Warren Allmand

[Supply, December 8th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I want to reply to the member for Québec-Est who questioned my remarks just before Question Period.

The hon. member said that he and the Quebecois people were insulted by my remarks which attacked the Parizeau proposals as undemocratic.

I want to make it very clear that I made no attack on the people of Quebec, whom I respect. My remarks were directed at the Government of Quebec and the Bloc Quebecois. Neither the Parti Quebecois nor the Bloc Quebecois is one and the same as the people of Quebec, although sometimes those members believe they are.

I said that the Parizeau proposals were not democratic because first, they were putting the law on independence before the National Assembly first and they were going to consult and have the referendum afterward. Second, they had no mandate from the electorate because they only received 44 per cent of the vote.

Third, their regional commissions were structured to favour the independence option and were not neutral. Fourth, the proposals were fuzzed, unclear and misleading.

As to my use of French in this House, when I speak in Parliament I usually use my mother tongue which is English, which is my right.

When I talk with my constituents, I use their language, whether French or English, and that is my right also.

[Supply, December 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I will have an opportunity to respond to that question?

[Supply, December 8th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I begin by saying how extremely disappointed I am with my friends in the Parti Quebecois government in Quebec and their Bloc Quebec allies here in Ottawa. I say friends because while I disagree with their main political option, I have always respected them as reasonable and honest men and women.

I expected the Parti Quebecois government would proceed with the referendum on independence but certainly not in this undemocratic manner. Both the proposal that was announced in the Quebec National Assembly the other day and the process are contrary to the democratic principles usually followed not only in Quebec and in Canada but throughout the western world.

The process and the proposition are undemocratic on four grounds. First, the law is being tabled and passed first and then the consultation comes afterward. In other words they are putting the cart before the horse. That is certainly not what is usually done. It is not what we did in this Parliament when amending the law on the goods and services tax. We commissioned a committee which held wide ranging hearings, travelled the country and collected views. Now the government is preparing a law.

We are doing the same thing with the reform of our social security laws. We did the same thing with respect to defence and external affairs. Very important changes are being made to our policies and our laws but first we consult and bring in the law afterward.

Second, the Parti Quebecois government did not get a mandate from the electorate of Quebec in the last election to put forward such a law. It only got approximately 44 per cent of the vote and many of those who voted for the Parti Quebecois voted for them in order to have a change of government.

There are two principal parties in Quebec: the provincial Liberal Party and the Parti Quebecois. Many people were dissatisfied with the Liberal Party and voted for the Parti Quebecois for a better way of governing. That was the slogan that was on the signs: "For a better way of governing", to deal with economic and social problems.

Even among the 44 per cent that did vote for the Parti Quebecois many voted for a better way of government and not for the law that was tabled in the National Assembly the other day. It is true that during the election campaign Mr. Parizeau spoke about a referendum but he certainly did not speak of a referendum that would be preceded by a unilateral declaration of independence.

Third, in discussing the non-democratic nature of these proposals, the regional commissions that the Quebec government intends to set up are loaded in favour of the law and the principles behind the law. The premier of Quebec has invited MNAs from the Quebec National Assembly and members of Parliament to participate in the commissions. Added to those commissions will be other members who will be appointed by the Government of Quebec and favourable to its position. The chairs of those regional commissions will be persons who will not be elected members of Parliament or MNAs but, and I am referring to the words of Mr. Parizeau: "will be people who will be able to build consensus" toward the proposal that he tabled in the assembly.

In other words the goal of the chair or those regional commissions will be to build consensus toward the principle of a unilaterally independent state of Quebec.

The dice are loaded with respect to those regional commissions. They are undemocratic. That is why many groups, not just political parties, will not participate in the regional commissions. Their goal is simply to improve on, to build on, what has already been tabled in the Quebec National Assembly as a draft bill.

Fourth, the process is dishonest and misleading because it pretends to keep the best of both Canada and Quebec. It is a bit like the sovereignty association question in the last referendum in the early 1980s. For example, the draft bill provides for economic union with Canada, for keeping Canadian citizenship, for keeping the Canadian dollar, for maintaining Quebec's position in NAFTA and in NATO, for maintaining Canadian pensions and for maintaining the same territory which Quebec now has, but which it did not have at the time of Confederation.

