Stephen Harper

[First Ministers Conference, June 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, let me ask about another item that may be under discussion, the GST.

Several premiers say they want to discuss the botched GST harmonization and the special payout of a billion dollars to the Liberal premiers in Atlantic Canada.

Will the minister agree with several of the premiers that this should be put on the first ministers' agenda?

[First Ministers Conference, June 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

In grand Brian Mulroney style the federal government is planning a first ministers conference behind closed doors with only the federal government able to set the agenda. The premiers of Ontario and Quebec have said they do not want constitutional issues on the agenda and the premier of Alberta has said he will walk out if the Constitution is reopened.

My question is very simple. Since there is no necessity of discussing the Constitution, little desire to discuss it and no possibility of agreement, will the minister simply agree that reopening the Constitution will not be on the first ministers' agenda?

[Petitions, June 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present to the House a petition bearing 1,940 signatures mainly from the city of Calgary but also from other parts of Alberta and Canada asking that Parliament refrain from closing CFB Calgary and moving the Lord Strathcona's Horse, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry and First Service Battalion. The petitioners ask that for reasons of both sound economics and military history.

I point out to the government that I have presented petitions on this subject with a total over 10,000 signatures.

[Unemployment Insurance Act, June 3rd, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-292, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.

Mr. Speaker, this bill would amend the Unemployment Insurance Act to allow a group of workers, hairdressers, the ability to become self-employed under conditions other than full ownership of a hairdressing establishment.

Under the current system, hairdressers who rent chairs and who normally would be considered self-employed are not allowed to withdraw from the unemployment insurance system like other self-employed individuals. This requires them to submit considerable sums of money to a system that does not serve their needs. Further, many individuals do not have the capital to set up a hairdressing establishment but would rather work for themselves on a smaller scale.

This bill intends to allow these individuals to be self-employed without the major constraints put exclusively on this category of workers by the current UI regulations.

Through the introduction of several criteria, this bill creates a definition of self-employment so that the current law would better serve the needs of this group of Canadian workers.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada, May 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve and I thank him and his party for their participation in this debate.

I have observed two positions in the discourse of members of the Bloc Quebecois. The first is support for the results of referendums, particularly in this case, and the second is almost unconditional support for the rights of francophones outside Quebec. I must examine both these positions.

If there is a referendum outside Quebec on the status of French or the rights of francophones, and the result is in favour of change, will the Bloc Quebecois accept the results of this referendum or will it say that referendums affect only the rights of others and not those of francophones?

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada, May 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as the Reform Party's critic for intergovernmental affairs it is my responsibility to respond to the government's request to pass a constitutional resolution on Term 17 of Newfoundland's terms of union in Confederation.

The terms of union were established when Newfoundland entered Confederation in 1949. Generally, the provision of the terms covered a wide range of issues, including education, social rograms and such things as the margarine trade, which were of vital importance to the new province at the time of Confederation.

Specifically, Term 17 guaranteed powers to various religious denominations for the administering of education in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. There was, prior to Confederation, a long tradition of denominational education in the province.

There have been some changes to the system over the years. In 1969, on their own, several Protestant denominations consolidated their efforts by creating what is known as the integrated school board. In 1987 Parliament and the Newfoundland legislature specifically amended Term 17 to grant to another denominational group, the Pentecostal Assemblies, the same rights and privileges that were in the original terms of union that we are debating today.

Nevertheless, in spite of these changes, today there remains a large number of school systems and school boards in the province of Newfoundland. There are no fewer than four school systems and twenty-seven school boards throughout what is one of our smaller provinces.

In 1992 the province of Newfoundland and Labrador appointed a royal commission to look into education issues. It recommended changes to the structure of the current system. For several years deliberations have been ongoing between the denominational school boards and the provincial government to negotiate changes. Unfortunately a final agreement on all matters has not been reached.

The motion before us will allow the Government of Newfoundland to proceed to make some changes without additional lengthy, difficult and possibly fruitless discussions. Nevertheless I want to add that as parliamentarians representing other provinces we regret that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has not been able to resolve this matter and bring it to a satisfactory conclusion among all the parties.

