36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 4
CONTENTS
Thursday, September 25, 1997
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1000
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-2. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
1005
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DNA IDENTIFICATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-3. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-4. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA COOPERATIVES ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-5. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-201. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA HEALTH ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-202. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
1010
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGREEMENT ON INTERNAL TRADE IMPLEMENTATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-203. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CULTURAL GRANTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-204. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
1015
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | USER FEE ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-205. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Senate
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Indian Point
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Darrel Stinson |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Criminal Code
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Gasoline Tax
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Impaired Driving
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
1020
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Family
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Speaker's Ruling
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Deputy Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1025
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Resumption of debate on Address in Reply
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
1030
1035
1040
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Penson |
1045
1050
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
1055
1100
1105
1110
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul DeVillers |
1115
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
1120
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Hec Clouthier |
1125
1130
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
1135
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe Jordan |
1140
1145
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1150
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Mercier |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1155
1200
1205
1210
1215
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Bonwick |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1220
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
1225
1230
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1235
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy St-Julien |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Penson |
1240
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Bonwick |
1245
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1250
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
1300
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cannis |
1305
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
1310
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1315
1320
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
1325
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1330
1335
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
1340
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
1345
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
1350
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1355
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jerry Pickard |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ARTS AND CULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CENTRE DES FEMMES DE LAVAL
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Maud Debien |
1400
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROYAL VICTORIA HOSPITAL
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Aileen Carroll |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DR. TOM BOLTON
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PROSTATE CANCER
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CAPE PROJECT
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
1405
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WORLD MARITIME WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THRONE SPEECH
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Raymonde Folco |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VANCOUVER KINGSWAY
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sophia Leung |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BRITISH COLUMBIA
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1410
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE LATE DUDLEY GEORGE
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | OSTEOPOROSIS
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INCOME TAXES
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Jones |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE DEBT
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1420
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CALGARY DECLARATION
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
1425
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
1430
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRADE
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA POST
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Gouk |
1435
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Gouk |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CALGARY DECLARATION
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1440
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CALGARY DECLARATION
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
1445
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA POST CORPORATION
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Bujold Girard |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
1450
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
1455
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL TRADE
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bonnie Brown |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
1500
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Comments during Question Period
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
1505
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE LATE HON. STANLEY HOWARD KNOWLES
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1510
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Louis Plamondon |
1515
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1520
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Resumption of debate on Address in Reply
|
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
1525
1530
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1535
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
1540
1545
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cannis |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Godin |
1550
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul DeVillers |
1555
1600
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1605
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen |
1610
1615
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1620
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
1625
1630
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe Comuzzi |
1635
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1640
1645
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reg Alcock |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1650
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
1655
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Karen Redman |
1700
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
1705
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
1710
1715
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
1720
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1725
1730
1735
1740
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dan McTeague |
1745
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
1750
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Brent St. Denis |
1755
1800
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1805
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1810
1815
1845
(Division 1)
![V](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment to the amendment negatived
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 4
![](/web/20061116181932im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, September 25, 1997
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1000
[English]
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order
in council appointments which were made by the government.
* * *
CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
accordance with section 3(32) of the Canada Elections Act, I have
the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of a form
prescribed by the Chief Electoral Officer, pursuant to subsection
46(1) of the act.
* * *
CANADA PENSION PLAN INVESTMENT BOARD ACT
Hon. Jim Peterson (for the Minister of Finance) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-2, an act to establish the Canada
Pension Plan Investment Board and to amend the Canada Pension
Plan and the Old Age Security Act and to make consequential
amendments to other acts.
1005
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
DNA IDENTIFICATION ACT
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-3, an act respecting DNA
identification and to make consequential amendments to the
Criminal Code and other acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
Hon. Andy Scott: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House
that it is the government's intention to propose that this bill
be referred to committee before second reading, pursuant to
Standing Order 73(1).
* * *
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
Hon. John Manley (for the Minister responsible for the
Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill
C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act and to make
consequential amendments to other acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADA COOPERATIVES ACT
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-5, an act respecting co-operatives.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[Translation]
PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-201, an act to amend the Parliament of
Canada Act (oath or solemn affirmation).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to introduce a bill to
amend the Parliament of Canada Act concerning the solemn
affirmation.
[English]
Presently members of Parliament swear allegiance exclusively to
the Queen. I now present a private member's bill that would
require the newly elected MPs when they are elected to swear
allegiance to Canada and the Constitution as well as swearing
allegiance to the Queen.
I would like to thank all those members who read my proposed
amendment, as I did, at the swearing-in ceremony.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry but I did not see the hon.
member for Abitibi second the motion when I read it.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
CANADA HEALTH ACT
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-202, an act to amend the Canada Health Act
(nutrition services).
1010
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to introduce a bill to
amend the Canada Health Act concerning nutrition services.
The purpose of this bill is to include the terms “nutrition
services” in the definition of “insured health services” within the
present Canada Health Act.
Nutrition is an essential component of an individual's health.
We know that Canadian dieticians are the only health professionals
with the proper training and skills to assess a person's
nutritional health. Moreover, the Canadian government recognizes
them as a key resource in drawing up health policies such as
Canada's Food Guide, which provides guidelines for a healthy diet.
I therefore believe that it is important, both for the public
and for the professional association of dieticians, that they be
officially recognized and integrated into the Canada Health Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
[English]
AGREEMENT ON INTERNAL TRADE IMPLEMENTATION ACT
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-203, an act to amend the Agreement on Internal
Trade Implementation Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to introduce my
private member's bill, an act to amend the Agreement on Internal
Trade Implementation Act.
The agreement on internal trade, which was signed nearly three
years ago, was a start. However, it has not been completed. The
main obstacle to completion has been the term consensus which was
used by the negotiating committee comprising of cabinet,
representatives from the federal, provincial and territorial
governments.
This committee has interpreted consensus to mean unanimity.
Therefore, any one government, regardless of the population it
represents, can impede the progress of the agreement and of the
Canadian economic union. This is what has happened many times.
My bill will allow the federal government to use its
constitutional responsibility under sections 91 and 121 of the
Canadian Constitution to complete sections of the agreement on
internal trade.
It is important to note that this action will only be taken in
situations where a co-operative agreement between the provinces
has been sought and has not been reached. This proposed approval
formula will require the agreement of at least two-thirds of the
provinces that have at least 50 percent of the Canadian population. This
provision will facilitate the removal of internal trade barriers
and present growth opportunities to Canadian businesses which
previously have been restricted by these interprovincial trade
barriers.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CULTURAL GRANTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ACT
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-204, an act to require that in the
advertising and at the opening of a cultural project supported by
public money a public acknowledgement of the grant be made.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals speak quite frequently of
protecting Canada's culture which is a very noble cause I am
sure. They speak of it in terms of motherhood and apple pie.
The difficulty is that many times Canadians are appalled at the
choices they make or the people who they assign to make the
choices of the projects. Furthermore, there seems to be a lack
of accountability of those dollars.
The purpose of this bill is to raise awareness of Canadians to
the choices that the appointees of the Liberals are making.
Second, it will give some acknowledgement to the long suffering
taxpayer.
On the positive, it is my contention in this bill that when the
decision-makers are aware that their choices are going to be made
public they will be making more responsible choices.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1015
USER FEE ACT
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-205, an act to provide for parliamentary
scrutiny and approval of user fees set by federal authority and
to require public disclosure of the amount collected as user
fees.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill to provide for
parliamentary scrutiny and approval of user fees set by federal
authority and to require public disclosure of the amount
collected as user fees.
In the 1993 auditor general's report the AG said: “We are
concerned that Parliament cannot readily scrutinize the user fees
established by contracts and other non-regulatory means. There
does not exist a government wide summary of the fees being
charged, the revenues raised and the authorities under which they
are established”.
The design of this bill is to ensure that there is scrutiny and
that we get a handle on the fact that revenues from user fees
have doubled in the last 10 years under Liberal and Tory
governments, something that should concern all Canadians.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
THE SENATE
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am honoured to rise today in the House of Commons to
present a petition signed by members of my constituency who are
residents of several communities, Williams Lake, Horsefly,
McLeese Lake, Tatla Lake and Lac La Hache.
My constituents call on Parliament to urge the governor general
to appoint a duly elected person to the forthcoming vacant
British Columbia seat in the Senate of Canada.
INDIAN POINT
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to table a petition from leasees of Indian Point
subdivision on Adams Lake in my riding.
Most of these people are senior citizens who retired to homes on
land they are leasing from the Adams Lake Indian Band. They
are listing many grievances against the crown, including having
to surrender their homes without compensation when their current
lease ends in the year 2010.
The petitioners pray that the House of Commons will urge the
federal government to compensate them. I strongly urge this
government to grant their request.
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition
signed by 396 people from the riding of Bruce—Grey and area.
Prompted by the events in Cambridge, Ontario the petitioners
wish to draw to the attention of the Parliament the issue of
nudity in public places. They call on Parliament to clarify
and reinforce the relevant sections of the Criminal Code that
prohibit indecent exposure and nudity in public places.
[Translation]
GASOLINE TAX
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to present a petition signed by 25 constituents
in Carleton—Gloucester.
The undersigned call upon Parliament not to proceed with an
increase in the federal tax on gas.
[English]
IMPAIRED DRIVING
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a second petition. Pursuant to Standing Order
36, allow me to present to the House a petition signed by 25
petitioners of Carleton—Gloucester.
The petitioners ask that Parliament amend the Criminal Code to
ensure that the sentence given to anyone convicted of causing
death while driving impaired carries a minimum sentence of seven
years and a maximum of fourteen years.
1020
THE FAMILY
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have three petitions to table today. The first one is
from a group of residents of my riding of Cypress
Hills—Grasslands who are petitioning Parliament to ensure that
section 43 of Canada's criminal code is retained in its present
form so that parents will still have their existing right to
discipline their children in a reasonable manner as they see fit.
I have two petitions to present which are identical in form and
content also from residents of my riding.
They wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, even though
not officially ratified by all provinces, has ramifications that
if the convention is fully ratified and implemented in
Canada, bureaucrats and the courts will be legally required to
determine what is the best interests of the child, not the
parents; that by ratifying the convention Canada—
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The rules say the hon. member
cannot read the petition. He may only summarize the petition in
his remarks. I would invite him to stick to the rules in this
regard and give us a summary of the petition rather than read the
entire petition to the House.
Mr. Lee Morrison: They request that Parliament support
Motion No. 300 which states that in the opinion of the House the
government should authorized a proclamation to be issued by the
governor general amending section 7 of the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms to recognize the fundamental rights of
individuals to pursue family life free from undue interference by
the state and to recognize the fundamental rights and
responsibility of parents to direct the upbringing of their
children and urge the legislative assemblies of other provinces
to do likewise.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I ask, Mr.
Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
The Deputy Speaker: I am in receipt of a notice of motion
under Standing Order 52 from the hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 52 to seek leave to
move a motion to adjourn the House for the purposes of having an
emergency debate on the multilateral agreement on investment.
With your permission I will say a word or two as to why I am
seeking that emergency debate. This is an agreement which is
presently being negotiated in the context of the OECD between
Canada and other OECD countries. It is an agreement which when
arrived at will bind Canada for 20 years. It will tie the hands
of future Parliaments. It is an agreement which has not been
debated in the House. The government has signalled no intention
to have it debated in the House or to have an appropriate public
consultation process. It is an issue which concerns a great many
Canadians with respect to sovereignty and the ability of
governments to act in the public interest and the increasing
restrictions on that ability of governments to act in the public
interest and in the common good.
I believe it only makes sense that we use this standing order to
allow ourselves the opportunity to debate this particular
agreement, to hear what the government has to say and to hear
what other members of Parliament have to say on this very
important matter.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair has heard the
representations of the hon. member and has made a review of the
material submitted in respect of the application. While no doubt
the matter is of considerable interest, the Chair does not take
the view that this is a matter of emergency or one that would
justify setting aside the normal business of the House in order
to debate the subject.
I note that the House is currently debating the address in reply
from the Speech from the Throne which offers a very general
debate in which members are free to make remarks on any subject
they wish. I would like the hon. member to participate in that
debate in respect of this matter at this time.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1025
[English]
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
The House resumed from September 24 consideration of the
motion for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in
reply to his speech at the opening of the session, of the
amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour to take
part in this reply to the Speech from the Throne which was laid
before the House two days ago.
Our government has presented a comprehensive agenda, one that
speaks to the basic values of Canadians. It ensures opportunity
for all members of society in all regions of the nation and
creates jobs, especially for our young. It ensures universal
quality health care for all. It provides every child with a fair
chance in life, as the prime minister spoke so eloquently about
yesterday, and it maintains a united country able to fulfill
these values and reach the dreams he talked of yesterday in the
House.
The Speech from the Throne outlined Canada's ability to trade
with and draw investment from all parts of the globe. This is
essential to the success of that agenda.
With regard to international trade, the Speech from the Throne
addressed four key elements. The first outlined the important
role trade plays in the economic life of Canada. Most important,
it is absolutely crucial to the creation of jobs. One out of
three Canadian jobs is directly tied to trade. Forty per cent of
our GDP is directly tied to exports and trade, which is one of
the highest, if not the highest, percentages of any western
economic base.
Canadian sales abroad come to more than a quarter of a trillion
dollars. Every $1 billion of trade in merchandise creates or
sustains 11,000 jobs for Canadian workers.
[Translation]
The benefits of trade extend to every part of our economy and
affect all Canadians, the farmer who grows wheat, the engineer who
designs tractors and the factory worker who builds planes.
[English]
We are all touched by trade and we all share in its benefits.
Around the world barriers are coming down, markets are opening up
and opportunities are being created which were simply
unimaginable a few years ago, opportunities which are absolutely
critical to Canada's continued economic prosperity. Canadians
have come to the full realization that we are too small a nation
to simply to trade with each other.
Second, the Speech from the Throne underscores that to take full
advantage of these opportunities we must expand our trade base
further. To do so governments must work better and smarter.
Departments must speak to each other in a consistent single
message. We must seek closer partnerships with the business
community. We must redefine the role our trade associations and
chambers can play for business people who are seeking new markets
abroad.
Expansion will ultimately mean that small and medium size
businesses will have to play a greater role in Canada's global
trade. They must become a more integral part and focus of our
global trade strategy. Currently only 10 percent of Canada's
small and medium size firms directly export. A great number of
small businesses are suppliers that feed the large corporations
that do trade. We know there is more room to grow for small and
medium size businesses in the world of export.
While Canada is very much an exporting nation, we have not
become a nation of exporters. Fifty large corporations account
for over 50 percent of Canada's trade. Our goal therefore is to
double the number of companies exporting by the year 2000, which
will mean a greater take up by the small and medium size firms.
1030
It is only logical that if we point to small businesses being
the cornerstone of our domestic economy, if we speak to small
businesses creating the jobs in all of our communities, it stands
to reason that by increasing and encouraging more small
businesses to join our large ones on the international field we
will reap the very same benefits that these enterprises give our
communities domestically.
To be successful in this doubling of the number of companies
which will be in the export business, it will also mean
harnessing the energy and talent of our women entrepreneurs, for
one-third of Canadian firms today are either owned or led by
women entrepreneurs, firms that are providing almost two million
jobs for Canadians across the country. On top of it all, women
CEOs are creating jobs at a rate nearly four times the national
average. This is a track record that we cannot ignore because
clearly it is creating benefits that we cannot forgo.
That is why in November I will be leading the first Canadian
business women's international trade mission to Washington, D.C.
We expect more than 100 women entrepreneurs and executives will
join us in exploring the lucrative $11 billion mid-Atlantic
market. This mission will include new entries to the export
field and experienced exporters who will perform the important
role of mentoring.
[Translation]
The cultural and educational sectors will also be part of a team
marketing products that generate wealth and employment while enhancing
Canada's image in the world and making us proud to be Canadians.
[English]
Utilizing the capacity of our modern economy and the diversity
and strength of our citizens, the entire world must be Canada's
market. Therefore we are building on our transatlantic heritage
to Europe and our close links with the United States. Of course
we are a Pacific nation as well and our view of the Americas does
not stop at the Rio Grande. Canadians have links to every corner
of the globe.
People and companies trade with countries they feel most
comfortable with, in languages they can speak and in cultures
they understand. That is one of Canada's biggest advantages.
Indeed it is Canada's competitive advantage in the sense that no
part of the world is alien to our Canadian citizenry.
More than anything else the team Canada missions which our Prime
Minister began have demonstrated these very strengths and are
broadening the spectrum of Canadians involved in global trade.
Large as well as small and medium size firms, women
entrepreneurs, Canadians of all origins and backgrounds,
provinces, municipalities, educational institutions, all are on
team Canada thereby giving Canadians a stake in every part of the
world and every part of the world a stake in Canada.
That is why I am confident that the next team Canada voyage in
January to Latin America will continue this winning tradition and
above all will promote the formula that Canada works best when
Canada works together.
The third element raised by the Speech from the Throne is that
we must devote the same kind of energies and effort to attracting
investment as we do to stimulating trade in merchandise. Direct
foreign investment in Canada increased by some 8 percent last year,
reaching almost $180 billion.
[Translation]
Investments bring us capital, research and development, as well as
strategic and financial alliances that can help small businesses move
from exclusively regional to world markets.
[English]
Ultimately investment generates jobs.
For every $1 billion worth of investment in Canada, 45,000 jobs
over a five year period are created or sustained.
1035
At the same time the multilateral agreement on investment which
we are negotiating currently with the OECD will provide us with a
secure and stable framework of rules for Canadians investing
abroad. That investment is sizeable. At the end of last year
Canadian investment not only by companies but by pension funds of
our seniors and Canadians across the country was estimated at
over $170 billion.
To promote more investment in Canada however, we must be even
more aggressive in promoting Canada around the world. The world
is growing ever more competitive by the day. As more countries
industrialize we cannot assume that our share of global
investment will remain constant. In fact in a number of
countries while our investment and our trade is going up, our
market share in that region is going down. It means that we
cannot rest on our past laurels. It means that we have to
compete with the best. We have to keep up with the Joneses and
sometimes you are as good as your last trade deal.
That is why it is a priority for me and this government to put
forward the case for Canada and to remind people around the world
that the country the UN found to be the best place to live is
also one of the best places to work and to invest. It is to
remind people, as the Prime Minister did yesterday, of the
extraordinary efforts that this government placed in putting our
economy and our finances on a solid footing; yes, for Canadians
at home first and foremost, but at the same time making it more
attractive for investors abroad.