It is a sort of having one's cake and eating it too, getting out of Canada but remaining in Canada. On those grounds as well the process is undemocratic, confusing and misleading for the ordinary voter and the ordinary citizen of Quebec.

The opening clause of the draft constitution states that Quebec is a sovereign country. That is a universal declaration of independence in the sense that it refers to an entire country. It is misleading for the people of Quebec because all provinces are now sovereign in provincial areas of jurisdiction. It was decided by the Privy Council many years ago that all provinces were sovereign in their areas of jurisdiction just as the federal government is sovereign in its area of jurisdiction.

I want to say a few words about the legality of this process. There is no provision in either the Constitution of 1867 or the Constitution of 1982 for any province to secede unilaterally. No province has that right legally. They no more have that right than would the federal government have the right to expel unilaterally a province from Canada.

Can one imagine if we passed a law in this Parliament and confirmed by the Senate to throw Quebec out or Prince Edward Island or British Columbia out, without going through the process of our amending formula. It would be considered outrageous if we even attempted to do that. Even if the federal government should try to do it with the support of a few other provinces it is unacceptable.

It is unacceptable that any province should leave unilaterally without the agreement of the other provinces because we have come to share so much together. If it requires an amendment of the Constitution to transfer a number of powers from the federal government to a provincial government-let us say to transfer manpower training or pensions or unemployment insurance or other things-then certainly it requires amendments to transfer all of the powers.

There are various views on this, but I would say at the very most for a province to secede it would require the amending formula which states that you need seven out of ten provinces, representing 50 per cent of the population in order to make such an extreme amendment to the Constitution. But at the very least, it would require the consent of the province in question and of the federal Parliament.

Some people would say that we should not talk about the legalities of secession, we should talk about the politics of it. Even politically and morally, the present government of Quebec has no political or moral mandate to introduce and pass the type of law which they tabled in the National Assembly the other day. They got only a little over 44 per cent of the vote and even then all those who voted for them did not support that option.

I understand my time is up. I had much more to say on this subject. However, we should reject this motion before the House today. We should certainly reject the bill that is in the Quebec National Assembly at the present time.

I would recommend again to my friends, whom I respect, that they go back to the drawing boards and come up with something that is more suitable, in accordance with our democratic process and then we can all decide it in a proper way.

[Committees Of The House, December 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, June 21, 1994, your committee has considered Bill C-37, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act and the Criminal Code. Your committee has agreed to report it with amendments.

The committee considered the bill for three months, heard 42 witnesses and made 28 amendments. I want to thank members of the committee and witnesses for their contributions and co-operation.

The phase two examination of the Young Offenders Act will take place in the new year.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to be registered as opposing Motion No. 9.

[Budgetary Policy, November 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has mentioned several points and I will try to deal with them all.

First, I did mention the middle class. I said not to cut the deficit on the backs of the middle class and the poor. That is what would be done if we seriously cut social programs.

Second, I did not say that the deficit was not a problem. It is a problem but deficits can be attacked in two ways. You can attack deficits by increasing revenue, by strengthening your economy and by putting people to work, or by cutting out programs.

A family that has debt problems can take their kids out of school, can sell the family car, their house and tools. They can probably reduce their debt that way, or they can go out and work harder and increase their revenue. By doing it the first way, they might end up getting rid of their debt but they would be in a serious situation of poverty.

I am suggesting that the second way be used. That is the way we said we would do it in the red book. We would do it by putting the emphasis on economic growth and jobs, by putting people back to work so that instead of collecting money from the government on unemployment insurance and welfare they are paying taxes. Yes, the deficit is a problem, but we do not attack it especially by cutting social programs.

The member referred to countries like Sweden. Since when is the cause of the recession in Sweden due to social programs? There have been social programs for a long time in Sweden, Germany and many other countries as we have had in Canada and they did not have the unemployment problems they have today. The unemployment problem they have today is due to many of the same things that I said were problems in Canada: increased interest rates, globalization, unplanned structural change, a lot of things like that, but not the social programs.

That is where Reform Party members make a serious mistake. They blame everything on the social programs. We had good social programs in Canada throughout the 1950s and 1960s and we did not have the problem we have today. The cause of the

problem we have today is not the social programs, it is other things.