Section 43 is being invoked to pass this amendment. The House will know that section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982 requires constitutional amendments affecting only a particular province to be passed by the assembly of that province, in this case the Newfoundland Assembly, and also the federal Parliament, both the House of Commons and the Senate, although the Senate's power over this is only of a suspensive nature.

As parliamentarians representing not Newfoundland in this case but other parts of the country, the Reform Party takes the role of Parliament in the section 43 amendment procedure very seriously. It is not in our view our job to merely rubber stamp constitutional change because it comes from one particular province. We are entrusted with a job to examine the impacts of the changes and decide what course of action is best from the federal perspective. In

so doing, the Reform Party caucus has examined the wide range of issues and interests involved in this question.

It is not our intention, nor is it our desire, to see the federal government or federal political parties run the education system in Newfoundland and Labrador or in any other province, particularly when we all know that the administering of these systems are and will require in the future very difficult decisions to be made locally.

Instead, as parliamentarians, we have focused our attention on two issues. First, was sufficient effort made by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to obtain democratic consent for the changes that are being proposed today? Second, are the questions of rights protection and minority rights-we are talking about denominational or faith based education-being done in a way that would be broadly consistent with or acceptable to other parts of the country?

These are difficult questions, all the more so for those of us who believe very strongly in the importance of separate and religious education in Canada and who recognize the central and important role, and I think very beneficial role, that is made up education today by Catholic schools and Catholic education in particular across the country.

As Reformers we have been very serious about the fact that governments, in particular when it involves constitutional change, should make broader efforts to encourage democratic participation and consensus in major government constitutional decisions. We believe this is important to increase the legitimacy and acceptance of our foundation constitutional documents but also that broad participation of the public in such decisions improves the quality of those decisions.

It should be pointed out that under section 43 of the Constitution Act, the Newfoundland government was not required to go beyond a mere vote of the legislature in order to resolve this issue or to present it to this Parliament. All that was required was a resolution of the Newfoundland House of Assembly. In fact, the Newfoundland House of Assembly has held at least two votes. It held a vote on the main resolution we are presented with today, a vote in which the major parties allowed freedom of expression and in which there were dissenters in each of the major political parties. Nevertheless the vote passed in the legislature by a clear majority. As well, there has recently been a unanimous resolution asking the governments of Newfoundland and Canada to proceed with these changes.

Although it was not required by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador by constitutional law, the government did hold a referendum on the issue of constitutional change with respect to term 17. That referendum was held on September 5 of last year. At that time the people of Newfoundland voted in favour of revising term 17 along the lines proposed by the government by a majority of 54.7 per cent, although admittedly the turn out for that referendum was low.

Newfoundlanders are familiar with referendums. A referendum got them into Confederation in the first place. There were two referendums, one on June 3, the other on July 22 of 1948, in which Newfoundlanders were asked to determine their future. This led to an eventual decision to join Canada. The eventual decision was also by a narrow margin.

In our examination of the procedures followed in Newfoundland the majority of our caucus is satisfied that Newfoundland held the referendum in good faith in accordance with normal electoral law and referendum practice that would be acceptable in other parts of the country.

With regard to the use of referendums and the position of the Bloc Quebecois, I have one comment to make. Some separatists believe that the willingness of the Canadian government to accept the result of the Newfoundland referendum means that the same should apply to Quebec after a future referendum on sovereignty. I must point out that the premier of Newfoundland and his government have abided by the legal process and recognized the specific role of the Canadian Parliament in this matter. We expect the same from the Quebec government and its premier. So far, it has been exactly the reverse, they have been acting unilaterally, even illegally.

The Reform Party will not accept this constitutional amendment and the referendum result as a precedent, unless the Quebec government is willing to accept the rule of the law and the constitutional process, the role of the Canadian government and other legislatures and, in so doing, the rights of all Canadians, as did the Newfoundland government.

It is a totally different situation, particularly in the attitudes of two governments, in the attitude of the Government of Newfoundland compared with the Government of Quebec on its own constitutional agenda.

I turn to the second consideration, denominational education, in particular whether what the Government of Newfoundland is proposing is consistent with national standards and the rights of practices across the country.

Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 established basic protection for minority religious education, at that time largely Catholic education in the three English speaking provinces and Protestant education in the province of Quebec. As various provinces have been admitted to Confederation there have been, in most cases, equivalent terms established in the Constitution Act for

section 93 in all of the provinces. There are terms established for Alberta under the Alberta Act.

Across the country there are over five million students enrolled in full time elementary and secondary schools. They are served by over 15,000 schools according to figures from 1990-91. The Constitution Act, 1867 placed education exclusively under the control of each provincial legislature. This was later confirmed by the Constitution Act, 1982.

Canada therefore has 10 provincial education systems plus those of the territories. There are considerable differences among them and there are some similarities. In particular, there is the broad rights protection provided under section 93.

Funding required by school boards for provincial or territorial coffers varies widely. For example, as a percentage of total school board revenues the portion provided by a province varies from a low of 40 per cent in Ontario to a high of 100 per cent in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick.

Several provinces provide tax support to school boards organized on a denominational basis. School acts in Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Northwest Territories give such support for elementary and secondary education in both public and separate, or in the case of Quebec dissentient, school boards.

A non-sectarian public education system operates in Manitoba, British Columbia, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Price Edward Island. I note the British Columbia government does provide some funding to religious schools and denominational education does exist. In Yukon both public and Roman Catholic schools receive tax support.

In the view of the majority of the Reform caucus the revisions to term 17 do not destroy the rights to religious education in Newfoundland and Labrador. As I just mentioned, in comparison with other provinces and territories, the changes to term 17 will not create a situation out of line with the other provinces. That is very generous considering the practices in some provinces.

From section (a) of the new term 17, let me quote: "That except as provided for in the new administrative structure, schools established, maintained and operated with public funds shall be denominational schools, and any class having rights under this term as it read on January 1, 1995 shall continue to have the right to provide for religious education, activities and observances for the children of that class in those schools, and the group of classes that form when integrated schools system by agreement in 1969 may exercise the same rights under this term as a single class of persons".

Section (b) of the proposed term allows for the establishment of new schools on both a non-denominational and a denominational basis and the provision of these schools to receive public funds.

Section (c) provides for the right to religious education in all aspects of denominational schools, including not only religious education but a say in the religious element of the curriculum in other aspects of the program and control over teaching staff in these areas.

Section (d) provides for non-discriminatory allocation of public funds among denominational groups on a non discriminatory basis.

Section (e) allows that on the new school boards to be established by the government, two-thirds of the representatives will be denominational representatives or representatives elected to represent specific classes of persons, although the overall school board will be organized on a multi-denominational basis or on a uni-confessional basis.

Where does the new term 17 differ enough from the practices that went on before? From all indications Newfoundland and Labrador will continue to have denominational schools; broadly speaking, a denominational school system within the larger framework. The right to religious education is in no way removed.

The doubts about these changes happening to term 17 occur where the wording states "subject to provincial legislation that is uniformly applicable to all schools specifying conditions for establishment or continued operation of schools".

Education in every province and territory is subject to provincial legislation. This clause does not make the issue exceptional but instead makes it rather ordinary in terms of the practices of other provinces.

I reiterate the official position of my party on these two questions, both the democratic consent and the process by which Newfoundland adopted this position and also the general standards of rights and freedoms to denominational education as we know it across the country. In evaluating those two positions the clear majority of the Reform caucus is in support of this amendment and is supported as the official position of the Reform caucus.

As this is a sensitive and controversial issue that involves a wide range of conflicting interests, interpretation of specifics and questions of conscience, the Reform leader has made it clear this will be subject to a free vote when it is voted on in Parliament. On ordinary business of Parliament Reform MPs enjoy substantial and unprecedented latitude in expressing and voting their political views and those of their constituents.

I am glad to see that in both Newfoundland and in the position taken by the Liberal government, the government is finally showing some movement in this direction not only toward free voting in the House but toward accepting the practice of consulting the people and having referendums on constitutional change.

[Goods And Services Tax, May 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is trying to take credit for some economic growth and trying to pretend that there is not one set of arrangements for some provinces and one for others.

This ill-conceived plan for harmonizing the GST has at least managed to bring about some national unity. We have had the uniting of the premiers of Ontario and Quebec, not to mention the Governments of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan in opposition to the federal government.