Finally the Speech from the Throne emphasized the leadership
role that Canada plays and must continue to play in liberalizing
trade around the globe. Freer trade has been positive for
Canada. Over the past few years our export figures have
increased exponentially. It is no accident that Canada is
expected to record the highest rate of employment and growth of
all the G-7 countries this year and next.
It is important to note however that if trade has been
successful for Canada—and it has—we can attract investment and
promote more trade as long as we are dealing in a transparent,
rules based system of law. That assures nations like ours the
opportunity of equal treatment with larger trading partners.
Rules for Canada and for other countries are the equalizer. That
is why Canada must always help to write the rules and not walk
away from the table where the rules are being written.
Whether it is the successful Canada-U.S. trade relationship, the
largest that the world knows—every day $1 billion moves in trade
between our two countries quietly and effectively and it is 95 percent
hassle free, so at no time should we allow the 5 percent of irritants to
define this great relationship—or whether it is in helping to
set the agenda at the World Trade Organization, it is this rules
based system which has allowed us to reduce our barriers to trade
while at the same time promoting our vital interests as a nation.
Canada is also helping to draw the countries of Asia-Pacific
closer together, a region which includes the world's fastest
growing economies.
Last year the Prime Minister signed an action plan with the
European Community that speaks to a strong and dynamic future,
including increased trade and investment, rather than simply
resting on past glories, as great as those glories were.
Canada is also championing the free trade area of the Americas
and is seeking a closer relationship with the countries of
Mercosur.
1040
[Translation]
Three years ago in Miami, the concept of a free trade zone of the
Americas seemed a far off dream. Three weeks ago in Brazil, I became
convinced more than ever before that plans for a trade agreement
covering the entire hemisphere are about to materialize.
[English]
It is absolutely vital that Canada continues to look outward not
inward, because if the world moves without you—and make no
mistake that the global march is very much on—then who really
gets left behind?
The world has experienced protectionism and has suffered through
its consequences. The protectionist rage which snapped a golden
age of trade in the U.S. in the 1930s turned a severe recession
into a great depression. The world learned from this rather dark
lesson, leading to Bretton Woods and the creation of an
international rules based trading system.
Canadians know that we cannot build a fortress and lock
ourselves inside. Neither is our goal free trade at any cost. On
the contrary, we must always preserve and promote the values and
traditions that Canadians hold dear.
Trade and investment are simply not a matter of crunching
numbers or posting figures. The bottom line for trade should be
and must always be people, and their bottom line is jobs. It
provides the revenue we need to maintain a quality life and a
universal health care system. It provides those revenues, the
national wealth we need to secure a good start for all of our
Canadian children and to provide opportunities for all Canadians
in all parts of our country.
Yesterday the Prime Minister talked of trying to help youngsters
get on to the other side of the fence, to lower the fence and to
help them see the other side which as he said is always greener.
I believe that on the matter of trade, Canada is doing just that.
It is jumping over that fence.
It was not too many years ago that our country contemplated a
free trade agreement with the United States. There were
concerns, indeed fears, among Canadian communities of whether
this deal would work for Canada, of whether we would be able to
survive, of whether we would be able to be competitive with the
largest economic market the world knows. Thanks to a rules based
system and thanks to an independent way of breaking those log
jams, not only has Canada been able to survive, but Canada has
been able to win.
That is why we went on to sign NAFTA, and a free trade agreement
with Chile, and a free trade agreement with Israel. Canadians
obviously have recognized the absolute necessity of connecting
with the bigger world outside of Canada for the purposes of
keeping our economy strong and prosperous.
Canada has rare strengths and enormous potential. We are
competent, we are competitive and we are confident. In the world
of global trade and investment, Canada has come of age.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to take this opportunity to welcome the minister to
his new portfolio. As he said during his speech, trade is a very
important area for Canada. He noted that barriers to trade are
coming down worldwide and that Canada is very dependent upon
trade. I would agree with him.
I welcome the Liberal caucus to the area of free trade. One by
one, the Liberals are slowly becoming believers. It was not
always the case. In some cases they are actually born again free
traders. I welcome that conversion, albeit a little bit late.
1045
I am concerned with the government's approach in a few areas and
would like to ask the minister some questions on that. I am
concerned about its approach to adopting new trade regimes around
the world such as a new trade deal with Chile.
We are now talking about one with Mercosur, which I welcome, but
we have not done the homework to make it possible for our
businesses to take advantage. We have the worst record in the
G-7 countries of trade barriers within our own country. As a
matter of fact, we have more barriers to trade in Canada than
there are in the entire European Union. That is simply not
acceptable.
When the minister talks about barriers coming down, I suggest
the next time team Canada is out on a mission perhaps it should
take a team Canada mission right here at home to dismantle trade
barriers that are making it very difficult for our businesses to
take advantage of our trade deals.
In fact a private member's bill was introduced this morning by
my colleague from Lakeland talking about just that. I would hope
the Liberals on the other side would support that private
member's bill and maybe even lift it up and adopt it as their own
to get rid of the trade barriers that are limiting us.
I am also concerned that the government is not using the
processes the minister talked about to settle disputes. We have
a very good dispute settling mechanism within NAFTA and now
within the World Trade Organization. What happened when it came
time to use them on durum wheat a couple of years ago, softwood
lumber and Helms-Burton? They never used the processes that were
put in place.
I challenge the minister to tell me why and what they will do
about that instead of accepting export caps and accepting
intimidation from the United States. I want to know why we are
not using the processes that have been put in place.
I want to know what the government is doing to bring down
internal trade barriers in this country. At our committee on
small and medium size enterprises we heard businesses state that
they had actually moved from Ontario into Michigan because they
could do better trade with the provinces in Canada that way than
they could from Ontario. That is simply unacceptable.
What will they do to correct this problem? What will they do
about using the processes we have in place to settle disputes?
Hon. Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, let me first
congratulate my hon. friend for being appointed as his party's
spokesperson on international trade. I say to him and to his
colleagues that I very much look forward to working with him on
this important file to the benefit, ultimately, of Canadians and
the Canadian economy.
He also touched upon the history of the Liberal Party. I urge
him to reread the history of political parties a little more
carefully. If he did so he would see very clearly that the
history of the Liberal Party has always been one of a trade
liberalizing party, a party favouring and wanting to bring down
barriers.
On the contrary, the history of the party he and many of his
colleagues supported before the Reform Party, namely the
Conservative Party, has always been one of protectionism and
building up the walls. In terms of the free trade agreement
debates and the NAFTA debates, yes, our party had something to
say; but our party, whether it was Mr. Turner, our former leader,
or our trade critics at the time, never said that we were against
freer trade.
We stood up for fair trade. We stood up for and spoke to a rule
based mechanism. We spoke to a dispute mechanism that would not
allow the might to be right but for the dispute to be settled
based on facts.
Those are the battles the Liberal Party has fought, which has
resulted in the side agreements on both labour and environment
and the rules we as a country need to survive and obviously do
very well. I think the member has the history on that issue
quite backward.
He talked about the business community not being prepared to
look as aggressively to a free trade area of the Americas or
Mercosur. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our business
community is incredibly bullish in the opportunities it perceives
for companies in our country in the area of the Americas.
Our trade has shot up. Our investments in Brazil, Argentina,
Chile and Mexico have gone up. It has actually come from the
business community for us to be facilitating trade by getting our
policy signals right. It is very anxious to be in the free trade
area of the Americas.
Obviously it is anxious to get on a plan to go with the Prime
Minister to another team Canada mission in Latin America.
1050
Yes, the member is right about internal trade barriers. He is
absolutely right that as we liberalize trade around the world, as
we look to liberalize the Americas or APEC or get closer to
Europe or the United States, that somehow in a very contradictory
way these ancient walls still exist in Canada.
We have been working very hard on that file. My colleague, the
Minister of Industry, has brought together his provincial
colleagues numerous times. There was a reference in our throne
speech to bringing down those walls. In the last meeting of the
premiers I took considerable hope in the fact that all premiers
but one was prepared to begin to bring down those barriers.
I urge the member and his party to talk to the provinces that
have fought and resisted those barriers coming down. It is not
this government. We have actually tried to lead the coalition
and consensus of the provinces to bring down the barriers and
ultimately make those companies better prepared and more
competitive to face the world.
The member's last point was on dispute mechanisms. He said that
we needed to work closely with the business community. On the
other hand he said that we had to use those mechanisms.
When it comes to whether we should or should not activate those
mechanisms quite often it comes from advice from the industry.
If we take any commodity, many times the overwhelming consensus
of not wanting to trigger a mechanism does not come essentially
and exclusively from a government or a minister but from the
industry. It too has to size up: “Do we go to the wall? Do we
fight on this issue? Or, do we try to manage the trade so that
we will forgo the kinds of expenses and the kinds of energies
obviously implicit in any fight on any mechanism?”
I am also concerned and troubled, if it begins to set a trend,
that every issue will get managed. Managed trade is not freer
trade and one way trade is a dead end. We have to take stock of
how the industry feels on a particular issue as opposed to simply
going to the wall and in the end only hurting the industry even
more.
The Deputy Speaker: Resuming debate, the hon. member for
Medicine Hat.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order.
The idea of the 10 minute question and answer period is that
there be an opportunity for a number of members to rise. I do
not know why the minister was so particularly anxious about
receiving a question from the NDP that he used up all the time.
He was asked a question and he went on and on. The idea is to
have a variety of questions and answers. I did not feel that the
entire 10 minutes had expired.
The Deputy Speaker: There were approximately 20 to 25
seconds left in the 10 minutes and the Speaker decided to
terminate it because I did not feel that a question could be
asked in 20 seconds and answered in 20 seconds.
Perhaps members who spoke were long winded for a period of
questions and comments, but I think the hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona who has been in this place a long time knows
that sometimes the questions are short and the answers are short
and sometimes they are long in both cases. This happened to be
one of those where there was a lengthy question and a lengthy
answer.
I am sorry that the hon. member did not get a chance to ask a
question, but I am sure he will have an opportunity later in the
day.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
start by congratulating Mr. Speaker and his peers on ascending to
the chair once again. I know of the Speaker's interest in this
position. I know he will enjoy his time even though, as some
people suggest, it may be a difficult Parliament.
I also congratulate all members of the House on their election
to the House of Commons. It is a great privilege to be here.
I certainly thank the constituents of Medicine Hat for placing
their trust with me once again. It is a great honour. I will do
my level best to ensure that I deliver their message loud and
clear to the House of Commons.
I rise to address the throne speech delivered on Tuesday by the
governor general.
I will touch on what I think is, at least in the economic spirit,
the key point in the throne speech from which all decisions in it
will flow. That is the decision in the spring during the
election campaign when the government said that it would devote
about 50 per cent of its surpluses, any surpluses that it
realized, to new spending. The other 50 per cent would go toward
tax relief and debt reduction.
1055
What criteria did the government use to determine how this
formula would work? What were the criteria? I do not recall any
consultation with the people of Canada asking them how they
wanted to spend any surpluses. I do not recall that at all. I
do not recall any focus groups or any polling. I do not remember
any of that.
Two years ago when the government decided it would create a new
$2 coin, there were consultations to decide what would go on the
coin. However there were no consultations on what to do with the
75 billion $2 coins the taxpayers send to the government every
year. There were no consultations on that, but it was very
committed to ensuring that we got the $2 coin with the polar
bear.
The next issue implicit in the government's decision not to
consult people is its belief that the money from the Canadian
public actually belongs to the Liberal Party. That seems to be
implicit in this.
The issue here—and it is something successive Liberal and Tory
governments have missed for a long, long time—is that money
belongs to Canadian taxpayers. Canadian taxpayers work hard and
long, in fact probably longer and harder than just about any
country in the industrialized world, to produce taxes for the
government to spend on their behalf. Certainly it is time for
governments to recognize this and acknowledge them in the form of
consultation process. Unfortunately that did not happen.
Specifically in the throne speech, once we get beyond the
decision to spend 50 per cent on new programs and the decision
seemingly to spend 50 per cent on tax reduction and debt
reduction, we encounter the actual words in the speech. There is
one line about tax relief and debt reduction. We should gild it.
It should be framed. It is on page 4 and is the only reference
in the whole document. It reads:
It will seek to devote one-half of the surplus in this mandate to
addressing the social and economic needs of Canadians. The other
half will go to a combination of reducing taxes and the national
debt.
Where does it go after that? For the next 20 pages all we hear
are plans on how to spend Canadians' money. It does not even end
there, because on a subsequent day we have the Prime Minister
announcing in his speech that we will spend even more money in a
new endowment the government thinks is necessary for the
millennium.
Then we hear that the government is contemplating buying
helicopters, the self-same helicopters it chastised the
Conservatives for wanting to buy. Truly I wonder what is going
on here. It is as though Pierre Elliott Trudeau never left this
place. There is a social program in every pot.
We should be very concerned. It has taken us 27 years to get
out of a deficit situation but the government, ignorant of the 27
years that have gone before us, now seems intent on going back
and starting to spend all over again.
The big concern—and I am glad to see the media is raising this
as well—is that the government never set a base line anywhere in
the document upon which it will determine its surpluses. Now it
is very possible that it will spend all its surpluses before we
even get to a surplus point. It is already borrowing against
future surpluses.
We will have a very insignificant surplus. Therefore we will
not have the money that should go to Canadians in the form of
debt retirement and tax relief.
One question the government needs to answer very soon is what is
the base line upon which it will determine what the surpluses
really are. Then we can have an honest debate within the narrow
bounds the government has laid out about how much money should go
to taxes and debt retirement.
I am very critical of what is in the throne speech from an
economic point of view. I am very disappointed. However, I
believe it is the role of the official opposition to also offer
some constructive criticism. I would argue that the Reform Party
has done that in spades over the last few weeks by offering not
only a discussion paper on some of the alternatives to what we
could do with the surplus but to inform the debate and start a
consultation process.
1100
We believe it is very important to consult with Canadians on
this issue. As I pointed out earlier, it is Canadians' money.
They deserve to have a say in the whole issue. It is a novel
approach in this place to recognize that the money belongs to
Canadians. They worked long and hard for it. In a moment I will
tell the House just how long and hard they work compared to
citizens from other countries around the world.
We have produced a document called “Beyond a Balanced Budget”.
I want to draw from it right now to explain how the Reform Party
would approach the ad hoc debate that is occurring today in the
country about what to do with any surplus. It is ad hoc because
the government has chosen not to involve Canadians in it.
However, in our role as official opposition we have decided that
we would like to do that. We do that by asking seven basic
questions.
First, what is a realistic projection of future surpluses once
the federal books are balanced?
Second, what is the optimal level of government?
Third, can these surpluses be increased by more responsible
federal spending?
Fourth, what is the optimal level of taxes?
Fifth, what is the optimal level of debt?
Sixth, how can we change the spending patterns of government to
better reflect the priorities of Canadians?
Seventh, if a public consensus can be achieved with respect to
an appropriate level and pattern of federal spending, taxation
and indebtedness, what measures are required to ensure the
federal government respects those targets and lives within its
means?
Those are the seven questions that we want to put to Canadians.
We have already started the process and we argue it is something
that the federal government should do. If Canadians want to read
this document it is available to them on the Internet at
www.Reform.ca/babb. I will try to remember to mention that at
the end of my speech as well.
Let me go through some of those seven specific areas to lay out
why the Reform Party has huge concerns about the whole approach
the government is taking with what would be a surplus, if the
government does not spend it all before it actually got there.
The first point comes from the section in our document on the
size of the surplus. What is a realistic projection of future
surpluses once the federal budget is balanced?
The first point I want to make is that when we use the
government's own projections we find that probably by the year
2001 or 2002, which would be the end of its mandate, it will have
a surplus of approximately $14 billion annually. That is a very
conservative estimate. Others estimate as much as $20 billion.
Of course, that suggests that the government will be spending
about $7 billion to $10 billion on new programs every year by the
end of its mandate. This is the same sort of increase we had in
spending during the 1970s that got us into this whole problem in
the first place.
The second section I want to touch on is the part on the optimal
level of government. I point out in the second section of our
paper this quote. “While provincial spending increased from 2.5
percent of GDP in 1960 to 6 percent of GDP in 1995 and local
government spending went from 4.74 percent to almost 6 percent,
signifying greater participation in the provision of direct goods
and services in each province, the federal level only dipped from
6.2 percent of GDP to 4.22 percent of the GDP over the same
timeframe”. In other words, the provinces and the
municipalities have done their part. In their jurisdictions they
have done what they needed to do to realize the needs of their
citizens. However, at the same time the federal government had
trouble letting go. It cannot for a moment consider, and this was
especially true under previous Liberal administrations, letting
go of some power. I would argue that is one of the reasons we
have a constitutional problem that never ends. The neverendum
they call it, and it is certainly true.
1105
We argue it is time to look at the optimal level of government.
We want to talk about responsible federal spending and whether
these surpluses can be increased. During the election campaign
we pointed out how we could shrink the size of government while
improving services for health care, higher education and research
and development. That would leave us with bigger surpluses. In
the third section we talk about that. $24 billion in surpluses
under a Reform government with the chance to implement some of
our ideas would mean more money for deficit reduction, more money
for tax reduction and money that would go toward important
programs like health care and higher education.
In the fourth section we talk about the optimal level of taxes.
It is important, especially after the international trade
minister has spoken, to point out how much we are at a
competitive disadvantage to other trading partners around the
world. In the G-7 Canada is the highest taxed as a percentage of
personal income tax to GDP of any country, by far. Our personal
income tax rate is 52 percent higher than the rest of the G-7 nations
and 25 percent higher than the industrialized countries in the OECD.
Canada's personal income tax rate is through the roof.
This has a tremendous negative impact, like the brain drain for
instance. We lose all kinds of very highly qualified people to
the United States and other countries around the world because
the personal income tax burden drives them away.
If we were able to drop those tax burdens we would have an
increased labour supply, increased participation in the labour
force, lower gross wage costs for employers, increased
entrepreneurship and business start-up. There is no end of
benefits to lowering personal income tax. It is time for the
government to start to consider those things, and we want to talk
to the Canadian public about it.
In the fifth section of our paper we talk about the optimal
level of debt. We point out the horrendous impact of the debt.
We pay $47 billion in interest payments on the debt each and
every year. That adds up to a tax burden of $3,518 in taxes per
year or $295 each and every month for every Canadian taxpayer.