The final point he raised is an important one. He says that I am criticizing the poor consumer because the consumer might want to buy consumer goods instead of spending money on things like health care and education.

There are certain things that are important for nations which nations can only provide for together as a people through their governments. The people decide together that they want to do that. A long time ago we decided to have free public education in Canada up to grade 12. I do not know, maybe the Reform Party would like to reject that and go back to private education.

There are certain things such as hospitalization, medicare, social welfare programs, public education, environmental programs, public highways and the justice system that can only be done by the public sector. If we ignore the public sector and simply put too much money into the private sector we have private sector spending but the country falls apart because we do not have the social capital and infrastructure needed to compete with Europe, Japan and countries in other parts of the world.

[Budgetary Policy, November 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this debate is part of the process leading to the budget expected in February 1995 and in consequence we must presume that no specific measures have yet been decided by the government.

In scheduling this debate the government is asking us what direction the budget should take and what have Canadians been telling us about budgetary matters. Consequently I will make my remarks in that spirit, that nothing has been specifically decided, that budget policy is still open.

It is understood of course that the government intends to pursue the principles set out in the red book, to take the two-track approach, the first track being jobs and growth and the second track being deficit or debt reduction. In this respect, Mr. Speaker, the government as you know published several policy discussion papers. As part of its jobs and growth agenda it published the famous green book "Improving Social Security in Canada". Then it published two others. One is "A New Framework for Economic Policy" known as the purple book and "Creating a Healthy Fiscal Climate" known as the grey book.

It has asked two committees to undertake consultations with Canadians, the finance committee on the last two and the human resources development committee on the other. Both will report to the House before the budget. I have to make clear that the two are very closely interrelated. One of the goals of the social

security review is to decide whether our present social programs are affordable.

The three goals mentioned in that document for the social security review are fairness, effectiveness and affordability. It is this question of affordability which links the social security review to the economic and fiscal questions and to the budgetary review.

I want to take this opportunity to state categorically, and I am speaking on my own, that our traditional social programs are affordable. They are not the cause of the deficit. They certainly need improvement. Inadequacies must be corrected, but they should not be cut. They must be improved and in some cases expanded.

In this respect the discussion papers are sometimes ambiguous. For example this one is entitled "Improving Social Security in Canada". On the other hand it questions the affordability of those programs. As I said, our social programs are not the cause of our deficit. They are not the cause of our national debt.

Most of our social programs were started in the post-war forties, fifties and sixties and were built during that period. During that period we had one of the strongest economic growths in Canadian history. As we built our social programs during those decades, we attracted very strong capital private investment. It is the same with other advanced countries. We must take note that the countries with the strongest economies, the highest standards of living, and the highest quality of life have also the strongest and best social programs: Germany, Holland, Sweden, Canada, Japan.

The fact that they built those strong social programs did not deter economic growth and investment in their countries. Nor did they cause the economies to go into decline once those countries brought in these strong and very important social programs.

I have been listening to the Reform Party members. I believe that if we did what they suggested we would bankrupt this country. Not only would they not solve the deficit problem, they would drive the country and send it in exactly the opposite direction. We would end up a third world impoverished country. There would be a few rich people. If we did what they suggest, we would not solve the deficit. We would drive the country into almost a third world status.

The causes of our deficit have not been the social programs, but have been on the other hand the general weaknesses in our economy, high interest rates, unplanned structural change, unplanned globalization, monopolistic practices and unfair taxation-a lot of tax is not being paid that should be paid-and several others.

In the red book we said that the Conservative Party was obsessed by the deficit.

I want to refer to some of the things we said in the red book. At page 10 we said: "Without a doubt one of the greatest failings of the Conservative government has been the tendency to focus obsessively on one problem, such as the deficit, without understanding or caring about the consequences of their policies in other areas such as lost jobs, increased poverty and dependence on social assistance. Social costs are real".

At page 85 in the red book we said: "Conservative government decisions to cut social programs were made without acknowledging the effect these cuts could have on crime rates. Access to health care, housing, jobs and training is essential if crime is to be prevented".

