and air must be clean, our green spaces and diverse habitat and species must be protected, and we must deal with climate change. Consequently budget 2000 proposes to invest $700 million to promote the government's environmental agenda.

The budget also specifically noted that affordable housing was also an essential element of our modern society and critical to meeting the 21st century needs of our municipalities. Moreover, the government announced its intention to improve provincial and municipal infrastructure in cities by committing $450 million over the next two years and $550 million in each of the following four years.

The most important commitment made in the budget was to assist families and our children. Assisting families is not only the smart thing to do. It is the right thing to do. Governments can do this in two ways: through income assistance and support for services on which so many of our families rely.

Budget 2000 takes action on both fronts. First, it enriches the Canada child tax benefit with another $2.5 billion by the year 2004, increasing it to more than $9 billion annually. Second, the budget doubles the duration of employment insurance, maternity and parental benefits to 12 months.

Very quickly let us go to my constituents' third priority, tax relief. Although tax cuts were not as widely advocated as debt reduction and social spending, it was evident that the need for them is growing. The majority of my constituents advocated tax relief for lower income families, especially those with children. Employment insurance premium reductions, indexation and other across the board tax cuts were also adhered to.

Once again budget 2000 has responded to my constituents' concern. We have delivered a five year tax reduction plan that provides an average reduction of 21% to middle and low income families with children by the year 2000. The budget restores full indexation to the personal income tax system immediately and retroactively to January 1, 2000. Over the next five years we will increase the amount Canadians can receive tax free to at least $8,000.

The budget also decreases tax rates which have not come down in the last 12 years. Over the next five years the middle tax rate will be reduced from 26% to 23%. Effective July 1, 2000, the rate will be reduced to 25%. In addition, the income level at which the middle tax rate begins to apply has been increased to $35,000. Since 1994 employment insurance rates have been reduced each and every year from $3.07 to $2.40. The budget also assumes that these rates will continue to fall to $2 by the year 2004.

To conclude, I repeat what the Minister of Finance said yesterday in his closing remarks:

This is a budget with many elements, but a single theme: creating better lives for Canadians in a rapidly changing world.

While the budget may have many elements, it attempts to address the main priorities of not only my constituents but of all Canadians. It does so with one major objective: to translate better finances into a better quality of life for all Canadians. Let us never forget that the values of our society are reflected in the fiscal choices we make.

[Citizenship And Immigration, February 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

It has come to my attention that many school age children in Ontario are being denied entry to public schools because of their immigration status, notwithstanding the fact that Ontario's education act mandates compulsory education for all children.

What is the minister doing to ensure that all children have access to Ontario schools regardless of their immigration status in Canada?