If we had that money to apply to health care, we could run every
single hospital in the country for two years on one year's
interest payments on the Canadian debt. It is time to start
reducing the debt. We make that argument forcefully in our paper
but the government has shut off that option by deciding it is
going to spend its way to prosperity.
In the next section of the paper we talk about responsible
spending. We point out that because of things like interest
payments on the debt the federal government has reduced its
transfers for health care by 35 percent. Yesterday the health minister
tried to deny that it is 40 percent, so we will grant him that it is
just 35 percent, $6.8 billion. And Liberals claim to be members of the
party of compassion.
The Liberals have closed more hospitals in the country than any
provincial government, yet they say that they care about
Canadians. If they truly do, it is time for them to come to
grips with the problem of the debt, with the problem of taxes.
Specifically, if they get a handle on government spending and
quit spending more and more and more, they will be able to devote
more money to the programs Canadians really care about.
In the final section of our paper we talk about the need for
government to be accountable. I know that is a novel theme in
this government. We know the government has promised in the past
to be more accountable. The Liberals talked of ethics, watch
dogs and that sort of thing but it has never come to be. We
argue very strongly that it is time we had balanced budget
legislation.
As we point out in our paper, a balanced budget law would be an
important first step in reassuring Canadians from coast to coast
that the painful tax increases and reductions in the social
safety net that were made necessary by previous governments will
never occur again.
That is what is in our paper. We will be going across the
country during the next several months asking people to help us
bring forward some recommendations for the federal government, to
give it a road map so it understands where Canadians are at on
these important issues.
1110
Outside of the unity debate there is probably not a more
important issue that the government will deal with in its
mandate, yet it has decided to shut Canadians out of the process.
I think that is ridiculous.
This whole debate reminds me of a mutiny. It is as though a
mutiny has occurred on the ship of state, while the captain, the
Prime Minister, is on shore golfing, and the first mate, the
finance minister, is asleep in his cabin. The Minister of
Canadian Heritage along with the Minister of Foreign Affairs and
the Minister of Transport have taken over the helm of the ship of
state—and I am borrowing an analogy which the leader of the
Reform Party used yesterday—and decided to go to Sweden because
that is where they saw the land of opportunity. However, they
are going from Lake Erie to Lake Ontario but they have decided
not to use the Welland Canal. They are going down the Niagara
River. It is scary. I do not have to tell you, Mr. Speaker,
what is at the end of the Niagara River.
Envision the Minister of Canadian Heritage with a parrot on her
shoulder and a patch over both eyes. As they go down the river a
din is heard in the distance. The minister says “Oh listen to
the people applauding. They can hardly wait for us to arrive”.
The finance minister, now swabbing the deck at sword point, is
saying “No, I don't think that is applause”.
Can you imagine what the Canadian people are saying? They hear
the rabble upstairs, they hear all the noise and they are very
concerned because they too can hear the din. It is time for the
government to recognize where it is headed with this throne
speech. It is heading toward the falls. It is time it allowed
Canadians to come up out of the hold to take control of the ship
and turn it around. We will never in a 100 years solve the
problems of the 1990s with the solutions of the 1970s.
It is time for the government to wake up and recognize that
Canadians have a stake in this. This is the most important
economic decision the government will make in its mandate, the
most important decision it will make as it leads Canadians into
the new millennium. Let us ensure that Canadians have a say in
this. Let us ensure that their values are reflected in the
direction in which the country goes.
Let us have some appreciation for the fact that the small
business people are the job creators. Let us understand that
they want to have some of the $13 billion EI surplus. Let us
understand that they are frightened to death that we are going to
pass on a burden of $600 billion worth of debt to their children.
Let us have some appreciation for where Canadians are at and let
us make sure that from here on the government hears what
Canadians are saying. In the government's absence, the Reform
Party will be there to stand up for them.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to commend the Reform Party, both this hon. member's speech and
the leader's speech yesterday. Their rhetoric and their imagery
is improving. Unfortunately, their content and their
comprehension remains at about the level of the previous
Parliament.
I want to question the hon. member on the point he raised in his
speech about the lack of consultation with the Canadian people.
The issue of what will be done and where we will be going once
the budget is balanced and once we have surpluses was a major
plank in the Liberal platform. It was put to the people during
the electoral campaign and the majority of Canadians voted for
the platform, as is evidenced by the composition of the House.
If that is not consultation, what is?
Specifically, what is the member's opinion of the electoral
process? What is the point of going to the people with electoral
platforms and having them judged and voted on?
1115
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest it is the
ultimate naivety to suggest that every Canadian across the
country decided they were going to cast a vote on the basis of
one line in the Liberal red book. My friend says it was a major
plank. I do not recall any ads running based on the 50 percent spending
promise. I recall all kinds of ads where the prime minister was
sitting down to coffee and suggesting that things were wonderful
with him, but I really do not recall those ads about the 50 percent.
I would argue, and I think my Conservative friends over here
would argue, on the big debate about national unity during the
election campaign that a lot of people voted on that basis. A
lot of people voted on the basis of cutting taxes. A lot of
people had it in mind that there was an important issue of taxes
that needed to be addressed and they cast their ballot on that.
Some people cast their ballot on the basis of the MP who was
running.
I would argue that it is simplistic for the member to suggest
that the whole election campaign was based on that 50 percent promise. I
would also mention that all the provinces have not only got
balanced budgets now but they consulted their people. Then they
had elections and they won. By and large, they won them.
It is extremely naive for the member to suggest that the reason
that Canadians voted the Liberals in with a diminished mandate
was because of their promise to spend 50 percent of any surpluses on new
spending.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with interest to the hon. member's comments on the throne speech.
I appreciate his thoroughness and his straightforward comment.
He has obviously read the throne speech. Could he find anywhere
in the throne speech where the government indicates its plans to
purchase helicopters as a top priority?
I listened carefully when it was being read. I do not remember
hearing any comment. I reread the throne speech and I saw no
reference at all to the multibillion dollar purchase of
helicopters.
It seems to me that if this were a priority of the government,
it should at least have been mentioned in the throne speech.
My other question is that tax reform, as was indicated, was a
major discussion in the last federal election and again I do not
see much reference to tax reform in the throne speech. Does he
agree with me that there was no mention of the helicopter
purchase and could he clarify for the House his party's view of
the purchase of helicopters? Do they support spending these
moneys now on search and rescue helicopters?
Also he made comments about tax reform. Has his party given
much thought to the fact that if there is going to be any tax
reduction that it be in the form of reducing the GST as a way of
assisting Canadians from all parts of the country at all levels
in the socioeconomic scale?
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate hearing from
the hon. member for Kamloops. He always provides thoughtful
questions. He has asked me a number of questions.
First of all, I too have scoured the throne speech and I have
yet to find the reference to the EH-101 helicopters. It just is
not in there. Perhaps it was a typo.
Perhaps, on the other hand, the government is going to announce
new programs each and every day which cannot all be included in
this document unless it expands it dramatically.
The member also asked about tax reform. Tax reform is
extraordinarily important. Canadians have talked about it for a
long time. It is not in this document. I do not see it anywhere
in the throne speech. It is not in here at all.
When we go to town hall meetings people often ask why we do not
have a flat tax in this country, why the taxation system is not
simplified. It is not in here at all.
My hon. friend has asked me about the GST, a very important
issue. I think it is notable by its absence from the throne
speech. Obviously the government is somewhat reluctant to talk
about the GST. It has had its problems with it in the past, and
we need not go over that. That is well known.
Suffice it to say my party believes very strongly that should we
one day decide to balance the budget in this country, we hold out
the option of reducing the GST in stages as we go along. It is
part of our blue book policy. We leave that open for Canadians
to tell us to do that.
1120
That is part of our consultation. We have talked about a number
of different tax reforms in our document. One that I think would
have perhaps even a greater advantage than reducing the GST would
be raising the minimum exemptions. Then it would truly help low
income Canadians. In the election campaign we argued that we
would take 1.3 million Canadians completely off the tax rolls by
lifting up those minimum exemptions. That is the Reform approach
to helping low income Canadians.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question has to do with the number one issue that the member
referred to. I would have thought the number one issue would be
jobs.
When we look at Atlantic Canada, in some areas in the province
of New Brunswick we have 40 percent unemployment. When we had the
chamber of commerce take a look at our area and to ask what can
we do, it said “we are not at a point at the present time
whereby we can be independent of government assistance”.
I hear people in the Reform Party stand up and say no more
government programs, no more government assistance, no more need
for it across this country. There is need. We want to be
independent. We will be independent. We will get there but we
cannot do it now. The government programs that have been put in
place for the last three years have hurt us dramatically. We
have the breakup of families. It is very difficult for our
people. They want their dignity. I would think jobs would be
number one and we cannot just do that with tax cuts. We have to
have government programs.
I would like to hear from the member of the Reform Party on
where he stands on that.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I thought all the NDP
members were at that end.
The Reform Party plan would deliver about $1 billion in tax
relief to Atlantic Canada. We argue that is a much more
effective way of ultimately not only delivering money into the
hands of people in Atlantic Canada and allowing them to have more
money for consumption but also ultimately what it does is allow
small businesses to start to spring up. It starts to change the
economy in Atlantic Canada.
We have outlined an entire plan to help Atlantic Canada get out
of the morass that it is now in because of successive Liberal and
Tory governments.
Our plan will lift Atlantic Canada up in terms of the economics
of the country to the level of the other provinces. That is our
plan.
I do not believe that we can continue to send transfers to
Atlantic Canada all the time without other reforms that go on to
fix the economy fundamentally so that it can take advantage of
its ties with New England and that sort of thing so that we can
ultimately give Atlantic Canadians the hope that they really do
need and really do deserve.
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to share my time with the
hon. member for Leeds—Grenville.
It is an honour for me to be in this rather august Chamber
representing the great riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. My
duty is to articulate the concerns of my constituents, to be
their advocate. But in a broader sense we as federal members of
Parliament have an even greater obligation, and that obligation
is greater than to our own political parties. That obligation is
to our country.
Our mission is not merely the preservation of political power
but to harness the awesome strength that we have been given and
channel it toward the perpetuation of freedom, peace, prosperity
and unity. We must not bicker among ourselves when the future of
our country hangs in the balance.
Our strength as a nation will be immeasurably enhanced if we
continue to foster actively an environment that is conducive to
achieving even greater unity as a nation. We must all be
invigorated by our triumphs of the past, by the magic of the
present and by our hopes and dreams of the future.
It is the endless possibilities of the future that we as
parliamentarians must look toward by generously accepting new
people, heartily believing in new ideas and boldly encouraging
innovation.
We must accept the value of dissent and daring and savour
courageous controversy as a hallmark to courageous change.
1125
It is necessary to remember that in order to achieve this vision
for the future we must allow those blessed with the talent to
reach for a higher calling, a higher destiny, on their own merit.
It is equally important to remember that we must help those who
through no fault of their own cannot help themselves.
There are some people who argue that the principal function of
government is to clear the decks, clear the obstacles out of the
way of the strong and the cream will rise to the top, whether
that cream be rich and powerful individuals or rich and powerful
regions of the country. This is wrong.
I unquestionably defy anyone who expounds the survival of the
fittest model of living. That may be the basis by which we
describe the process of evolution, but a government must
associate itself with a higher moral and philosophical order. A
country as blessed as Canada should be able to somehow find room
at the table for the hungry, shelter for the homeless, work for
the idle, care for the elderly and infirmed and hope for the
destitute.
Some people say that we should not care about the other people,
that we should treat them with disdain, that we should charge on
and do our own thing. We must remember that we are a family. We
are one family and we must stick together. We must share both
benefits and burdens, strife and success fairly and equitably for
the good of all.
Personally speaking, I am one from a family of ten. I have five
sisters and four brothers. We do not always agree on everything,
but at the end of the day we come together. We are one. No
family, no political party, no province and no country which
ignores its troubled regions and troubled peoples while watching
others thrive and prosper can call itself justified, decent or
responsible.
It is the duty of any political party that wants to be given the
mandate to lead our country in the future to reach out to all
people in a non-partisan fashion. It is precisely this ability
that marks the signature of a great leader. All great leaders
have had an uncanny ability to take with them not only members of
their own party, not only selected individuals, but with a unique
combination of courage, determination, introspection and
imagination an entire country.
[Translation]
However, imagination is no substitute for reality, and the reality
is this: when citizens stand together, we feel stronger as a country. My
son Tyler, who is 12, goes to a French school in Pembroke, Ontario. I
think this is wonderful, but what is not so wonderful is that some
Canadians would destroy our country for purely selfish reasons.
[English]
If need be we must join a crusade to keep this country together.
We must turn lethargy into energy. We must counter misguided
passion with focused conviction. We must overwhelm narrow minded
nationalism with broad minded federalism. We must overpower this
scurrilous innuendo with the unmasked truth.
The truth of the matter is that we live in a country called
Canada which is acknowledged as the greatest country in the world
in which to live. This acknowledgement comes as a result of our
tremendous strengths. We are a very decent nation, capable of
understanding, compromise and diplomacy.
We are also a very accomplished nation. It was a Canadian who
discovered insulin. It was a Canadian who invented the
telephone, although considering the fact that I have two
teenagers, I am not so sure about that invention for the time
being.
1130
[Translation]
It was a Canadian who won two gold medals for speed skating at the
Olympic games.
[English]
It was a Canadian who conceived of the notion of emergency
forces, not for war but for peace. These are but a few of the
accomplishments that Canadians have come forward with to leave a
lasting legacy.
However this is not enough. We must do more. We must continue
to work to make sure that every yesterday is a vibrant and
beautiful dream of happiness and every tomorrow is a magnificent
vision of hope. We must continue to reach out to our fellow
citizens, strengthen our bond and our identity as Canadians. We
must continue to pursue excellence on behalf of our country
Canada. We must continue to relentlessly challenge not only our
own standards but those of the international community. We must
continue to make our Canadian voice heard distinctly and bravely
among other nations in the world.
As their federal member of Parliament, my duty is to galvanize
the will of the citizenry of the great riding of
Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, to represent their voice here on
Parliament Hill bravely, with intense passion, fervent conviction
and undying and unyielding determination so that we may travel
through the 1990s and into the next millennium proud of our noble
heritage, supported by our family and friends, enriched by our
diversity of talent, invigorated by our unity of vision,
empowered by our infinite hope, our undying optimism and our
indomitable spirit. This is my duty and I will do so without
fear and without favour.
I ask all members of Parliament to join with me in my resolve.
For a newer, brighter, more beautiful frontier is within our
grasp. Let us not fail at this critical time. Let us, yes,
sprint forward together and continue to build a great country
called Canada.
I close with the immortal words of Longfellow when he said, let
us work and leave behind us footprints in the sands of time.
[Translation]
Longue vie au Canada.
[English]
Long live Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I was
listening with great interest to what the hon. member for
Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke had to say, and I heard him defend
this great Canada of ours as only assimilated French Canadians
are capable of doing.
I want him to know that he is a perfect example of what I would
never want to be. In this House he represents a diminished Quebec, a
Quebec that has been swept under the rug, a Quebec that they want to
erase from the map, the francophones that they intend to extinguish
sooner or later, and as far as they are concerned, the sooner the
better.
However, if we look at the history of Canada, although people say
there were two founding peoples, the francophones were here first, 150
years before the new bosses of my hon. friend opposite. But how many are
left today?
They used to be the majority, but now not even 25 per cent of the
population of this country speaks French. Some of them changed sides,
and he is one of them. He should realize that.
It is sad but true that in a country that supports multiculturalism
and has two official languages, one has been ignored and given no
consideration whatsoever.
1135
This is the reason for the presence of the Bloc Quebecois
members. They, too, are here to promote the rights of their
electors, the rights of those who elected them to this House and
just as legitimately as in the case of the hon. member. Maybe he
decided to obliterate his past—footprints on the sands of time,
as Longfellow put it—maybe he brushed all that away, maybe he
sided with the Governor General in trying to tell us that the
deportation of the Acadians was a sort of Club Med excursion, all
expenses paid. I have no problem with that. There have always
been people in the history of francophones in Canada to join those
who oppose us, our adversaries, and to diminish us. I think the
member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke is one of those, and he
should be made aware of it.
I would like to know whether the member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke
acknowledges Quebecers as a people and their presence here
for 350 years. I would like to have his answer, because this is
the subject of an amendment to the speech from the throne. I would
like him to tell me whether Quebecers are a people and whether he
can reconcile that with the remarks of the Minister for
International Trade, who said earlier he was capable of promoting
Canadian culture.
But what is Canadian culture? I would like to hear what he
has to say on that. Is it selling the Calgary stampede in Paris?
Perhaps he could do that, but that is of no real interest to me.
Just as selling the songs of Gilles Vigneault around the world is
of no interest to the Reformers. I would like him to say how he
plans to reconcile the two cultures, if he will admit that there
are two in Canada. He would first have to admit that there are two
peoples in Canada, and I am not sure he could do that.
So, I would ask the hon. member, not knowing where he is
coming from, whether he acknowledges that Canada has two peoples
and, if so, how he can promote the French culture he has totally
lost.
Mr. Hec Clouthier: Mr. Speaker, my Canada includes Quebec and
my friend opposite, even though he does not think Canada is a great
and wonderful country. I am only a modest woodsman, but I fear he
may have been hit on the head by a piece of wood. I cannot find
the right words. It is great for me, I feel very strongly for that
part of the country, and there is no problem.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: I point out to hon. members that this
is a five minute period of questions and comments following on a
10-minute speech. I think we might resume debate.
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to congratulate the member for
Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke on his maiden speech. His points
were well taken and I look forward to his continued participation
in the debates of this House.
I would also like to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your
recent appointment as Deputy Speaker of this assembly. I have
every confidence that the team assembled possesses the necessary
skills and abilities to successfully oversee the affairs of this
36th Parliament of Canada.
[Translation]
I am very happy to be here today.
[English]
The riding of Leeds—Grenville is a dynamic mix of agriculture,
business, industry, the service sector and with the support of an
efficient CTC and the efforts of enlightened entrepreneurs is
fast becoming a tourist destination for the world.
As a newly elected member for this great riding, I want to thank
all my constituents for their support and confidence. I want to
assure them that although I am truly honoured it is the
tremendous responsibility of representing them in Parliament that
will serve to guide my actions.
As is customary in a maiden speech I would like to take this
opportunity to recognize my predecessor, a man who quietly and
effectively went about his work, a man whose actions demonstrated
not only the political knowledge to differentiate between right
and left but also a clear and fundamental understanding of the
difference between right and wrong. He provided me with a vision
of a better day as well as a weekly allowance and occasionally
the keys to the family car.