We said on page 20 of our red book: "The goal of deficit reduction would be to cut the deficit to 3 per cent of gross domestic product by the end of the third year in office". We said: "In doing that expenditure reductions will be achieved by cancelling unnecessary programs, streamlining processes, eliminating duplication, and doing that in partnership with provincial governments".

We gave some examples of the things we would cut. We started off in the right way. We said we would cancel the helicopters, reduce national defence spending, reduce the $4.1 billion consulting and professional services budget, reduce grants to businesses, reduce the size and budget of cabinet ministers' offices and the Prime Minister's office. Nothing about social programs in there. On the contrary, in chapter 5 of the red book we said that they should be strengthened and improved.

At the very worst the social security review should be revenue neutral. If we really mean to improve the programs the review should not be a means of attacking the deficit. That is not what we said in the red book, that is not what we said in the campaign.

So far the government has been good in honouring the commitments to the red book. It should not forget what it said in that red book about social programs and the deficit.

It is interesting to note that not all but many of the businessmen who say we cannot afford such things as pensions, health care, day care, training, post-secondary education, unemployment insurance, a living wage for those who cannot work, day after day try to convince us to buy, to buy, to buy, more cars, more cameras, more TVs, more holidays, pet food, jewellery, camcorders, cigarettes and liquor, with more and more credit cards and no down payment. Obviously they either think we can afford those things or they do not care.

Is there not something wrong with a society where we are closing hospitals and schools, where there are more people living on the streets, where the gap between the rich and the poor

is growing, when at the same time the business sector is pressuring or encouraging us to buy more and more goods which really are not in any way as important as the things I have just mentioned. More yo-yos and less hospital care.

Those who talk about waste in government sell us products with built-in obsolescence so that after three or four years we have to buy more and more again. That is waste. That is real waste.

The whole question about affordability must be looked at in a much broader context as to what this country can afford. Can we afford more and more consumer goods that do not really count in our lives or can we afford better hospitals, better schools, better training, better pensions, making sure people are not living on the streets and that people who want to work can work?

In conclusion, if the government wants the views of MPs and their constituents this is what I am trying to deliver today. I had a townhall meeting in Montreal just last week. What I am telling you today is what these people told me at that townhall meeting. Cut the deficit, yes, certainly cut the deficit, but do it as we said we would do it in the red book, not by cutting social programs. We do not want the status quo. We have to improve things, we have to make our social programs more effective and better, but do not cut them. Do not cut the deficit on the backs of the middle class and the poor.

[Access To Information, November 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on October 13 VIA Rail announced that it was cutting a further 478 jobs, half of them in Montreal, and that it would be doing this without any cut in service to the public.

On October 18 I asked the Minister of Transport how VIA Rail could cut 478 jobs without reducing service to the public and why VIA was still pursuing a downsizing policy introduced by the Conservative government in 1993.

In answer to my question, the Minister of Transport said that the cuts were necessary because there had to be a cut in the subsidies to VIA Rail. He said it could not continue with the subsidies at the same level. He went on to say again that there would be no cut in service. By that he meant there would be no cut in trains or no cut in VIA Rail routes.

I guess it all comes down to what you mean by service to the public. Some of these cuts involve cuts in the maintenance staff for VIA Rail. Some of them involve cuts in the sales staff for VIA Rail. Let me state some things that have happened to me on VIA Rail trains. If there is no proper maintenance and the train is breaking down halfway through the trip, as it has done on several occasions, and arrival at your destination is delayed by half an hour or an hour and if the heating system breaks down in the winter and you freeze in the coach, that all has to do with service to the public.

It is also service to the public when you try to get a sales representative on the phone and all you get is a run-around with push one, push two and push three. It is very difficult to get the type of service you need to buy a ticket for VIA Rail.

In fact, these are cuts in service that will affect the public. Sooner or later because of the poor service in sales promotion or the purchase of tickets or in maintenance, people will stop using the train. When they stop using the train because of the poor service in these aspects, then VIA Rail will say: "Nobody is using the route to London or to Quebec City or Sherbrooke. Let's close it down". Of course the reason people are not using it starts at the beginning with the cuts that were made in maintenance, sales, public relations, research and so on.

