VOLUME 133 NUMBER 080 1st SESSION 35th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Tuesday, June 7, 1994 Speaker: The Honourable Gilbert Parent HOUSE OF COMMONS Tuesday, June 7, 1994 The House met at 10 a.m. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.) _______________ * * * Prayers [English] _______________ INCOME TAX ACT ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South) moved for leave to introduce Bill C–256, an act to amend the Income Tax Act [Translation] (transfer of income to spouse). GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS (1005) Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to present my the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, first private member’s bill in the House of Commons. I would pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in like to thank the member for Madawaska—Victoria for second- both official languages, the government’s response to petitions. ing my bill. * * * The bill would amend the Income Tax Act to allow one spouse to split or to pay up to $25,000 to the other spouse who is COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE managing the family home and caring for at least one dependent ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT child who has not commenced full time attendance at school. Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport): Mr. Speaker, I have the The initiative would recognize the value of work in the family honour to present, in both official languages, the second report home and would give parents the option of providing direct of the Committee on Environment and Sustainable Develop- parental care to their children. It would allow the spouse in the ment. home to be eligible to purchase RRSPs and therefore provide a [English] more equitable retirement income opportunity. Both jobs and day care spaces would be freed up by the initiative by those who This report concerns Bill C–23, an act to implement a could now afford to leave the workforce and remain at home to convention for the protection of migratory birds in Canada and care for their children. the United States. It is a great honour to present the bill to the House. I look ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT forward to discussing it with my colleagues to garner support for Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert—Churchill River): Mr. what I believe is an important initiative. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Devel- printed.) opment in both official languages. Your committee has considered Bill C–16, the Sahtu Dene and * * * Metis Land Claim Settlement Act and has agreed to report it PETITIONS without amendment. ETHANOL * * * [Translation] Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Stand- ing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition from the MARINE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ACT residents of Kent. Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport) moved for The petitioners request that the federal government support leave to introduce Bill C–38, an Act to provide for the security an ethanol plant in the city of Chatham, Ontario, an area of marine transportation. devastated by free trade and NAFTA agreements. Jobs will be 4907 COMMONS DEBATES June 7, 1994 Supply created in sustainable development and environmentally friend- Quebecers who for whatever reason may have given up on ly agricultural outlets. federalism. The undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call on Parlia- The motion is simply a positive affirmation of the desire of ment to maintain the present exemption on the excise portion of the vast majority of Canadians to remain federally united and a ethanol for a decade, allowing for a strong and self–sufficient shorthand description of some of the characteristics which can ethanol industry in Canada. and should distinguish such a union in the future. The motion is worded generously enough and is of such positive intent that a * * * majority of the members of the House can and should support it. QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER Why do we present the motion to the House? It is because we perceive a growing vacuum on the national unity issue, a Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of leadership vacuum. If it is not filled with a positive vision of the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I federalism and a reasoned response to the separatist challenge, ask that all questions be allowed to stand. the danger is that it will be filled with constitutional delusions The Speaker: Shall all questions stand? and incomplete or inflammatory responses to the separatist challenge. That will harm Canada and every province and Some hon. members: Agreed. territory of Canada. _____________________________________________ The past month has provided ample evidence of the existence of this vacuum and some of the delusions and inflammations which it encourages. It is said that nature abhors a vacuum and GOVERNMENT ORDERS so should Parliament. Reformers offer this motion and a list of questions which we will be forwarding to the Prime Minister [English] later this week as our contribution toward filling this vacuum with something more constructive and forward looking. SUPPLY The Reform Party was originally created and is presently ALLOTTED DAY—NATIONAL UNITY supported by discontented federalists. [Translation] Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest) moved: That this House strongly affirm and support the desire of Canadians to remain We are discontented federalists. federally united as one people, committed to strengthening our economy, balancing the budgets of our governments, sustaining our social services, conserving our [English] environment, preserving our cultural heritage and diversity, protecting our lives and property, further democratizing our institutions and decision making processes, We got our start in the west and have gradually increased our affirming the equality and uniqueness of all our citizens and provinces, and building support across the country by appealing, for example, to people peaceful and productive relations with other peoples of the world. who are appalled at how the federal government spends money (1010 ) and accumulates debt. Our supporters are for the most part people who reject constitutional models or public policies based He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to this motion on alleged partnerships between racial and linguistic groups and which addresses the issue of Canadian unity from a positive and who long for constitutional arrangements based on the equality federalist perspective. of all citizens and provinces. The motion has two parts: an affirmation and a description. Our supporters are for the most part people who deplore the The first part simply calls for the House to strongly affirm and lack of effective, regional representation in Ottawa and the support the desire of Canadians to remain federally united as unwillingness of the traditional federal parties even to consider, one people. Surely this is a proposition which every federalist in let alone embrace, such democratic reforms as genuine free the House can and should support. votes, citizens’ referendums and initiatives or recall. The second portion of the motion is a brief, shorthand This is just a partial list of the dissatisfactions of Reform description of what Reformers believe should be some of the supporters and hundreds of thousands of Canadians with status distinguishing characteristics of that federal union as we move quo federalism. We can therefore identify with other Canadians, into the 21st century. It is a shorthand description of a new including Quebecers, who have also become dissatisfied or Canada which our members will expand on in the course of the disillusioned with that status quo federalism. debate. This brings me to the major point of difference between Please note that there is nothing negative in the motion. The ourselves and the Bloc. Rather than reject federalism or the motion does not criticize the government so that government concept of a federal union of all Canadians, we are committed to members cannot and should not regard it as a confidence reforming federalism and overcoming the systemic problems, motion. Nor does the motion contain any implicit threat to chronic overspending, inequitable constitutional arrangements, 4908 June 7, 1994 COMMONS DEBATES Supply top down decision making and policy making, the things that To get to that destination the new economy of the 21st century have brought status quo federalism into disrepute. requires the implementation of certain public policies: fiscal policies to lower the cost of government, tax policies to pass on We have weighed both status quo federalism and separatism the benefits of this reduced cost to taxpayers and encourage job in the balance and have found both wanting. This has driven us creation, trade policies to eliminate barriers to trade including to seek for a vision of a new and better federal union of internal barriers to trade, educational and training policies to Canadians. produce an internationally competitive workforce. [Translation] To get to that destination the new economy of the 21st century may also require constitutional changing: a constitutional re- Mr. Speaker, we have evaluated separatism and the existing quirement to balance government budgets, a strengthening of federal system and we believe that both of these formulas are the federal commerce power and a new division of responsibili- imperfect. This examination has prompted us to seek a new and ties on education and training. improved federal union for Canadian citizens. Defining and getting to that new economy of the new Canada (1015 ) is far more than a constitutional exercise but it may have constitutional aspects which cannot be ignored. In this resolu- [English] tion we have used simple phrases like ‘‘strenghthening our economy ’’ as a heading. The words of the heading may seem There are two ways to bring into being a new and better vision trite and familiar but if one understands each of these shorthand of a new Canada as a federal state.