1140
History will show that Jim Jordan was a politician who clearly
cared more for the public than he ever did about public
relations. Throughout his career this approach was all too often
dismissed as unsophisticated and old-fashioned but I believe he
was ahead of his time. And as the political pundits are
predicting chaos for this session of Parliament, it might serve
us all well to revisit some of his qualities.
I am proud to add my voice in support of the Speech from the
Throne. I wish to preface my comments with the point that the
very fact we are now engaging in a discussion about how we might
spend surpluses is a tribute to the sound monetary and fiscal
management of the 35th Parliament of Canada.
The tough decisions and sacrifices that Canadians made have
served to open doors of opportunity for us as a country. But we
have some fundamental decisions to make. The key here is that we
are now in a position to debate and make those decisions and not
have those decisions made for us.
One of the central themes of the throne speech was the
commitment to co-operation between various levels of government.
I was born into a family of seven boys and can attest to the
fact that co-operation is far easier to preach than to practise.
But open participation in competent, transparent processes with
clear evaluation mechanisms is the key to Canada's continued
success on the world stage.
There is no doubt as recent history has shown that certain
traditional federal powers have been better exercised at the
provincial or even the municipal level, but gravity need not be
the only force at work in this process. If the federal
government is to exercise its responsibilities in a global and
highly competitive world, then certain traditional provincial
powers might be better exercised at the federal level. When we
talk of a collaborative approach to strengthening and modernizing
Canada's social union, let elected representatives focus on
allocating powers to the government level where the interests of
Canadians, not politicians, will be best served.
I was particularly pleased to hear the reference in the throne
speech to environmental technologies and the potential for growth
and global leadership. If we commit to targeting this vital
sector with the goal of developing commercially viable,
sustainable development practices, then we as a nation will not
only have demonstrated the ability to live within our means, but
we will also have developed the capacity to live within our
world.
I want to be clear about this concept. It does not involve
disadvantaging Canadian companies by enforcing high output
standards. Certainly, regulation is required. But we need to
put our collective energies into how governments can support
sustainable practices given the self-policing concepts of profit
and competition inherent in free markets. Canadian firms will be
able to expand into emerging markets with higher quality products
at lower prices because of, not in spite of, sustainable
practices.
The political risks of such initiatives are being eliminated as
successes are being documented. The popularity of recycling
programs demonstrates that when efforts toward sustainability can
be brought into a legitimate arena, the public will respond. The
challenge for us then is to clearly bring all aspects of
sustainability into the realm of legitimacy. That is going to
require some fundamental shifts in thinking and a healthy dose of
collective effort.
Business and engineering schools will need to begin to teach
decision making models and algorithms that incorporate
comprehensive costing principles. Certainly, disposal and
remanufacturing costs are every bit as real as inventory and
transportation costs. Industry will need to recognize
sustainable growth as the opportunity that it is.
As we continue to saturate markets and as technology shortens
traditional product life cycles, the latent demand for this
sector will present Canadian companies with opportunities to
develop and market proprietary technologies globally. Companies
will need to work in consultation with the government to ensure
that policies such as lifetime product stewardship have
appropriate phase in periods to allow for the necessary design
changes.
The government needs to show leadership through co-operative
domestic regulation and aggressive global negotiations to allow
the industries committed to the future to prosper and grow. I
have every confidence that Canada can and will be at the leading
edge of sustainable technologies. The co-operative and
incremental adoption of economically successful sustainable
practices is critical to the continued success of Canadian
society and I feel will be an area of considerable comparative
advantage well into the next century.
1145
The throne speech also directed necessary resources toward the
problem of youth unemployment. The lack of secure employment
manifests itself in any number of social symptoms. By treating
the problem we can begin to break some of the cycles that served
to frustrate the youth of this country.
As a representative of a riding that has seen its fair share of
downsizing and restructuring, although the youth need jobs, so do
the displaced workers. We must strive to address both the long
and short term requirements of society. As a government we must
strike a balance between the present and the future.
The throne speech outlined a strategy for expanding
opportunities in aboriginal communities. As I worked on the text
of this response to the throne speech, I spent a great deal of
time and energy struggling with the semantics of the complex
concept of sustainable development. I smiled at myself as I
recalled the Iroquois practice of making decisions based on the
impact they would have on the seventh generation from now. I
cannot help but wonder what other wheels we as a nation need not
reinvent if we can restore the health back to these cultures.
I regret the fact that time does not allow me to comment on all
aspects of what I truly believe is an enlightened framework, but
there are a few more points I would like to mention. It strikes
me as we talk of the new millennium that January 1, 2000 is a day
after December 31, 1999. Let us not miss the opportunity to
accomplish as much as we did in the last two years in the next
two years. Let us commit to working toward, not simply planning
for, the new millennium.
In key areas of challenge such as unity, health care, crime and
poverty the speech contained a common theme. There is
considerable evidence to support that early and aggressive
intervention can be correlated to positive long term outcomes. As
my predecessor would have said, an ounce of prevention is worth a
pound of cure. Let us commit as a Parliament to focusing on that
elusive ounce of prevention for I believe it sets a much less
confrontational and much more productive agenda.
Let us remember that democracy is a precious thing but it is
merely a means and not an end. It is what we choose to do in
this place, not the fact that we are in this place that
transforms shared values into actions.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my comments and statements will be brief. It is amazing
that the Liberals can predict the weather now. Winter has come
early to Ottawa as this is the biggest snow job throne speech I
have ever heard or seen.
I remind the members of the Liberal Party that in 1956 my
mother, father and six children immigrated to Canada. We did not
have to pay a head tax to immigrate to this country. That is how
good it was back then. Under the current policies it would have
cost my family $8,000 to immigrate to this great country and he
is talking about what a great society it is and how great and
wonderful it is. I would like to see him answer to my parents or
any new immigrants coming to this country who will have to pay
$8,000 for a family of eight to immigrate so they could receive
the opportunities he has so eloquently described.
The Liberal Party should also be thanking all those millions of
people they have placed in poverty, especially our children,
under their scorchers policies. They are following the Reform
right down in a rush to the bottom. They are ripping up labour
contracts and denying people their basic rights. May I remind
the member from Ontario that when he denies a child sustenance or
food or anything that is called child abuse. When they take that
sustenance away from millions of Canadians it is called balancing
the budget.
Mr. Joe Jordan: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his question. I was describing where I think we need to go as a
country. We certainly face challenges. I caution the member
that this notion that the good old days were comprehensive good
old days is deeply rooted in myth.
If this country were bankrupt, the problems the member is
describing, which I do not deny exist, would be compounded right
up the social ladder. It is important that as members we try to
at least deal in reality. By painting pictures of things that
may not happen is not serving the interests of Canadians.
1150
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to congratulate both of my colleagues who spoke for
the first time in this House. They spoke about the throne speech
which was about vision, hope and confidence. They spoke with
pride at being elected to this place. Their families are here in
the gallery filled with pride as they have listened to their
family members speak in a place where so few of us ever have the
opportunity to come and in an environment of freedom and free
speech speak our minds and say what we believe.
I am struck as a new member by the differences and the
similarities. Certainly the difference that I heard from the
throne speech has been echoed by my colleagues who stood with
pride to speak about a document that was about confidence, vision
and hope.
What I have heard in response troubles me. This is an
opportunity for us in a non-partisan way to share our thoughts
and views. I would ask my colleagues, if they came to this House
in a spirit of positive nation building, which I know they did,
how they feel today to know that not everyone shares the goals of
building together and working for this nation. I feel sad that
there are those who would tear this country apart.
I believe that my constituents in the wonderful riding of
Thornhill expect all of us to do what we can to solve the
problems that we face in a positive and constructive way. I
congratulate my colleagues for putting forward their vision and
speaking to the throne speech document which I think shares the
vision of hope, confidence and nation building that should
permeate this place.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
history has shown that, when two peoples exist within a single
nation, they each come to understand that it is in their mutual
interest to separate. This was the case with the Austrians and the
Hungarians before the 1914-18 war. It was also the case with the
Swedes and the Norwegians at the turn of the century and, more
recently, with the Czechs and the Slovaks.
I imagine my hon. colleague denies Quebec's right to separate.
Perhaps he could tell me if it is because he does not consider
Quebecers a people?
[English]
Mr. Joe Jordan: Mr. Speaker, certainly the world has
regions that are separating. However, I would like to remind the
hon. member that if he looks at the very regions he is talking
about that their desire to enter NATO and their desire to enter
the European Union clearly points to the fact that together these
groups have a much stronger presence and a much higher quality of
life. The partisan feelings that would suggest that we could
make it better on our own or that somehow life would be better if
we split up certainly do exist.
But if we look at the world, that is clearly the minority
opinion. In Canada we have not only two cultures but three. With
the aboriginal community, the French community and the English
community, Canada will be much stronger. I think the people of
Canada are starting to realize that. That might very well
explain some of the frustration that I am seeing across the way.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate you on your appointment.
First of all, I would like to thank my fellow citizens of the
riding of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot who have put their trust in me again in
the last election.
I was outraged by the speech from the throne that was delivered two
days ago. It was riddled with misrepresentations, distorting reality
with respect to the existence of a Quebec people, among other things.
1155
On the subject of misrepresentation, I would like to focus on two
elements of the throne speech: public finances and national unity.
As far as public finances are concerned, we must refer to page 4 of
the throne speech, which reads, and I quote, “This 36th Parliament opens
at a time when we have brought order to our public finances”. The speech
goes on to say “The government will continue to be vigilant and
responsible about keeping the financial affairs of the country in
order”.
I almost fell backwards when I read that, because the Minister of
Finance has been anything but responsible in his last three budgets. The
Minister of Finance can boast about our public finances being in order.
Credit must be given where credit is due, but the fact is that the
credit should go not to the federal finance minister, but to his
provincial counterparts, especially Mr. Landry, of course. Why? Because
they are the ones who had to do his “dirty job”. He did not do a thing
to bring about the conditions that will result in a zero deficit as
early as next year.
Fifty four per cent of federal spending cuts were made in social
programs.
The Minister of Finance cut $4.5 billion from federal transfers to
the provinces for education, health and social assistance. This
represents a $1.3-billion shortfall for the Quebec government.
Fifty-four per cent of the cuts were made in that area.
Yesterday, the finance minister replied to a question from a Reform
Party member on taxes. The other major contribution made to bring order
to our public finances is the taxes paid by Quebecers and Canadians.
Since 1994, the Minister of Finance has let tax revenues increase by $23
billion. That money comes from taxpayers' pockets. The minister is now
talking about $2 billion in targeted tax cuts. This is the least it can
do after collecting an additional $23 billion since 1994.
Taxpayers are getting a little treat from the finance minister after
years of tightening their belts.
Third, it is easy to boast about bringing order to our public
finances, considering that the finance minister literally robbed workers
and employers by improperly dipping into the employment insurance fund.
Last year, the minister pocketed $5 billion, even though it has been
years since the federal government contributed to the employment
insurance fund. This year, the minister will take $7 billion from that
fund. So, it is easy to boast and to brag, but taxpayers will not forget
that the Minister of Finance made himself look good at the expense of
Quebecers and Canadians. What did the minister himself do in all this?
What was his own contribution?
In the 1994 budget speech, the Minister of Finance told us that
departmental spending would be cut by 19 per cent. The minister has not
kept his promise. Departmental spending has been cut by only 9 per cent
over the last four years. The minister has not made even half the
effort demanded of those who are ill, of students, of the most
vulnerable members of society, especially welfare recipients, or of
those who would normally re-qualify for employment insurance, but,
because of the new employment insurance policy introduced last January,
find themselves back on welfare.
Here too, he can go on about how unemployment is down. Of course
it is. The unemployment figures, meaning the number of people actively
looking for work, have dropped, but entire families are now stuck on
welfare because of the minister's new employment insurance policy, which
also happens to be generating surpluses that he is using to reduce the
deficit.
These folks no longer show up in the official unemployment figures.
This is not what being a responsible government means.
What is our charming Minister of Finance going to do with the
surpluses he is generating? He will move right into areas of provincial
jurisdiction. Do you know why? Because the throne speech, just like
the first throne speech we heard in this House, tells us that the
federal government will be barging into areas of provincial
jurisdiction, including education. We are told in the throne speech
that the federal government will measure the readiness of Canadian
children to learn. Education comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of
Quebec and nobody is ever going to interfere in education, which comes
under our jurisdiction.
All these investments being announced in Quebec's areas of
jurisdiction, after what they did to Quebec's public finances in
particular, have been in the works since March 1996.
1200
If I may, I will quote the President of Treasury Board who, in
the March 8, 1996 edition of Le Soleil, publicly admitted the
federal government's strategy, a strategy which consisted of
dumping its problems of public funding onto the provinces, getting
the provinces to do the dirty work, so that it can come out looking
good to all of the taxpayers.
To quote the President of Treasury Board in the March 8, 1996
edition of Le Soleil, “When Bouchard—he does not even have the
decency to show a little respect for the Premier of Quebec—will
have to make cuts, those of us in Ottawa will be able to
demonstrate that we have the means to preserve the future of social
programs”.
Such is the strategy of the federal government: to make Quebec
look like the bad guy when it comes to social programs and to the
health sector, when in fact they are the main ones responsible.
They then come along with great fanfare to announce that they will
be putting programs in place, that they will help our young people
and improve the health system. Such behaviour is odious and
absolutely hypocritical, particularly when it is at the expense of
the least advantaged and the sick.
Our campaign platform was clear with respect to sound
management of public finances, as well as the battle against
poverty. Our program had six points, basically.
The first was that we were calling upon the federal
government, since public finances are getting in better shape, to
give back what it has swiped from the provinces, that is to say
return the $4.5 billion it has stolen yearly from social programs
in order to fund social assistance, postsecondary education and
health. These are no small amounts we are talking about.
Just looking at the health transfers the federal government
was making to the provinces in past years, for every dollar cut by
the Minister of Health since he has been responsible for this
sector, 93 cents were used to reduce the federal deficit. And for
all of the social programs, every time a dollar was cut from social
programs in Quebec, 78 cents of it were used to reduce the Minister
of Finance's deficit.
This is a lot of money, and if for the past year the federal
government had done its job, if it had not slashed social transfers to
the provinces, the Quebec government would no longer have a deficit. The
problem would have been settled long ago, and our books would have
balanced.
Next, considering that the country's financial situation has
improved, we asked the government to reduce employment insurance
premiums. Not a cosmetic 6 cent per $100 of insurable payroll. We
suggested a reduction of about 30 cent per $100. Why? For the simple
reason that the Bloc Quebecois is on the side of jobs and job creation.
If the government meant what it said when it talked about job
creation, it would have consistently reduced employment insurance
premiums, because they kill employment.
Any direct payroll tax as substantial as employment insurance premiums
is bound to kill employment.
So, since the government's finances are in better shape, instead of
this nickelling and diming, instead of these intrusions in Quebec's
jurisdictions, without so much as a by your leave, because it is so
important to hand out cheques with a big Canadian flag, the Liberal
government should consider what people need and put more money into the
employment insurance fund and social programs.
My third point is that since the new employment insurance system
came into effect last January, the benefits and usual protection for
workers who lose their jobs were greatly reduced.
We are therefore suggesting that the federal government, since they are
in a better position financially, get back to a better approach that
would genuinely help unemployed workers get back on their feet and
remain on the labour market instead of being forced to go on welfare,
which is no way to help families get back on their feet, especially if
it keeps them out of the labour market.
The fourth suggestion we made in our campaign platform, and it is
still valid, is to have a targeted tax reduction. Not the kind of
generalized, useless tax reduction which does nothing to stimulate
consumer buying and job creation, but targeted reductions based on a
logical analysis of the tax system.
1205
In this regard, I am particularly proud to remind people that
the Bloc Quebecois conducted two major studies in the past year and
a half. One was on reforming corporate taxation to make it fairer
with fewer of those loopholes that allow hundreds of millions of
dollars annually to avoid federal taxes.
We also put forward a document on improving personal taxation
to make the system fairer and to ensure that families, especially
low and medium income ones with children, get the benefit of such
reform.
We repeat the suggestion to the Minister of Finance that this
tax reform should take place in his second mandate.
If he was too sluggish in his first mandate to implement our
suggestions, which, I would point out, are currently being used by
Canadian universities as a good example of tax reform, he should be
delighted and accept the proposals of the Bloc Quebecois. In this
mandate, however, I think that it would be a good idea for him to
make the tax system fairer for lower income classes and not just
for his millionaire and billionaire friends and those of the
Liberal Party of Canada.
Our fifth proposal would increase tax benefits from $850
million to $2 billion, adding $1.15 billion in child tax benefits.
This is a real battle against child poverty. I think that, with
the developments in public finances, it is not too late for the
Minister of Finance to do the right thing.
Every time I see him put his hand to his heart, I cannot help but
wonder if he is feeling for his wallet. If he is really concerned about
child poverty, he should be spending more in that area and make it a
true national priority.
Sixth, it is not hard to understand, in fact it is quite simple: if
the federal government minded its business and refrained from
interfering in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, I am sure it
would save money. Every time the federal government announces with
fanfare plans to get involved in education, to put an education program
in place, to meddle in health issues and every other area under Quebec's
exclusive jurisdiction, that costs money. And, in spite of his financial
position, the finance minister is not paying for all this, the taxpayers
are.
Every instance of duplication and overlap in programs entails
administration costs borne by taxpayers.
Taxpayers are also paying twice for federal government employees to do
the exact same job as Quebec government employees. The public must know
that. That is what I mean by distorting the reality behind public
finances.
Something else in this speech from the throne struck me; I was
quite shaken by it. It contains, on page 7, third paragraph, a line as
disgraceful as they come, in my view, and I quote, “Our future as a
country is too precious for us to risk losing it through
misunderstanding”.
A nation's aspiration to sovereignty is not based on any
misunderstanding. It is based on this desire we share to build our own
country, a country soon to be known as Quebec. There is no
misunderstanding there, and it is disgraceful to suggest such a thing.
This would mean that, in the referendum held in 1995, 61 percent of
francophones voted yes but did so based on a misunderstanding. Seventy
per cent of francophones on the island of Montreal voted yes, but did so
based on a misunderstanding. Almost half of all Quebecers voted yes, but
did so based on a misunderstanding.
This is probably the most preposterous statement I ever heard. If
there were misunderstandings in the history of the relations between
Quebec and Canada, they were on the federal side. There were of course
a number of such misunderstandings, but I targeted four.