Premiers Harris and Bouchard, who are not finance ministers, they are premiers, want the issue of GST harmonization, compensation and reduction on the table at the upcoming first ministers' conference. Will the GST be on the agenda of the first ministers at their meetings in June?

[Goods And Services Tax, May 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as has been pointed out, the premiers of the two largest provinces have said that they are opposed to the new Liberal GST.

They are looking for a 1.5 per cent reduction in taxes in Ontario and Quebec to compensate for the $1 billion payoff to Liberal premiers in Atlantic Canada. They believe that Quebec deserves compensation for harmonizing its provincial sales tax in 1992. Alberta has made similar requests.

Will the government be acting on these requests? Will it continue to have one policy for its friends, the Liberal premiers of Atlantic Canada, and another policy for the other provinces?

[Financial Administration Act, May 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak to the motion put forward by the hon. member for St. Albert, a member of the public accounts committee. He has gone to some considerable work since his election to bring forth a series of bills and motions to improve the process of accountability with respect to money in government, specifically accountability of government departments and agencies to the House of Commons. This is one example.

Last year I had the pleasure to debate another rejected idea he put out, to have a more established system of program evaluation. I will read the motion before the House today:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should introduce amendments to the Financial Administration Act requiring all departments and agencies to table in the House of Commons a specific response to the auditor general's report on their activities, including time frames within which corrective action will be taken regarding any shortcomings or failures of administration identified by the auditor general; and such reports should be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and to any other relevant standing committees.

This sounds like something we would want to endorse. The auditor general is an officer of the House of Commons. He must report annually to the House on improper money management, improper records maintenance, non-approved expenditure and program inefficiency.

Every year we spend $50 million so the auditor general can fulfil this mandate. However, when the report of the auditor general is tabled in the House, every chapter is automatically referred to the public accounts committee. If the public accounts committee cannot pursue the matter specifically the chapter is often overlooked.

As has already been pointed out, in the 1994 report of the auditor general there were 34 chapters, but only 4 received a response from the government in last year's budget. This year, of 27 chapters in the auditor general's report, only 1 was addressed in annex 1 of the budget plan. It would seem there is some reasonable need to assure this process is being followed and followed up.

We all suffer our various purgatories here. The hon. member for St. Albert's is to be a Scotsman and an accountant, a deadly combination at the best of times but particularly deadly when dealing with issues of Canadian politics and government spending. Obviously that combination goes in an entirely different direction.

When I listened to the debate today it is one of those days where I wonder why we are here, specifically what I am doing here. Before I spoke today I looked at the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board on this motion, who is normally a very competent and genial member of Parliament representing the constituency of Bruce-Grey where most of my maternal relatives reside.

He made the following observations. I quote selectively from his speech because I think it summarizes the position of various government members:

I do not need to remind my fellow members that the auditor general himself follows up every two years on the progress and recommendations. I am positive that all members would agree the office of the auditor general must be diligent in reporting on the efficiency of the Canadian government operations. Do we want to undermine the efforts of his office by attempting to duplicate this work?

During this time of fiscal restraint, while we are trying to achieve maximum efficiency with a modicum of resources, we should consider as we debate this motion whether it will be cost effective.

It does not matter whether it is the government, a business, a municipal government or any organization that handles funds, it is the way in which one does business. It is the efficient way in which one does business and not the amount of paper and the reporting that makes the business function or makes it efficient.

In other words, we have this process, we know what it is, we have heard some descriptions today. The auditor general makes a report on inefficiency. The public accounts committee can study it and return its report to the auditor general or to the House. The auditor general will follow his own recommendations.

We can bring it up in question period when we get these erudite explanations of government management and administration. We are to believe that all this is getting directly to the government department itself, which is the one thing left out of all this process I am describing. It was called by the previous Liberal speaker the circle of accountability, whether we want to put more elements in the circle.

Is it a circle of accountability or is it the run around? Is it the non-circle or is it the circle of non-accountability and never getting any answers?

I know hon. members come in and read canned speeches the government provides them, all with the same lines but with some different quotes to justify non-action.