I maintain that these cuts will lead to a cut in service. I see these cuts by VIA Rail as a lack of long range commitment to passenger rail service in this country.

In Canada we have always had subsidies for our transportation system. We have it for buses, trucks and airlines. The airlines are being subsidized indirectly by the airports, the air traffic control. The highways are subsdized by the fact that they are built for the public by the provinces and the buses and trucks are using them to a great extent. All this is happening in this country while in Europe they are building high speed, very efficient trains. The chunnel train service from Paris to London began just the other day. You can go from Paris to London I think in about three to four hours. It is very efficient and very fast. Here we are in Canada ripping up the rails.

It is very difficult to understand why in our country, when we had a great railway system and a great seaway system, we are letting these things go down the drain. When one drives down Highway 401 to Toronto there are so many trucks and buses on the road one takes his or her life in danger. A lot of that freight traffic should be on trains and on shipping. I just do not understand what VIA is doing or what the government is doing.

Furthermore, the minister says he is reducing the subsidies by $100 million a year in accordance with the 1993 budget. The 1993 budget was a Conservative Tory budget. We are a new Liberal government. Why are we continuing to allow VIA Rail to operate on a budget that was introduced by a Tory government that we helped to defeat last September?

Once again I will put my question to the government. Where is the commitment to good passenger service in this country? Why was the money saved by these cuts not redirected into better rail service? What assurance do we have that these cuts will not lead to a further deterioration in service and to more cuts in routes for our trains in this country?

[East Timor, November 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, last Saturday, November 12, was the third anniversary of the Dili massacre in East Timor.

Since the Indonesian armed forces invaded East Timor in 1975, one-third of the nation's population has been killed, resulting in the worst genocide on a per capita basis since the holocaust.

Despite two UN Security Council resolutions condemning this invasion and requesting the withdrawal of Indonesian troops, no action has been taken by Indonesia to withdraw or the UN to enforce.

Since our Prime Minister in opposition said that he would take action to support the UN resolutions, I urge the Prime Minister to follow through on his commitment to raise this issue at the United Nations and elsewhere and to stop all arms sales to Indonesia.

[Communications Security Establishment, November 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on October 25 I asked the Minister of Justice whether he would amend article 690 of the Criminal Code to correct inadequacies in that section of the code and in the process that that section sets out.

This is the section of the Criminal Code which allows the Minister of Justice to order a new trial when a person has been sent to prison wrongly, unjustly, due to a mistake, due to false evidence, due to the fact that evidence has been hidden, and so on. There have been many criticisms of the article in recent years.

We are all familiar with how the article has been used. It was used in the case of Donald Marshall who was in prison for 10 years for a crime he did not commit. It was used by David Milgaard who was in prison for 23 years and found to have been convicted on false evidence.

We have seen this happen in other countries too. Recently many of us saw the film In the Name of the Father about the Gilford four in England, the Irish people who were convicted by rigged evidence. It took them considerable time to have their case reviewed and to be released from prison. In the United States there is a famous case of Rubin Carter who was in prison for a long time and then released because it was found that there was a mistake.

This is the article that gives the Minister of Justice the power to order a new trial when it is found that a mistake has been made or false evidence or hidden evidence or new evidence has been brought to light.

But the criticism is that while this is in principle a very good process, it is inadequate in that the delays are inordinately long. It took a considerable period of time for Donald Marshall and David Milgaard to take advantage of that section. The delays carried on and on.

Second, the whole process is carried on in secret and there is no accountability by the Minister of Justice and those who help him with these cases with respect to the public.

Third, the Attorney General in these matters serves both as the judge on those applications and the prosecutor and consequently there is a bit of incompatibility.

Finally the criteria for what will constitute sufficient new evidence or a mistake for release are vague and have varied from Ministers of Justice.

There have been several proposals to correct this. The major ones recently have been put forward by an organization called the association in defence of the wrongly convicted. The short word for that organization is AIDWYC. It had a conference in Toronto last February where they proposed certain changes to article 690 to make it more acceptable to take care of those, to have the whole process done in a much quicker way, to have it more accountable, to have it more objective and so on.

When will the Minister of Justice bring in changes to article 690 to accomplish some of the goals that have been put to him by such organizations as AIDWYC?