These misunderstandings go as far back as 1867. Here is the
first one. In 1867, two founding nations signed a confederation
agreement. At the time, it was believed that our French Canadian
ancestors and the English Canadians had signed a historic accord
between two sovereign nations, two founding peoples. However,
over time, we came to realize that such was not the case. Over
the decades, English Canada shrank the scope of this
confederation agreement. English Canada will not admit at all
that Quebec is different. In fact, if we look at the throne
speech, we realize that it not only denies that there is any
difference, but also that it denies the existence of a distinct
society, a distinct culture and, more importantly, the existence
of a distinct people. The throne speech reinforced this first
historic misunderstanding. It is a true misunderstanding and it
originates with the members across the way.
1210
The second historic misunderstanding was to have believed that, in
1982 when Pierre Elliott Trudeau patriated the Canadian Constitution
without Quebec's agreement, we would get down on our knees and agree to
this Constitution that we never wanted. Quebecers stood their ground
and I am proud of that. We never agreed to this Constitution.
The third historic misunderstanding, and again it originates with
the members across the way, is to have thought that, in order to make
amends for the historic affront of the 1982 patriation, they could toss
any little scrap our way after the failure of the Meech Lake accord and
we would go for it, in order to put the problem behind us once and for
all, with no regard for our pride or our wish to build a strong Quebec.
They gave us Beaudoin-Dobbie, Beaudoin-Edwards, the Spicer
Commission report, and the Charlottetown accord, which was put to a
referendum and defeated. They came to us with completely meaningless
concepts, empty shells, such as the rather comical idea of principal
homeland. Now, after the Calgary declaration, they have come up with
unique character. Quebecers are not interested.
Quebecers will do exactly what they did to every other meaningless offer
they received concerning Quebec's future and reject it out of hand.
Mr. Bourassa had gone much further, and if Daniel Johnson agrees to
bow and scrape for mere crumbs, he will go down in history as having
bowed and scraped for just that, mere crumbs, putting his electioneering
interests before Quebec's true interests.
There is a fourth misunderstanding and it has to do with plan B, to
which the throne speech refers yet again. In Quebec, there was a time
when fear was an effective tool. So was English Canada's paternalism. We
will be hearing a great deal about this with four federalist parties
represented in the House of Commons. But it does not work any more.
Perhaps plan B could have worked at another time, but it will not now.
The Supreme Court and its judges will not change the course of history.
We will repel any attack on the territorial integrity of Quebec. And no
minister of intergovernmental affairs or member for Saint-Maurice will
be able to slow down or stop the people's march toward sovereignty.
There was no misunderstanding in nearly winning the last referendum
on sovereignty. There a clear desire to build our own country in Quebec.
I have a word of warning for those across the way who may be tempted to
crow over the results of recent polls. These polls are no referendum,
but let me tell you that, when one is called, Quebecers will speak. They
will speak loud and clear and, this time, the will say yes for real and
that will be the last referendum in the history of Canada.
I would now like to address my Canadian friends in their own
language, if I may.
[English]
The only way for our common future is not the status quo but the
independence of Quebec, a new relationship, a new partnership
with Canadian citizens.
Whether or not you want this partnership does not change
anything. Nothing will stop the determination of my people, the
Quebec nation, to reach liberty, to become a sovereign country.
The next referendum will be the right one.
Neither your political representatives, Liberal, Conservative,
Reform or NDP, nor the judges of the Supreme Court will change
anything. You could not force 7 billion Quebeckers to stay in
Canada against their desire.
Our aspirations are legitimate and deeply democratic. They do
not rely on justice to be planned. The respectable attitude of
Tony Blair, Prime Minister of United Kingdom, with Scottish and
Welsh people must be for you a source of inspiration.
[Translation]
In the meantime, I would encourage my fellow Quebecers to
contemplate sovereignty and heed the advice of Félix Leclerc, who once
said, and I will close on this: “The fruit is ripe in my country's
orchards. This means that the time has come, if you get my drift”. I am
convinced that Quebecers will heed Félix's advice in the next
referendum.
1215
[English]
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member spoke of tough cuts that were made and dealt with
surpluses and what the government should do.
When the member insults the Minister of Finance and the
government he is insulting Canadians right across this great
country and in his province as well. Those are the people who
sacrificed to get the budget back in order. Those steps were
necessary.
I also challenge the hon. member to come forth and be positive
rather than threatening Canadians across the country. I also
remind the member that he does not represent the entire Quebec
province but one riding.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my
colleague, I would like to correct three things he has just said.
First, I never said anything to insult the Minister of
Finance. I criticized his budget policy because I consider it
savage. If anyone has been insulted in the past four years, it is
the poor families in Canada, the sick and the students, who have
suffered from the savage cuts of the Minister of Finance and his
government.
Second, I would like him to know that, in this House, we are
elected to represent all the people in our riding and all the
people of Quebec, be they federalist or separatist.
Whatever my colleague may think, and I will close on this
point, the Bloc Quebecois represents 60 per cent of Quebec ridings.
It therefore represents a majority of Quebecers. Furthermore, we
will be here in the coming years to remind him of the past and
present realities of Quebec and of its aspirations. That may be
distressing, but that's life.
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened attentively to the member's remarks. I think
it is appropriate to remind the member that one of the greatest
destabilizing factors to investment in the province of Quebec is
the constant threat of separation especially when corporations
think about expanding their plants.
Members will know that we are in an economy right now where
things are very much on the rebound, people are being hired and
plants are being expanded. Business looks for stability and
business needs stability.
The member, a respected economist, knows full well that this
constant irritant, constant threat of destroying this country is
a disincentive to investment which is really hurting those
constituents looking for jobs.
I think that when the member talks about the economy and caring
and sharing, about those people who are most in need, as he did
in his speech, those are the ones who are looking for work. And
the best way for them to get work is to ensure that the
businesses in Quebec that feel they want to expand feel they will
be able to survive in a very healthy, stable marketplace and not
one that is under a constant cloud of separation.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for the
past two years, private and foreign investment in Quebec has reached
record proportions, in spite of the constitutional debate. And I may
remind the hon. member that Quebecers are not the only ones responsible
for the fact this debate exists.
1220
If we look at the history of relations between Quebec and Canada,
part of the responsibility for this problem is yours as well.
I can assure hon. members that if they were to accept our
partnership offer, because we sovereignists are giving them that chance,
an offer of partnership after a vote in favour of sovereignty,
everything the hon. member said about economic growth and employment in
Canada and Quebec would be settled.
Furthermore, I can assure the hon. member there is not a single
economic indicator that will stop a people from fulfilling its destiny,
and we on this side of the House are convinced the sovereignty of Quebec
will in the end be a plus for economic growth and job creation. It
cannot be otherwise.
Look at the throne speech. We just said that provincial
jurisdictions will be interfered with, that it will cost as twice as
much in civil servants' salaries, program administration, and so forth,
that we would be better off without this perpetual quarrelling, that we
could each determine what is best for ourselves and pool our resources
when our interests coincide.
It seems to me this is perfectly clear. I think what is happening
today in the United Kingdom is marvellous.
If Canadians like you were to show the same understanding for the
history and destiny of the people of Quebec, I think it would be easier
for all concerned.
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I share
the same views as my friend from Broadview—Greenwood on this
question.
The hon. member, in his thoughtful presentation, referred to the
plight of Canada's children. I think we sometimes assume that it
is just a matter of fact that we have to have poor children. We
have to have people who do not have jobs and who are living in
poverty.
I might want to remind my hon. friend, who probably does not
need reminding, being the economist that he is, that there are
many countries in the world where child poverty does not exist. I
refer specifically to countries like Norway and Denmark where
children do not live in poverty because their parents do not live
in poverty. Poverty is not something that we have to accept as a
reality.
It seems to me that in a country as rich as ours we should not
have the number of children living in poverty and suffering today
because their parents are living in poverty.
Considering the situation that exists in what has to be the
wealthiest country in the world, would the hon. member not agree
that this is actually, to quote the Catholic bishops, a form of
child abuse for a government to allow this condition to continue?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: I agree with the NDP member, Mr. Speaker.
It is rather despicable to see the Minister of Finance and
government members place their hands on their hearts and talk about the
plight of children, given that they themselves are responsible for a
situation which has gotten worse over the last three years.
It is not normal to make cuts based on a budget plan tabled by the
finance minister in 1996, to slash, year after year on a cumulative
basis, the budget for social programs by some $42 billion, and to think
this will have no impact on child poverty. The government should give us
some credit.
There is no doubt that the decisions made by this government have
had an impact on child poverty and made parents poorer.
Parents got poorer as a result of, among other things, the employment
insurance program implemented in January, which consistently reduces
benefits and which also excludes many adult workers from the labour
force. These people have to rely on welfare.
So, do not try to appeal to our emotions. We are not going to be
fooled by the finance minister's crocodile tears. It is not right to
present things in that light. The minister should admit he made a
mistake in his plan and he should at least put aside the budget cutting
scheme developed in 1996.
There is not even any mention of this in the throne speech. The
government says it will give back some money. Do you know what the
government is doing? The Minister of Finance originally wanted to cut
$48 billion. Now the new figure is $42 billion. The federal government
will cut $42 billion from transfers for social assistance,
post-secondary education and health.
It is despicable to present things as if the government was handing
out goodies when in fact it is merely cutting somewhat less than
anticipated in 1996, but with the same slash-and-burn approach. The
minister should have the decency to rise, to tell the truth and to
announce that he is immediately putting an end to his planned cuts for
the next three years. This would be an effective way to fight poverty,
particularly child poverty.
[English]
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time
with the hon. member for Simcoe—Grey. I would also like to
congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your recent appointment as our
Deputy Speaker.
1225
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
Thank you for this opportunity to speak in the House of Commons.
It it a great honour to be back in this Chamber. I say back
because in 1975 I sat here in the House of Commons as a student
participating in a model Parliament in seat 113. I did not think
then that I would be representing Nunavut 22 years later.
I am proud to be the first female in the history of my riding to
sit in the House of Commons and even more proud to be of Inuit
descent.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
I thank my constituents for the privilege of representing them
at this crucial point in the future of Canada and Nunavut.
Nunavut covers 1.9 million square kilometres of our country.
That is 20 per cent of Canada. It spans three different time zones and
the population is roughly 25,000 people. The land covers fiords,
mountains and tundra.
While I was travelling through the communities in my campaign I
could not help thinking it was truly a lesson in geography. My
constituency goes north to the North Pole, west to the
Alberta-B.C. border, south to James Bay and east almost to
Greenland. Nunavut has many international borders including
Russia, Denmark and the United States.
This vast and untouched area has great potential for a natural
resource based economy. Each year more exploration is going on
in the north, in particular mineral exploration. Nunavut's high
Arctic hosts two lead and zinc mines. This activity benefits
northern communities by creating jobs for our population.
We need continued support for sustainable development and
training in this sector. Alongside this is the challenge of
protecting our environment. We have to make sure our land
remains natural and beautiful.
We need to promote fisheries and the processing of country
food. This along with tourism are areas that create employment
in the north and must be explored as valid industries.
One of the mandates of the Government of Nunavut is to staff its
public service with a 50 per cent Inuit workforce. This is a realistic
goal considering that the Inuit population of Nunavut is over
80 per cent and the working language will be Inuktitut.
As we speak the Government of Canada and the Government of the
Northwest Territories are training Inuit to staff Nunavut's
public service. Nunavut Arctic College has been instrumental
in making education accessible and relevant to all Nunavut
residents.
Last week in Iqaluit I witnessed the signing of a training
agreement between the two governments that will ensure the
employment targets are met.
Although governments are now training to staff the public
service there have to be mechanisms in place to keep our youth in
school and to pursue post-secondary education. There are many
barriers that stand in the way of our youth attaining higher
education. One avenue to keep youth in school is through
athletics. There needs to be more focus on partnering schools
and sport.
Twenty-seven out of twenty-eight Nunavut communities are coastal
communities but all are serviced only by air. There are no roads.
Air freight is the only reliable way to ship goods and perishable
food. Communities receive non-perishables like fuel and
construction material by sea lift, many of them only once a year.
Freight is the primary reason for the high cost of living in
Nunavut. In many communities a four litre jug of milk costs $10,
a loaf of white bread $2.69, a five pound bag of potatoes goes
for $6.95 and a case of Coca-Cola will cost $41. With gas
costing 71 cents a litre it is very expensive for northern
residents to buy gas so they may go hunting for country food,
which is still very much the main diet.
1230
The constituency that I represent cannot be compared to any
other part of the country. When I was in Iqaluit, the future
capital of Nunavut, it was mentioned that Canadians are as
ill-informed about their north as Americans are about Canada.
When I was going to high school in Ottawa I was asked before
Christmas break by a classmate to bring back a stamp from my home
so she could have one for her collection. This is one example of
how true it is that Canadians forget that their country goes much
further beyond 60° north. We are part of Canada and proud to be
Canadians.
When people outside the north think of the Arctic, they think of
igloos, polar bears, and arts and crafts. Carvings and crafts
are a legitimate source of income to many families in the north
and are relied upon to put food on the table. We have
tremendously talented artists who need to have their work
marketed. Therefore it is very disturbing for me to see
imitation art displayed in stores. No one can replace the beauty
of an original carving of the north. Means to promote economic
development of art must be explored.
If any culture is truly unique and different within Canada, it
is the Inuit culture. Our ancestors came here thousands of years
ago, lived off the land and adapted to dramatic changes. In the
span of roughly 35 years, Inuit went from igloos to houses, from
dog teams to airplanes, and still kept their culture alive
because we still use igloos and dog teams.
During my parents' time, Inuit used fox tags and wooden sticks
to trade for supplies. Today my father has a Visa card and my
mother can use her Interac card to do her banking, even though
they do not speak any English.
The Inuit are a very adaptable people and I am very proud of the
progress we have made in such a short time. These examples show
that Nunavut residents are ready for the challenges that await
them. The implementation of our long awaited territory is rapidly
approaching and co-operation between parties involved is
necessary.
I look forward to working with the Minister of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development, the Interim Commissioner of Nunavut,
the president of Nunavut Tunngavik, and the government of the
Northwest Territories to make sure that Nunavut residents see a
smooth transition on April 1, 1999 which is less than 580 days
away. All of these parties, along with regional Inuit
organizations, Qikiktani Inuit Association, Kitikmeot Inuit
Association and Kivalliq Inuit Association, will be essential in
providing me with real input as we face tough decisions.
The division of the Northwest Territories is the most
significant and exciting event taking place before the turn of
the century. It has not been since 1949 when Newfoundland joined
Confederation that something of this magnitude has occurred in
Canada.
Establishing the Nunavut territory is my priority as Nunavut's
member of Parliament, but it must also be a priority of this
House. This is monumental. I urge my colleagues in this House
to take this chance to participate in making history in Canada.
It will be by working together and helping each other that we
will accomplish the task. This is the way the Inuit culture
survived thousands of years in a harsh and unforgiving climate. I
was pleased to see this type of co-operation during the
unfortunate crises of the floods in Quebec and Manitoba.
I want to close this speech by extending an invitation to those
members of this House and those Canadians from across the country
who have not yet had the privilege to see Nunavut to come and
visit us. I guarantee that their experience will be
unforgettable.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut]
[English]
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, firstly
I would like to congratulate you on your new role as Acting
Speaker. We look forward to seeing your smile up there every
day.
I want to congratulate the hon. member for Nunavut.
I want to say to her that I had an opportunity during the last
sitting of the House to work with her people with respect to
their needs. I look forward to working with them once again. She
is absolutely right. She has a unique culture and she
understands, like we understand over here, that there are regions
of Canada with different needs. We are there to help them.
1235
I look forward to meeting with the hon. member to discuss how we
can assist her in creating the Nunavut territory and making it a
better place for her people to live.
[Translation]
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I too want to pay
tribute to the member for Nunavut. In my riding, they would tell her in
Inuit:
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuit]
[Translation]
That means “Thank you very much. You are a superstar for having
been elected to the House of Commons”.
Abitibi covers 802,000 square kilometres, and has 92,000
inhabitants, 68 communities and 68 mayors. There are 14 Inuit villages
in Abitibi. So I am very familiar with the Inuit culture. I would like
to mention to the hon. member that it is true that, while in the south
bread sells for between $1 and $1.06, in Nunavut, New Quebec, bread can
cost between $2.50 and $3.
We have many problems right now. Housing is one of them.
I realize that much needs to be done. There are many who say that
people in the north are receiving subsidies, but there is one thing that
needs to be pointed out to the citizens of Canada and of Quebec and that
is that, for every dollar we give our Inuit friends, 97 cents always
comes back to the south. They are participating in the economy.
Much remains to be done, particularly in Nunavut and in Nunavik,
Abitibi, such as working together and visiting New Quebec. That is the
Canadian economy. We will play our part. I wish to congratulate the
hon. member on her election.
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I took great pleasure in listening to the hon.
government member talk about the beauty and the uniqueness of the
part of the country she is from. Certainly I agree with her.
What is really interesting is that she basically confirmed
everything the Reform Party has been saying for so many years,
that every part of this great country of ours is unique and
distinct and has its own unique and distinct character. It is
very refreshing to hear a Liberal member agree with the Reform
Party and take a route other than saying how unique and distinct
the province of Quebec is. I thank the hon. member for bringing
that up.
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Mr. Speaker, I know that
Canada is a country known for respecting all the different
nationalities that come to it. We are very proud to be one of
the original nationalities, but I believe that Canada has room
for all the different people who come to this country. I am
proud to be a part of it.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
too would like to congratulate the new member for Nunavut on her
maiden speech in the House of Commons.
I had the opportunity to travel to that part of the world a year
and a half ago with Canada's foreign affairs committee, which was
studying the Arctic Council in that area. I was greatly
impressed.
It is one of the few ridings in Canada that is bigger than my
own. I come from Peace River in northwestern Alberta and I can
understand the difficulties in representing a riding of that
size.
I was also struck by the impact of pollutants in Canada's Arctic
and how they can affect people living in the area.
I have worked long and hard as the trade critic for our party to
try to resolve the European ban on leg-hold traps and products
from those traps from entering Europe. My understanding is that
an agreement has been reached. I am wondering if the hon. member
for Nunavut can tell the House whether she knows if it is
satisfactory in addressing the concerns of the people who live
off the industry of fur-bearing animals and whether the agreement
will satisfy them.
1240
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The member's time
for questions and comments has expired. If the member could have
a very very brief response, please do so.