One hon. member said the auditor general's report must be fully followed and must be given all the legitimacy it requires because after all we do spend $50 million; the very fact we spend money must mean we are spending right.

In going on with these canned speeches, the hon. member said that worrying about these kinds of details and worrying about whether or not the departments actually have a report and have taken action themselves that they can demonstrate, we are really unable to see the forest for the trees.

Since we are all in the habit of making silly quotes for the sake of making a point, let me make one which brings together the whole issue of the forest and the trees: "It looks more like a sycamore to me". That is a quote about the forests and the trees. It comes from Yogi Bear who said that as the sycamore fell on his head. The reason I raise that is if we want to talk about losing the forests for the trees and we want to talk about too much paper, maybe there is too much paper in some of these canned speeches.

More important, there is too much paper out there as we float $450 billion in federal government bonds in international and national bond markets. That is the too much paper we should be worrying about around here; $450 billion which we are now only increasing at the rate of $25 billion to $30 billion a year in paper, enough to cut down several of Yogi's forests without any doubt. That is $25 billion to $30 billion a year plus, I will add just so nobody thinks that I am understating the problem, the other $100 billion in various specified purpose account liabilities, plus another $500 billion in the unfunded liability of the Canada pension plan, which the hon. member for St. Albert has tried unsuccessfully to get the government to account for in its formal document.

I hear comments that they are trying to get a specific answer to a specific problem; that they are trying to get a report; that the agency affected is to report directly on what it did wrong; and that they are trying to add that element of accountability. I hear the comment that it is adding too much bureaucracy. This reminds me of several instances in life.

It is the same as taking my car into the mechanic because it is not running properly. The mechanic gives me a report stating what is wrong. I ask him exactly what it is he will do to fix it and how much it will cost and he tells me not to bother him with all that bureaucracy.

It is the same as if I were to tell a doctor that I think I have some terrible illness. My arm, my leg or whatever hurts. I ask him to tell me what is wrong. The doctor runs all kinds of tests. I ask him what he is going to do and he tells me not to bother him with all that bureaucracy.

We are suggesting that there is a purpose here. We are not suggesting that there be reports for the sake of having reports. We have already spent $50 million to find out what is wrong, now let us find out if anything was done about it. That is the point we are trying to make. I will add a couple of topical illustrations where this would help.

Various changes are needed in Revenue Canada to capital gains legislation relating to family trusts. In the last few days in this House there have been discussions that some prominent Canadians have managed to shift billions of dollars out of the country in their family trusts. In other words they have avoided taxes and specifically capital gains taxes. There were lots of questions on whether that was fair in the way it was done.

We were told by the minister of revenue, who seems terribly flustered by all this, that the government will act quickly on the auditor general's recommendations but it really all occurred under the previous government. The problems were known for years but the government was never actually sure whether anything was done about them. That is precisely why the member for St. Albert is proposing this motion.

Another example is that in the past the auditor general has specifically called for discussions not just on deficit targets, as the government has no long term deficit targets, but that there be discussions on debt levels and appropriate debt to GDP ratios and what can be sustained in the medium and long term. This happens to be one of the few areas where I do have some expertise. This is a very important question. It is the critical question in terms of the long term financial health of the country. However, the last budget contained virtually no mention whatsoever of our enormous debt levels, let alone long term and medium term debt targets.

I say all these things to point out that there is a need for it. There is a need to add this additional reporting requirement to ensure that the $50 million we spend on the auditor general office is followed up and that we know specifically what has happened.

I would also point out, in spite of my frustration and sarcasm today, that this is a non-partisan motion. It does not aim at any specific government department or agency. It is something every member should be supporting. I hope the government members will put away their canned speeches, send them back to Yogi in the forest, so that we can get on with having some accountability for government money.

[Supply, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this is not an easy question. We suggested reforms to the federal system and I note two things. The Prime Minister made commitments for reform during the referendum campaign but he did not have a mandate from the rest of Canada to do so. Moreover, do not forget that it was Lucien Bouchard himself who spoke about a partnership with the rest of Canada. This was his basic platform during the last referendum campaign.

To have a partnership you need partners. A partnership is negotiated among partners. It is impossible even for the sovereignist movement to go on with its own plan without negotiating or getting the consent of the rest of Canada.