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know
that is being put into place. We have had a bit of resistance to
the changing of the traps. As I said in my speech, Inuit are
very adaptable people. We are trying to go with the change. I
have to research this a little more because as I said I am very
new at this and it is such a large territory with so many topics.
I hope I can answer it more satisfactorily with a bit of
research.
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I too
want to congratulate the hon. member for Nunavut. I am sure she
will represent her riding with a passion unparalleled. An area
of 1.9 million square kilometres certainly brings a new meaning
to door to door at election time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate you on your recent
appointment. I take this opportunity to publicly congratulate
the hon. member for Niagara Centre on his re-election as Speaker
of the House. His remarks at orientation for the new members of
Parliament were both inspiring and motivating. I certainly thank
him for those words of encouragement. I am sure I speak on behalf
of all of my new colleagues when I say that his words and actions
have instilled a confidence in all of us based on the characters
of those who are chairing this House.
I want to thank the constituents of Simcoe—Grey. I am both
honoured and humbled that they chose me as their elected
representative. I fully intend to represent them to the very
best of my ability in this House. It is a responsibility that I
do not take lightly. I want to assure all my constituents that I
have ample access and little restrictions with regard to my input
in voicing their comments or concerns to our government. I commit
to them that I will take full advantage of this opportunity to
voice their feelings.
I would be remiss and somewhat in trouble if I did not take time
to thank my wife Sandi and our three children for the love and
support they gave me throughout the election. It is something I
know I can draw on throughout this term of office.
I have made a special commitment to my riding, one that I hope
all residents will join me in no matter what their party
affiliation. That commitment is to work hard to maintain and
enhance what we believe to be the best place in Canada, and that
means the world. I ask my constituents to join in that
challenge.
My riding is a diverse and precious place just like the people
within it. The agriculture industry in Simcoe—Grey represents
the largest geographical make-up and is the largest single
employer in our riding. We are a rural riding that has made and
will make an enormous contribution to Canada as a whole.
To touch on a few of those contributions, I remind the House of
Sir Frederick Banting, as was mentioned earlier, the co-founder
of insulin and a World War II hero. Recent contributions have
been made by Sue Palmer and Paul Shaw, two of Canada's Olympic
athletes. I could spend the rest of the day talking about our
many contributions and how proud I am to be a part of
Simcoe—Grey riding but time does not permit it.
From our dairy, poultry, cattle and swine producers in Alliston,
Elmvale, Markdale and Stayner to the best apple growers in the
world in and around Thornbury and Collingwood, these farms are an
integral part of Canada's food producing industry and deserve the
support and confidence of the federal government. I am very
pleased to see that happening.
Simcoe—Grey is a riding that leads in agricultural excellence.
For this reason I am extremely pleased that the Liberal
government has continued to support the agricultural community in
the form of marketing boards and quotas.
I am especially pleased to see the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food leading this industry into the next century. As a
result of his extensive background the minister understands that
agriculture is the very foundation of this country and must be
maintained no matter what countries or trade agreements try to
threaten that foundation. The farming community can be assured
that I will continue to support and endorse this agenda very
aggressively.
As I mentioned earlier, my riding is very diverse. Our
industrial components had their very foundations shaken, some
even destroyed, throughout the mid to late eighties and early
nineties. Now, thanks to a strong and fiscally responsible
government, we have provided a stable and strong economic
environment to allow these industries to rebuild and strengthen
their positions in Canadian and world markets.
At long last there is a glow of optimism within industry.
1245
I also want to take this time to thank the Prime Minister and
his previous government for having the fortitude to take us from
what was near certain economic ruin to a healthy deficit free
economy in four short years.
I am very grateful for the vision and direction of my colleague,
the Minister of Finance. His fiscal formula has been a remedy
for success.
I ask my colleagues, when dealing with what looks like a small
surplus—it has certainly been talked about today and
previously—to remember one thing. The only reason they are in
this place talking about a surplus is because of the Liberal
platform over the last three and a half years. The formula
worked.
Like all ridings across Canada, jobs are at the forefront of the
constituents' minds in Simcoe—Grey. I commend the Prime
Minister for partnering with the private sector and leading trade
missions abroad. I encourage the federal government, as I will
encourage my riding, to take these types of proactive steps.
I am also pleased that we have a small surplus coming this year
to invest back into social programs that are not just important
to Liberals but important to all Canadians. With regard to this
forecasted surplus, I strongly encourage the finance minister to
stay his course in dealing with the debt. For our children it is
a legacy in which I would like to put a serious dent, of course
always keeping in mind Liberal values and social
responsibilities.
We are known worldwide as a compassionate society with very
liberal values. Now that our house is back in order, it will be
necessary for us to focus more strongly on these issues.
Simcoe—Grey is likely one of the most well-known tourist
destinations in Canada. If it is not, I will certainly make sure
it is by the end of this term. For this reason I was extremely
pleased that the federal government, along with the Business
Development Bank of Canada, initiated a $500 million lending pool
to help accelerate development in private sector, four season
type resort areas.
We have a scenic geography that is second to none. We have, and
will continue to develop biking, hiking and cross country trails
that go on for hundreds of kilometres. We have the largest
downhill ski area in Ontario, the friendliest and best run in
North America.
I encourage all my colleagues, both sides, and extend an
invitation to visit and see our great riding. I extend that same
invitation to industry. We want them too, and we need them.
My riding, like many other rural ridings, has been continually
losing its most cherished asset to larger urban centres. That
most precious asset is our youth.
Initiatives, like partnering with the YMCA, is a large step in
the right direction. It offers our youth opportunities within
the riding, not only to be employed but equally or more important
to upgrade their skills. It provides opportunities to which they
may not otherwise have access. This is a program of which I am
proud to be a part.
In closing, I say to all my colleagues, irrespective of party, I
look forward to working with all of you in order that we may
build a country and a future for our children that is second to
none.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to begin with my congratulations to you for having
accepted the appointment to your position. I hardly need remind
you that this is only the third time in the history of this
Parliament that a party in power has designated a deputy speaker
from outside its ranks. This is a great honour, therefore, and
your friends and family, the members of your party and certainly
those who elected you will be very proud of you.
I would also like to thank the new member for Simcoe—Grey.
I listened closely to his speech and I feel he will make a good
MP—or at least I hope so. He strikes me as being full of good
will. He gave particular attention in his speech to agriculture
and to unemployment.
My riding seems rather like Simcoe—Grey, with a number of farmers
and many unemployed people.
1250
I would like to ask the valiant new member for Simcoe—Grey,
who states his readiness to work with all members of this House,
what concrete proposals he wishes to make to his Liberal caucus
that will be of any help whatsoever to the agricultural sector,
which has seen its net earning power weaken year after year,
particularly since 1993 when his party came to power, and to our
young people in particular, with their abnormally high rate of
unemployment?
And what has his government done to sustain employment since
1993?
It has toughened up eligibility for unemployment insurance,
particularly for young people, counting not the number of weeks but
the number of hours. New workers have to accumulate 910 hours
before they qualify. And worse still—my final point—the duration
of employment insurance benefits has been shortened.
Since the hon. member for Simcoe—Grey gives me the impression
of being very very positive in these, his first days in the House
of Commons, what are the concrete proposals he will make to his
party caucus, to the Liberal party?
[English]
Mr. Paul Bonwick: Mr. Speaker, I question how well the
hon. member listened. I did touch on some of the initiatives of
this government. Certainly the YMCA partnering initiative is a
major step in the right direction. That is not just offering
employment opportunities, it is also offering training
opportunities to provide youth with a better lifestyle down the
road.
In so far as the agriculture community is concerned, one of the
things that I have done in my riding, and I have certainly been
vocal in caucus as well, is to open up lines of communication.
The member seems to have his facts in error. There has been an
increase in the last two years in farming income, certainly in
our area.
With respect to opening lines of communication, I have over the
summer had the opportunity to have the Minister of Agriculture
and Agri-Food travel to our riding and meet with the farmers, the
brokers, the average people out there; not just their OFA
representatives, but the actual farmers.
I have taken the time this summer to travel throughout the
riding and sit in on the Grey County Federation of Agriculture
and the Simcoe County Federation of Agriculture meetings. I
bring that communication back to the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food and I tell him how it has impacted.
We have a very unusual situation which is going to be a great
reward for the farming and agricultural communities and that is
the minister who is leading us into the next millennium. He is a
farmer, very well educated in the field and he is being met with
an excellent response. I am certainly a pipeline to this caucus
and to this government on behalf of the farming community in my
riding.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to indicate that I will be sharing our speaking slot with my
hon. colleague from Winnipeg North Centre.
I join with my parliamentary colleagues to congratulate you, Mr.
Speaker, on your ascension to the Chair. I look forward to
seeing not only your smiling face but also your good judgment
exercised during the next number of months.
We all listened carefully and attentively to the throne speech
as was read by the Governor General. I would like to quote from
this throne speech before I make some remarks in my response.
It states:
This is the inauguration of a new Parliament. Let it be also
the beginning of a new era of national reconciliation, economic
renewal and social justice—.
While there are no easy solutions to the great problems facing
our great country, there is a new will among Canadians to make a
fresh start in the search for answers.
There is that phrase “fresh start”. It goes on to state:
—a priority goal of my Ministers will be to breathe a new spirit
into federalism and restore the faith and trust of all Canadians
in the effectiveness of our system of government.
A constant process of consultation and co-operation must be
restored. My Ministers are regularly meeting their provincial
colleagues to eliminate irritants and to improve services to
people where the federal and provincial governments have joint
responsibilities.
This throne speech goes on to state:
The process of consensus-building will engage the private sector
partners in an era of co-operation on economic goals. In such a
context, government would act as a guide, a mediator, a catalyst,
becoming less intrusive in the private sector but vigilant over
the integrity of the national economy and of national
standards—.The three-part strategies of my Ministers is to
restore fiscal responsibility, remove obstacles to growth and
encourage new investment—This three-part strategy is aimed at
renewing economic growth in order to provide jobs our people need
and to address the continuing tragedy of youth unemployment—
My government will enter into discussion with the provinces
aimed at a comprehensive overhaul of our pension system—
Consultations will also begin with the provinces to consider the
most effective means of providing increased federal support for
the improvement of—health care—
Canadians are deeply troubled by the incidence of crime,
especially crimes of violence—
It goes on and on.
I am glad my Liberal colleagues here are applauding because this
is the throne speech of Brian Mulroney. It sounds exactly the
same.
Some hon. members: Liberal, Tory, same old story.
Mr. Nelson Riis: This is the same throne speech. They
did not even bother to re-write it. It was a new governor
general, that is all. This throne speech is worth nothing. This
is absolute pap. Yap, yap, who cares? I looked through here to
find out where the helicopters were mentioned because the
government announced today that a major priority is to purchase
billions of dollars worth of helicopters. There is not a mention
of helicopters in here. This is pap.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Kamloops
is a very experienced member and he knows that he is not to use
props in the course of his debate. While his point may have been
one that he feels he should make in this way, I am sure he knows
it is wrong to perhaps over-dramatize things by tearing up books
and so on in the course of his speech. I would ask him to
restrain himself.
He may recall that in the last Parliament we had incidents of
this kind and the Speaker intervened. I am reluctant to do so
with such an experienced member, but I feel in the circumstances
I should draw the rules to his attention.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I got so
worked up that I just could not help it. However, I do have
another whole version of it here. Pap is pretty cheap.
When I listened to the throne speech in the other place, I
reflected back on the last number of years here. I go back to
the Tories because it is basically the same group, only different
faces.
I remember as a kid having my mother read me a story by Robert
Louis Stevenson, called The Wreckers where unscrupulous
people on a desert island would light fires on the rocks at night
to lure ships into thinking it was a harbour. The ships would
smash on the rocks, people would loot the ships and the people on
the wrecked ships would die.
This reminds of the government. This reminds me of my Liberal
friends. I wonder if they really know what they are doing to the
people of Canada.
There is a reference in the throne speech to the deficit war
being won. I suspect that if we listen carefully we would hear
the Liberals cheering, saying “We won the deficit war. Yes, we
were successful”.
If we were to acknowledge the heroes of the deficit war over the
last number of years it would not be the Minister of Finance and
our Liberal colleagues across the way or our previous
Conservative friends in the House of Commons. It would be the
long line-ups of people waiting to get into hospital. It would
be the thousands and thousands of young people with huge debt
loads on their shoulders as a result of having to fund so much of
their education. It would be the 1.4 million people who do not
have a decent job or perhaps do not even have a job at all. It
would be the millions who have part-time jobs and are barely
scraping through to make ends meet for their families.
We could talk about others like the 10,000 people every month,
month after month, who declare personal or business bankruptcy,
who are walking away from their businesses and their homes. In
many cases they walk away from devastated families as a result of
the economic policies of the government.
1300
They are the true heroes of this deficit war. They should be
the ones who are first rewarded when there is a dividend. The
minute there is a surplus we should go back and start mending the
safety net that has been ripped and torn apart by the Liberals
and by the Conservatives before them. This should be a top
priority if we are a caring and decent country.
I look across at these people. They look like nice people but I
do not think they care about people. If they cared about people,
would they permit having over a million children—they are
laughing, Mr. Speaker. I do not think this is funny. They are
laughing at over a million children waking up this morning and
living in poverty in the richest country in the world. The
Conference of Catholic Bishops calls it a form of child abuse,
that this is allowed to happen. The government has to accept
responsibility for that.
These people sit quietly in their places and give little
speeches in the House of Commons about how nice the country is,
how great they are and how hardworking we are all going to be.
This country is in a mess for a growing number of people.
I acknowledge that luxury car sales are up. I acknowledge that
the Toronto Stock Exchange is at historic levels. I admit that
corporate profits have never been higher and the banks are
happier than they ever have been in our banking history. At the
same time increasing numbers of Canadians are living in poverty,
increasing numbers of people are losing their jobs, their
businesses and their homes.
What will the government do about this? Let us look in the
throne speech. We are positive, happy people trying to find some
goodness left in this world. There must be some goodness left in
this government. There must be something in here about what it
will do about the 1.4 million people who do not have jobs today.
Is it mentioned?
I am being asked to talk about something new. The Liberals
would love me to shut up about this topic. They would love me to
stop talking about the 1.4 million people who are out of jobs?
They would love me to stop talking about the people in Atlantic
Canada who met our caucus and said they have not worked in four
years because of this government's policies on free trade, NAFTA
and now the multilateral agreement on investment.
There is a slow erosion in our country of what our parents and
grandparents before them struggled to build for generation after
generation into one of the best countries in the world. We have
people by the hundreds of thousands lining up to come here
because of what they built and what the government is tearing
down systematically budget after budget after budget.
This has to stop. We cannot sit here passively, talking about
minor shifts in trade and changes to trade policy or tinkering
and so on with various social programs. At the same time as we
sit here today, the Minister of Finance has tabled legislation in
the House to radically change the way seniors receive their
pensions.
When we cut through all the red tape and all those provisions,
what does it say? It says that hundreds of thousands of seniors
in the future will receive fewer benefits.
Is that the kind of country we are? Is that what we have come
to? Is there anything in this throne speech about a national
child care system? I heard minister after minister promise to
introduce it. I heard Tory ministers promising to introduce it.
Now it has reached a point where they were too embarrassed to
mention it in the throne speech because they know nothing will
happen in the budget.
Things must change. I am pleased to be here with a group of
very progressive New Democrats who on a daily base in the House
will remind the government how it has been cruel and continues to
be cruel to many Canadians. That has to change and change soon.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
let me congratulate you on your appointment.
I was not surprised to hear the member from the NDP trying to
draw a parallel between us and former Prime Minister Brian
Mulroney. Aside from his actions in tearing up his speech, he
failed to draw to our attention that the Brian Mulroney and
Conservative era left us with a humongous deficit of $42 billion
that we inherited in 1993.
It is nice of them to say that we have to do this and we have to
do that, but if we are adding debt and debt we will never be able
to implement any of the programs such as the scholarship fund.
Unfortunately he was not listening.
1305
He failed to bring forth that just last week one of the local
papers in the greater Toronto area stated that employment levels
were as high as they were in 1989. They have been rising. They
all talk about doom and gloom. They do not want to talk about
the good news that has been happening out there. They do not
want to talk about the fact that in 1993 unemployment rates were
11.5 percent and today that are at 9 percent and dropping.
We have to point out to the people that spending our way out of
this is not the solution. The member is saying “Let's open the
purse. Let's spend. It doesn't matter how much debt we will
have. Let's just keep adding to it”.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Was that a question, Mr. Speaker? It
was kind of a rant, I thought.
My hon. friend is right. The government announced that it will
do something to help students some day in the future. Is this
not nice? In fact it was more precise. By the year 2000 it will
take some action.
If my friends opposite were sincere about helping young people
afford post-secondary education, they would go far beyond having
a scholarship program. They would consider doing away with
tuition fees in our post-secondary institutions.
I can hear my hon. friend now, that whining we hear all the
time: “Where are they going to get the money?” We always hear
whining from across the way.
This is not a new concept. Other countries that put a priority
on young people's education have long had tuition free
universities and colleges. It is not a new concept. It exists
today.
Rather than give a tax break to one of the tens of thousands of
very profitable corporations that do not pay a single cent in
income tax year after year, why do we not close some of those
loopholes? Then we could have some money for post-secondary
education funding.
We will hear comments any day now—we should be hearing them in
question period today—that the government has decided the
Cadillac helicopter purchase has been changed into a Chevrolet
and now we can afford it. We will be dishing out money now for
the helicopters. Fair enough. That is what this job is all
about. Helicopters will probably be a lot more important than
helping poor children. Buying helicopters will probably be a
more important initiative than helping young people afford
education. That is a decision that the government might well
take.
If it does, let us recognize that as long as it tolerates more
than one million children living in poverty it will have to wear
on its shoulders what the Conference of Catholic Bishops reminded
us is a form of child abuse.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the compassion in the speech of the
member for Kamloops as he talked about the people living at the
poverty line, the unemployed and the seniors who are scraping to
get buy.
I have to ask the member for Kamloops, who is looking forward to
his $1 million gold plated MPs pension, where his compassion was
when he had the opportunity to say “No thanks. I have a
conscience. I can't accept that gold plated pension”. Where
was his compassion then, when he gets a pension five, six or
seven times richer than the union members who have to work 30
years to get one-fifth of that? Where was his compassion? He is
no different from the Liberals. He is no different from the
Tories.
The Reform Party gave $30 million back to the Canadian people by
giving up their gold plated pensions. We did it because we care
about Canadians. We care about the debt and we care about taxes.
Where is the compassion?
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Charlotte on a
point of order.
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Reform member is mentioning pensions. In defence of the NDP
member I simply want to say that he is working in this House for
the Canadian people. He is not on pension. That is a ridiculous
statement and is completely out of order.
The Deputy Speaker: I think the hon member will realize
that was not a point of order. It was a matter of debate.
Does the hon. member for Kamloops wish to respond to the comment
made by the hon. member Prince George—Bulkley Valley. If so, I
will give him a moment. The five minute questions and comments
period has expired so I would ask him to be brief.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. My
hon. friend asked about the MPs' pension. Perhaps the best thing
he could do would be to ask his own members of the Reform Party
to take their pensions.
1310
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I begin my first speech in this assembly of democracy
feeling a tremendous sense of responsibility given to me by the
people in my constituency of Winnipeg North Centre, a
constituency which is recognized right across this country as a
symbol, as an example of the struggle for dignity, equality and
justice in society today.
They have given me a responsibility to fight for things that
matter most to people, the things that were missing in the Speech
from the Throne, the most important issues that affect people on
a day to day basis: the matter of jobs, the matter of quality
health care, the matter of good public education, the matter of
hope for our young people, the matter of security for working
families and the matter of dignity for our seniors.
All of us in the NDP caucus feel the sense of responsibility
people have entrusted in us. We will keep our promise. We will
not break our commitment to raise those issues day in and day
out. We will work as we have never worked before to ensure that
their voices are heard in this Chamber.
When I was elected I asked my eight year old son what I should
say and do. He said “Tell everyone that we will make Ottawa
rock”. That is exactly what we intend to do day in and day out
in this Chamber.
We are here on behalf of people everywhere saying the rhetoric
that ran as thick as syrup in the Speech from the Throne will not
end the despair of people living without work or living with the
daily fear of losing the job they may now hold.
It will not relieve the stress on families trying to juggle
several jobs, the responsibilities they have for the care of
their children and the obligation they feel for their communities
and their involvement in community life. It will not end the
pain and suffering women feel on a day to day basis because they
have to live with the threat of violence.
My sense of responsibility, as I make my first speech in the
House of Commons, also comes from those who came before me, those
who made a difference in the lives of people in my constituency
and indeed everywhere in this country. I am very fortunate to
claim both Stanley Knowles and David Orlikow as my predecessors,
two longstanding parliamentarians who made a real difference.
Who among us would not be familiar with the dogged persistence
of David Orlikow who, for 26 years in this House, fought day in
and day out for individuals and for policies that would improve
people's lives and ensure some measure of dignity, security and
equality among all people of all regions of the country? I am
proud to carry on his work. I am grateful for his contribution
to Canada and I look forward to his ongoing help and advice.
As my leader said yesterday, I also register a great deal of
sadness at not being able to enter this Chamber and see my old
friend and colleague, Stanley Knowles, sitting at the table. It
was a dream I had. Unfortunately it just was not to be. However
we are left with his legacy. The best way we can honour the work
of Stanley Knowles is to carry on the work he fought for so long
and hard for 38 years in the House of Commons.
All of the issues and policies he fought so hard to achieve are
now under attack by the Liberal government today. Canadians can
be sure that we will fight to preserve a public pension system to
stop the erosion of security for seniors in their old age. We
will be there day in and day out.
1315
And we will try to do it as Stanley Knowles would have done it,
with honour and dignity and integrity. Mr. Speaker, you can be
sure that I will be raising many issues in this House but I will
take my critic areas very seriously.
Twenty years ago when I was a parliamentary intern in this place
I remember hearing a member of Parliament, a member of the then
Liberal government, saying “don't worry about high unemployment
among women, after all it is men who are the primary wage
earners”.
Having been here for the past few days, having heard the Speech
from the Throne, are we any further ahead today under this
government, or is this government just more subtle about its
practice of continuing inequality and discrimination in our
society today?
Is it not the case that the privatization and deregulation and
off-loading and cutback policies of this government are
contributing to hardship and pain and suffering and greater
inequalities facing women in our society today?
If women's equality is important would it not be the case that
this government would have long ago honoured its obligations
under the human rights act to ensure that women in the federal
public service were paid on the basis of equality?
Would it not be the case that instead of offering women half a
loaf, this government would have said that before it considers
spending $12.2 million on bonuses for senior civil servants, it
will ensure it meets its obligations and ensures equal pay for work
of equal value?
Mr. Speaker, you can also be sure that I will be raising, as
much as possible, issues pertaining to health care. Medicare is
our most treasured national program, a matter of pride, a matter
of equality and a matter of real meaningful intervention in the
lives of people. That program is in serious trouble and let us
not forget it is because of the policies of this government. Let
us not allow members of this government to suggest that it is
another level of government's responsibility entirely.
Let us remember that this government in 1993 introduced the most
regressive social policy in the history of this country, the
Canada health and social transfer, and took the single biggest
bite out of health care in the history of medicare.
For many of us it was absolutely galling to read the Speech from
the Throne and the statement “we will legislate to put back, to
increase funds for the Canada health care system to the tune of
$12.5 billion”. We now are at the base floor of $12.5 billion.
This government owes it to the people of Canada and to the
future of medicare to ensure that our cash transfer payments for
health care reflect the needs of health care, ensure that we are
able to meet our obligations and that every Canadian is able to
gain access to the best quality care in this country by virtue of
being a member of a civilized country.
Deception, absolutely, because in fact the Speech from the
Throne did also not mention that under the present formula of
this government dollars from the federal government to provincial
governments will actually decline in real terms. It does not
look at the growth in the economy. It does not consider growth
in population.
We will see in real dollar terms a continual drop in funding
from this government to the provinces, thereby jeopardizing even
further the future of medicare in this country.
There are so many more issues to raise and so little time. I
want to acknowledge the challenges we all face. I and many of my
colleagues in this caucus are trying to juggle our work as a
members of Parliament and also our responsibility to our
children.
Many of us have young children. We are grateful for their
support and we recognize that we are not unique. We represent
many families, many women in this country trying to juggle so
much because of the inaction and the lack of attention of this
government to those very important issues.
1320
In the name of Stanley Knowles and others who have fought so
hard for these issues, we will be as vigilant as possible to
ensure that every person in this country is able to live with
security, dignity and hope for the future.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Winnipeg North
Centre for her maiden remarks in the House of Commons. As I
listened to her I thought about the fact that many of the things
she said today are things that, believe it or not, many of us on
this side of the House believe in as well. In my riding 50 p.
cent of
the people who voted for me are New Democrats. It is not a
question of us being ideologically different.
In this Parliament we must not throw ideas out in a general
sense. We have to be a little more specific in how we get our
ideas into play. For example, the member for Kamloops came up
with the idea of cancelling tuition for post-secondary education.
It is an interesting idea but I do not think we can table an
idea like that on the floor of the House of Commons unless we can
link some dollars to it. If our ideas are going to have
credibility I share the member's son's view that we should try to
make this place rock. We really should. This place is a stiff,
dull place at the best of times.
If we are really going to have credibility we need to have
numbers attached to some of these ideas. It is only through that
approach that we will have a reasonable chance of getting some of
these ideas into a debate with some credibility attached.
I would like to ask the member a specific question. Does she
think it is a reasonable request for when New Democrats throw a
specific idea on the floor? For example, I do not believe Bob Rae
or Roy Romanow really wanted to close 100 hospitals over 18
months. I believe they had a fiscal dilemma on their hands. They
are both good people. When we come back with ideas on how to
correct it, I really think numbers should be attached. If the
notion of forgetting about the fiscal framework of this country
creeps back in, then we will have higher interest rates which
will hurt us when we are trying to get jobs going. Could the
member please respond to that?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, if the member is
wondering at all why some provinces are trying to do the best
they can in terms of limited health care resources, he should
start asking his own Minister of Health how we can revamp the
transfer payment system so that provinces are not squeezed. He
should consider the fact that if we take $6.8 billion out of the
health care system, we will be left with enormous pressures on
provincial governments, on other organizations and on families.
It is absolutely critical that we all work together to reverse
that trend. I look forward to help from the member in convincing
the ministers of health and finance that we need to start
increasing transfer payments. It may not be overnight that we
get it back up to the $19 billion it was when they took office
but certainly we could start today to reverse that so people are
not forced into a difficult decision.
The question was how much. We have been very specific on this
issue and every other issue. We have said let us work now to
increase the transfer payments to provinces at least to $15
billion. That is a small step toward improving the situation. It
would make a big difference.
The member asked for specifics. Give me 24 hours and I could
fill that time with the specifics we have suggested.
Let me make two very quick references.
1325
In the whole area of health care and caring for seniors and
children we have said over and over again that if the government
would only look at it as something which is an important social
investment and a job creation tool, we would be a lot better off
in this country. There are thousands of jobs to be created if
the government would just realize that it has a responsibility to
ensure that there is a measure of quality care for everyone.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: And the source of funding?
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: If the member would give me another
few hours I could certainly list a variety of measures,
especially under the taxation system to deal with precisely that
question.
One other quick example is that if we did something as simple as
environmental conservation in energy efficiency in our own public
buildings, retrofit them, with a small investment we could create
4,000 jobs very quickly. That would not be a cost because it
would pay for itself in a short time. There are dozens and
dozens of ideas. We will keep bringing them forward in the
House. I look forward to the member's supporting our proposals.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I too would like to offer either my congratulations or my
condolences to you. I think your job is going to be interesting
over the next four or five years. I wish you well and I look
forward to it.
I will be sharing my time with the member for
Waterloo—Wellington who will speak after me.
I would like to begin by paying tribute to my predecessors who
have represented Mississauga West. Mississauga Centre became the
new riding in the redistribution and the member previous for
Mississauga West is now the member for Mississauga Centre; prior
to her Dr. Bob Horner, a good friend and a wonderful man,
unfortunately with the Conservative Party, although not his fault;
prior to him of course Doug Fisher, a good long time Liberal, and
Tony Abbot before him.
My riding has always sent a representative to the government, no
matter what party happened to be elected. Fortunately for me
it has done so once again.
Specifically I would like to thank the voters of Mississauga
West for their confidence in sending me to Ottawa to represent
them in this place. Mississauga West is an interesting riding
made up of three very distinct communities, Streetsville, Erin
Mills and Meadowvale. The perception of the riding is really
different than the reality, as is probably true of many ridings.
The perception is that it is a riding with high average
incomes. It is mainly family and small business oriented, a
riding of baby boomers one might say.
In addition we have our share of concerns and problems. I
frankly take exception to a member of the House standing in his
place and saying that because we are Liberals in the government
we do not care about people. That is absolute nonsense. It is
stuff that I have listened to for five years in opposition to the
NDP in the parliament of Ontario. It is interesting that is
almost déja vu in this place.
We care about social housing problems. We need more in my
riding. I was the president of the Peel non-profit housing while
a member of Peel regional council. I was on that board for nine
years. We have women's shelters and a food bank. We want to end
the systemic violence against women and children, and no
individual or political party in the House has cornered those
concepts and ideas.
We have youth unemployment and under employment. I have three
sons in their 20s and I am concerned about their future the same
as all parents care about the future of their children. We have
new Canadians, refugees who need help to adjust. We have crime.
We need to fight crime to take back our streets. We in the
Liberal Party believe that we can do all of those things by
providing a balance.
That brings me to my point with regard the throne speech. We
will not govern on the extremes of the right or the extremes of
the left. Rather we will bring a balance to the government of
this great country.
We hear calls to spend more from the left. I sat and watched an
NDP government in Ontario take the total debt of that province
from $39 billion in 1990 to over $100 billion in 1995, which
literally destroyed the confidence of one of our greatest
provinces. What I hear from the party of the left is to spend
more.
1330
I watched what the Tories did. It was interesting to hear the
sound bite this morning on the news of the leader of what I
believe is the fifth party in this beautiful establishment, the
leader of the Progressive Conservatives, who said that there was
a sign over the Prime Minister's door which reads “send it and
we will spend it”. There was a sign over Mr. Mulroney's door
which read “we will spend it before you send it”. The NDP sign
would say “we will spend it. You send it and we will spend it
again”. That is the nonsense of getting into extremes.
I find the official opposition to be rather interesting. It is
the politics of Ross Perot. It uses analogies like Ross Perot
would do when he says on television “If you want to know why the
car won't run, you have to open up the hood and look at the
engine”. I heard the Leader of the Opposition say that they
have fixed one of the flat tires on the car. I heard the speaker
from the Reform Party this morning go through some incredible
analogy about a ship at sea going down the Niagara River. He
lost most Canadians and most people in the House before he got on
board the particular ship.
An hon. member: He failed geography.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Our plan is a balanced plan. We said
clearly and loudly during the election that when we achieve a
surplus, 50 percent of that surplus will go to the kind of social
spending that the NDP talks about and for tax relief, and 50 p.
cent
will go toward debt reduction.
It is a balanced plan that we believe the people of Canada
believe in. Clearly they have sent us here to administer that
plan and to deliver it.
[Translation]
I would ask my hon. friends in the third party to remember that
Canada is a unique and wonderful country. From coast to coast, our
country embraces many regions, each different in its own way, including
the very unique province of Quebec.
Throughout our long history, we have learned to set our differences
aside and work together to build a great country.
A great and vigorous country where democracy flourishes, without
sacrificing minority rights, a country where citizens can move freely,
a country where everyone can speak freely without fear of persecution,
a country that is the envy of the world.
I believe all Canadians are prepared to reconcile their differences
and continue building their country. Recent surveys show that the vast
majority of Quebecers want to stay in Canada. Quebecers want to be a
part of this great country.
I would urge hon. members of the third party to respect the will of
the majority of Quebecers as expressed in two referendums and numerous
surveys, and give up their plans to destroy this unparalleled success.
I suggest they join us to continue building this country.
[English]
I apologize for the quality of my French, but I think it is
important that we send the message to the third party in the
House that the people of Quebec are sending to you. We want
Quebec to stay in Canada and help build this wonderful country.
1335
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I was very
interested to hear what the hon. member from the Liberal Party had to
say. In particular, in spite of his pronunciation, I appreciated the few
words he said in French.
He referred to Canada as unique. This is a word we are hearing
constantly nowadays. Unique and wonderful. And he referred to Quebec as
a very unique province. This qualifier adds to the uniqueness. He said
that Canada and Quebec should work together. He also referred to two
referendums.
What I would like—
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I just wanted to inquire—and I believe this is a point
of order—whether it is customary for an official opposition
member who is standing to receive the first question following a
debate or whether it is up to the Speaker's discretion. Could
you clarify that for me? I was standing in my place.
The Deputy Speaker: I saw the hon. member. There were
two members who rose. I noted that the hon. member had been
given a question in questions and comments a short time ago and I
thought it fair to give one to one of the other members who had
risen. I am choosing a round as best I can in exercising
discretion.
I do not think it is normal that necessarily the official
opposition gets the first question on a government member's
question. What is normal is that an opposition member gets it.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge and appreciate
your customary wisdom. I also want to thank my other colleagues for
their smiles and moral support.
As I was saying, our Liberal Party colleague referred earlier to
the two referendums which were held. I may remind him, however, that on
both occasions, promises were made to the people of Quebec, and in both
cases, these promises were not kept.
Back to the Speech from the Throne. In 1994, the throne speech
considered the possibility of being more open, in 1996, it proposed
strategies to that effect, but in 1997, we hear the exact opposite from
the Governor General.
I would like to ask the hon. member of the Liberal Party two
questions, and I would appreciate an answer. He wants Quebec and Canada
to work together.
Does the hon. member opposite acknowledge the existence of the people of
Quebec? To work together, we must first be who we are. If we are, we can
work together in a partnership, something we have offered to do since we
came to this House.
Does he acknowledge the existence of the people of Quebec? That is
my question. I am waiting for his answer. If he is consistent in what he
says, his answer will be a resounding yes. I will now listen to what he
has to say.
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, it is helpful for the
member to ask the question and then tell me what I should answer.
I appreciate the fact that the two parties are fighting over an
opportunity to respond to some of my comments.
Let me say very directly to the member opposite that I
certainly—and I believe my government—recognize the province of
Quebec as a partner within Confederation. We recognize it as a
unique society. I personally recognize it as quite distinct.
When we look at language, when we look at law, when we look at
culture, there is every reason for the country to embrace the
province of Quebec as a distinct society or a unique society,
whatever word we want to put on it.
I was in fact cautioned before I made my somewhat embarrassing
attempt at French.
The reason I was doing it was that hopefully within a year or so
I will be a little more proficient and able to address answers to
the member in the French language.
1340
I was also told that I probably should not waste my time trying
to convert the Bloc Quebecois. I can see that is obvious. You
have one goal and one goal only and that is to destroy this
country. Frankly that is not what—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I do not wish to
interrupt the hon. member but he must address his remarks to the
Chair. I invite him to do so and he may continue his answer.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, the party opposite has a
clear-cut goal. Having said that, I think it is important for
those of us from English Canada, from communities like
Mississauga which by the way is designated as officially
bilingual because of the francophone community we have there, to
say that we do not want the polarization that party seeks. We
want Canada to be strong.
We realize that in order to be strong we have to deal with the
issue of separation and national unity. We have to send a
message from sea to sea to sea which says we are united, that
Quebec is a part of Canada.
A vast majority of the people, at least a clear majority of the
people in the province of Quebec, has recently stated they are
tired of this issue. They are more concerned about the economy
and they want to get on with building this great nation.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I congratulate you on your appointment as a Speaker of this great
House. It is an honour for you and deserving of both you and
this great institution.
I represent the riding of Waterloo—Wellington, one of the four
new ridings in Ontario and one of four new ridings in all of
Canada. I am exceedingly proud, honoured and humbled to
represent this great riding. I am immensely grateful to my
constituents for electing me to this 36th Parliament. I will
undertake to serve my constituents to the very best of my ability
and talent.
Waterloo—Wellington captures the essence of Canada. It
contains a large city, the city of Kitchener. It contains small
town Ontario: Elora, Fergus, Jacobs, Elmira, Baden, New Hamburg,
Harrison and Palmerston. It contains a number of smaller towns
and villages including St. Agatha, New Dundee, Wellesley,
Drayton, Clifford, Belwood, Conestogo, Maryhill and Breslau. It
contains that famous place called Punky Doodle's Corner.
Waterloo—Wellington is a rich and diverse riding of urban,
rural and suburban people. It contains people from all walks of
life and from all backgrounds. Approximately 30 percent of the wealth
of the riding is generated as a result of agriculture and
agribusiness. Farming is important to our part of Ontario.
I was born, raised and still live on the family farm. My great
great grandparents first settled in the area in 1828, arriving
via Pennsylvania with the many Mennonites whose descendants still
inhabit the area. In fact the highest number and concentration
of old order Mennonites and Amish people in all of Canada reside
in my riding.
While the histories of my constituents are rich, varied and
diverse, they are united in their love of and loyalty to Canada
and all that we as Canadians stand for. We as Canadians are
respectful of our institutions. We as Canadians are respectful
of our symbols. We as Canadians are respectful of our values.
Each of these helps to define us as Canadians. The Speech from
the Throne delivered on Tuesday by the Governor General will also
contribute to our definition as Canadians. I want at this time
to thank the mover and seconder of that speech.
Canada will march confidently into the 21st century and the new
millennium. We have a plan and a vision which will enable Canada
to be the very best in every way for its citizens. The
foundation of that plan is to balance the books. It is
gratifying to hear that the deficit will effectively be
eliminated in the next fiscal year.
1345
The trouble with doing something right the first time in over 30
years is that no one really appreciates how difficult it was to
get there, but I believe Canadians do appreciate the enormity of
the sacrifice to bring the deficit from $42 billion in 1993 down
to zero in the next fiscal year. I believe Canadians appreciate
that the many years of sacrifice will pay off in the end, and
that end is soon.
Once we are in the surplus situation, the formula as has been
noted is an easy one to understand. One-half will support the
programs Canadians want and deserve and the other half will go
toward debt reduction and tax reduction. With this game plan
Canada is poised to lead the industrialized world in economic
growth this year and next and beyond. Our plan provides us with
the fiscal stability necessary to allow change to be accommodated
effectively and efficiently.
Jobs are being created at a remarkable pace but we need to do
more. Unemployment, especially youth unemployment, is at an
unacceptable level. We need to look at establishing a national
apprenticeship style program for our young people, recognizing
there are provincial implications, but co-operation would be the
key here. It would be an apprenticeship program that would marry
the needs of society with the aspirations of our young people. It
would assist the private sector to meet its labour requirements
and ensure that young people would have the opportunity to
acquire that important first job.
Even before we turn our eyes to youth unemployment we need to
reach out to the youth of our nation. Some of the very most
vulnerable Canadians go to school each day hungry. As a former
teacher I can say that a hungry child is much more likely to be a
problem learner with poor school performance. A hungry child is
much more likely to be a behavioural problem. Children with
learning and behavioural problems are much more likely to become
drop-outs from school and from society. As the former chairman of
the Waterloo regional police I can also say that drop-outs from
school and society often fall into the trap of crime and become
young offenders.
The social and economic impacts of youth crime are unacceptable
to Canadians. They are demanding that we act proactively to
attack the roots of crime. In a country as wealthy as Canada
with its physical and human resources, I find it unacceptable
that even one child would go hungry. I believe that we as a
caring society and a caring nation need to put in place a program
to eradicate child hunger. Investments in that regard made today
will pay enormous dividends tomorrow.
We owe our children regardless of the status of their families
the opportunity to learn, to grow and to become valued citizens
without the burden of hunger. Attacking child hunger and the
roots of youth crime must therefore be a priority of this
government in its attack on child poverty. I am pleased to see
the progress made and the initiatives outlined in the Speech from
the Throne. We owe this investment to our children, to ourselves
and to the future of Canada.
I personally look forward to voicing the views of my
constituents in this great Parliament, and like all good
parliamentarians I will listen more and judge less. I look
forward to working together with my colleagues for the betterment
of Canada. Finally I look forward to helping to continue to
build the strong foundation upon which this great country of ours
stands, a foundation which will confer prosperity, safety and a
sense of community for all Canadians into the 21st century.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member from the Liberal Party
talk about how the Liberal Party should be getting a lot of
praise and pats on the back for finally doing something right
after the last 30 years.
Let us look at what the Liberals have done right. What they
have been practising for 30 years along with their friends in the
Tory party and their friends in the NDP is more effective ways of
wrenching dollars out of the taxpayers' pockets. They not only
got it right during the 35th Parliament, but they have perfected
it. They have wrenched an extra $25 billion out of the pockets
of Canadian businesses and Canadian workers by raising taxes in
more than 36 different areas.
They got it right all right, but let us not let them take any
praise for it because the Canadian taxpayers are the ones who had
to bear the brunt of that tax torture.
1350
I am certain that the member has read the throne speech and he
has a good handle on the economic numbers, better than the
finance minister had yesterday. I would like to ask the member
the question the finance minister could not answer. When exactly
can we expect the first surplus after the balanced budget, and
exactly according to the Liberal numbers, how much is that
surplus going to be? When and how much?
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member opposite,
I would not presuppose and begin to answer for the finance
minister. I would however say that it seems to me that the
Reform Party just does not get it.
There is importance in getting our fiscal house in order. We as
a government have been able to do that over the past number of
years not only effectively but efficiently. That speaks volumes
about the ability of the government to take a terrible financial
situation and put in place the kinds of safeguards that will
ensure prosperity not only for this generation but for
generations to come.
It seems to me that that groundwork now having been laid will
ensure that prosperity will flow and we can then all share fully
in that surplus position.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speake,
before making my comments to the member for Waterloo—Wellington,
I would like to congratulate you on being returned to your duties
as Deputy Speaker of this House. You certainly deserve it, having
proven your mettle in the 35th Parliament, and I trust you will be
just as vigilant in the 36th.
I would address my remarks to the member for Waterloo—Wellington,
an educator it seems. I understand that he cares a
great deal about young Canadians and especially the young people in
his riding.
Does he consider the abnormally high rate of unemployment among
young people to be normal? The rate, unfortunately, did not
decrease over the four years his government, the Liberal Party, sat
in this House. On the contrary, it increased. The rate of
unemployment among young people increased.
Is it the member's intention to propose concrete solutions to
his Liberal caucus for improving things for our young people, to
enable them to find satisfying work that complements their studies
at CEGEP or university?
[English]
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member
opposite, I would simply say that any rate of unemployment is not
normal. We will have to, as will people from all parts of Canada
and members on all sides of the House, work to ensure that the
kind of unemployment which we have now is brought down to an
effective and appropriate level.
I would say to him that we need to continue to work very hard to
ensure that is the case. We will press not only government but
also caucus members to do that to ensure that the best kinds of
jobs will be in place for Canadians.
The Speaker: Debate. Of course I am going to recognize
the hon. member for Charlotte. However I was wondering, instead
of having you begin and then interrupting your remarks for
question period, if you would begin your remarks when the debate
reconvenes. Would that be acceptable to you?
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, that would be more than
acceptable.
1355
[Translation]
The Speaker: My colleagues, as it is nearly 2 p.m., perhaps we
could begin with members' statements.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Kent—Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
week is Legion Week here in Ontario. We as Canadians owe a great
deal to the men and women of the Royal Canadian Legion who in
many cases have devoted their lives to the remembrance of their
fallen comrades as well as those who have made major sacrifices
for the defence of our country.
Legion members across this land take up the torch daily to
enhance the lives of seniors, youth, veterans and the disabled.
Last year alone $310 million were raised and spent in communities
across this country while three million hours of work were put in
by volunteers and members of this great organization.
May I express the thanks of millions of Canadians for the great
work and dedication given to us by the Royal Canadian Legion
members.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a little fish story for the House today.
A bunch of the good old boys, like Turbot Tobin and Walleye
Woodward, were out with their chum the Federal Fisherman. What a
time; no worries, no cares, just them and those Labrador sport
fish. It was very educational for the Federal Fisherman. During
his time there he almost learned the difference between the
salmon and a sucker.
I am sure the member for Burin—St. George's urges the Federal
Fisherman to make this an annual event so that every July he
spends his hard-earned dollars in Labrador. And just like this
July, the minister can celebrate his return by flying over Prince
Rupert and the salt water fishermen far below.
Is it not wonderful that the Prime Minister does not subtract
days spent fishing in Labrador from a minister's shelf life.
* * *
ARTS AND CULTURE
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Fergus, Ontario is located in my riding. Fergus among other
things is noted for its architectural beauty which is surpassed
only by its natural beauty located as it is on the Grand River
watershed. Fergus is also famous as the home of the Fergus
Scottish Highland Games.
Recently an opportunity has arisen for the purchase and
renovation of the Fergus building that houses the Grand Theatre,
which a number of theatre groups call home. A fundraising
campaign has started and is called “the crowning touch to
restore the downtown jewel”. Needless to say, I support this
very worthwhile effort.
The initiative in Fergus underscores the necessity for Canadians
wherever they live to support cultural and community endeavours
such as this. The preservation, promotion and expansion of
Canadian culture in all its many forms is both necessary and
desirable.
I applaud all of those who, like the residents in Fergus, are
doing something to support our culture.
* * *
[Translation]
CENTRE DES FEMMES DE LAVAL
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I take special
pleasure today in paying tribute to the Centre des femmes de Laval,
which is celebrating 15 years of operation.
The centre, whose main goal is to improve living conditions for
women, provides shelter, counselling, information and support to all
women in Laval.
Be it through information and training or through innovative
programs, the Centre des femmes de Laval brings women together to
discuss their individual situations, look for solutions and, more
importantly, break down the isolation women often unwillingly find
themselves in.
1400
As a founding member of the centre, I want to congratulate the
board of directors, the staff and especially the volunteers who work in
this key player in the Laval community.
Long live the Centre des femmes!
* * *
[English]
ROYAL VICTORIA HOSPITAL
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House for the first time in my new career
as a federal politician to congratulate the citizens of my riding
of Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford for their magnificent community
spirit and fund-raising efforts which have resulted in the
development of the new Royal Victoria Hospital.
I was honoured to participate on September 13 with the
Lieutenant-Governor and the minister of health for Ontario as we
celebrated together this splendid new facility.
[Translation]
It was truly a happy occasion.
[English]
The 297 bed facility will be the regional hospital for all of
Simcoe County and beyond. It is the result of the impressive
Building on a Century campaign which saw the community raise $15
million toward its construction.
The new hospital features over $25 million in state of the art
equipment and will be the location of Ontario's newest breast
screening site.
* * *
DR. TOM BOLTON
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 25
years ago this week Dr. Tom Bolton discovered the first evidence
of black holes while working at the David Dunlap Observatory,
University of Toronto, located in Richmond Hill.
A black hole is a collapsed star of such mass and density that
nothing can escape from it, not even light. There had long been
speculation that black holes existed, but Dr. Bolton produced the
first credible evidence.
This is an event of great importance, not only to my riding of
Oak Ridges, but also to Canada. We are in the forefront of great
scientific discoveries, working with the largest telescope in
Canada.
The University of Toronto boasts one of the world's greatest
programs in astrophysics and with continued support, not only
from the federal government but also from committed private
supporters, I am sure we can look forward to maintaining Canada's
leading edge discoveries and contributions to international space
exploration.
I congratulate Dr. Bolton.
* * *
PROSTATE CANCER
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
prostate cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer among
Canadian men, with an estimated 80 men being diagnosed every
working day. Its incidence is 40 percent greater than that of breast
cancer and only lung cancer kills more men than does prostate
cancer.
Prostate cancer, because it strikes one man in eight, is, like
breast cancer, a serious disease which affects huge numbers of
Canadian families. Yet prostate cancer, which kills 4,000 men
each year, was ignored in the government's throne speech. It
continues to receive just one-ninth of the funding of breast
cancer research and one-fiftieth of the research money given to
AIDS.
September is prostate cancer awareness month so let us begin
adequately funding prostate cancer research, not at the expense
of funding for other cancer research, but at least to the same
levels. We owe it to ourselves, our families and our
constituents.
* * *
[Translation]
CAPE PROJECT
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have reason to be proud of Canada's youth.
On September 19, the Canadian Space Agency in St. Hubert hosted an
event involving the elementary and high school students taking part in
the CAPE project. This project is aimed at sending experimental
equipment primarily designed for protein crystallization to the MIR
station.
The experiments were developed by young students from across the
country in co-operation with their teachers and with scientists who may
be their colleagues 15 years from now.
As the member representing the Minister of Industry at this event
and a teacher by profession, I have seen for myself that we need not
worry about the next generation of Canadian scientists.
[English]
Our government is investing in such programs as CAPE to ensure
that more students have better opportunities in finding jobs and
more opportunities to learn the skills that they will need in
building Canada's future.
[Translation]
I hope the experiments leaving for MIR today, which testify to the
inquisitiveness and ingenuity of Canadian youth, will be an unqualified
success.
* * *
1405
WORLD MARITIME WEEK
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this week we are
celebrating World Maritime Week and I want to take this opportunity to
draw to the attention of all members the future of the Lévis shipyard.
I would have preferred to talk about good news this week.
Unfortunately, the government's lack of action in the shipbuilding
sector is just as bad as it was during the Liberals' first mandate.
Indeed, Davie Industries executives have been waiting for months
for a positive reply to a request for financial security from the Export
Development Corporation, in order to execute a $125-million contract
with Petrobras, a Brazilian crown corporation. The refitting of the
Spirit of Columbus platform would immediately create 400 jobs.
We are also still waiting for the implementation of a true
shipbuilding policy, as promised by the Liberals four years ago. Let us
hope that World Maritime Week will be a wake-up call for the Liberal
government.
* * *
THRONE SPEECH
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the member
for Laval West, I want to congratulate the government on its Speech from
the Throne to open the first session of the 36th Parliament of Canada in
which it set out its priorities for the years ahead.
Of particular note is its wish to maintain national unity. Our
government should be congratulated on its clearly stated intention to
contribute to the effort by federal, provincial and territorial
governments to develop a more collaborative approach to strengthening
and modernizing Canada's social union.
In order to build a stronger Canada, our government will invest in
children, in quality care and good health, and will take steps to ensure
the safety of our communities.
These are some of the goals that we believe will help bring all
Canadians closer together as we head into the next millennium.
* * *
[English]
VANCOUVER KINGSWAY
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I want to convey to you and to this House that it is a great
honour to represent Vancouver Kingsway in this Parliament.
One of the most important strengths of Vancouver Kingsway is its
cultural diversity. From around the globe, communities of
Italian, Portuguese, Korean, Japanese, East Indian, Filipino,
Chinese, Greek and others have made my riding their chosen home.
Through their cultures and the traditions they have enriched this
country.
As the first Asian Canadian woman to be elected to Parliament, I
am proud to be their voice here in Ottawa and to champion their
diversity.
* * *
BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today we read of the sad and unfortunate conclusions of a
one-time prominent Conservative senator who, having spent a
lifetime trying to change the federation from within, is now
reduced to bitter mumblings about B.C.'s separation from Canada.
What went wrong?
Perhaps it started with the Liberals and the national energy
program, an arrogant, me first initiative that gouged the west
and catered to the east. Perhaps the fault lies with the
Conservative leader, the leader of her own party who, bereft of
ideas for Canada, clings desperately to the distinct society
clause as a solution to national unity.
First it was a report from the B.C. adviser on national unity
warning of the potential of western separation. Now a prominent
senator has turned her back on her own party, its leader and the
centrist ideas for which it stands.
It is time to listen up, Mr. Prime Minister. If he continues to
ignore the concerns of western Canada, if he refuses to recognize
Canada as a federation of equal provinces and citizens, if he
continues to ignore the pleadings for parliamentary and Senate
reform, he will have sown the wind only to reap the whirlwind.
* * *
1410
THE LATE DUDLEY GEORGE
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday I attended an event marking a tragic day in our
country's history. Two years ago Dudley George was shot dead. He
was one of 40 people peacefully protesting at Ipperwash. These
unarmed citizens ended up facing the Ontario Provincial Police
riot squad and the tactical weapons squad. The responsibility for
this anti-native act lies with the current Ontario government.
Just two days ago the government in the throne speech committed
itself to “develop relationships with aboriginal peoples based
on the principles of partnership, transparency, predictability
and accountability”. Transparency and accountability, enough
words.
I call on the government to support the call for a full public
inquiry in Ontario. Each day that passes without a full public
inquiry into Ipperwash darkens the stain of the blood spilled at
that tragic event.
* * *
OSTEOPOROSIS
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, studies show that elderly people can minimize the loss
of bone that may lead to osteoporosis, a debilitating bone
disease that affects thousands of Canadian seniors by consuming
the higher amount of calcium and vitamin D now recommended by the
Osteoporosis Society of Canada.
I urge people over 50 in my riding of Brampton Centre and
throughout Canada to add at least one extra serving of dairy
products to their daily menu to help keep their bones and teeth
strong.
We can all contribute to improving our own chances for wellness
and reduce the future cost for medicare by making the right
choices now.
* * *
INCOME TAXES
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, taxes are too
high. While progress has been made in lowering the deficit, it
has come at the expense of jobs and higher taxes.
If Canadians experience increases in their incomes, personal
income taxes, EI and CPP premiums reduce those incomes by
two-thirds. Taxes in Canada from all levels of government account
for more than one-third of the GDP. CPP hikes proposed by this
government with current EI premiums will further burden already
over taxed Canadians.
Clearly lower taxes mean both economic and employment growth. As
a nation that depends on bilateral trade with the United States,
the widening tax gap between the two countries continues to
damage our standard of living.
If the government is serious about jobs for all Canadians in
this new economy, it must now get serious about tax cuts and
lower EI premiums as Canadians have earned this right.
We are the only political party that is advocating tax cuts now.
The Speaker: Yesterday I shared with you my intention,
with your help of course, to make question period a little more
brisk, if you will. I want to thank all of the interveners
yesterday, those who put the questions and those who gave the
answers. I especially want to thank the Prime Minister who
pointed out that he understood that I would be intervening when a
certain amount of time went by.
Today I am going to try to tighten it up just a little bit more
so that we get in both the question and the answer in 35 seconds
and I know that we are all going to co-operate. With that I am
going to recognize the hon. Leader of the Opposition.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
THE DEBT
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in 1992 the Mulroney government passed the debt
servicing and reduction act. It established a special account to
pay down the debt from a special surplus. Of course, Mulroney
continued to spend so there was neither a surplus nor any debt
reduction. The whole thing was a shell game.
Now this prime minister promises to put 50 percent of any surplus into
a special fund and to pay down the debt and give tax relief from
that account while continuing to spend at record levels.
My question for the prime minister is how is his shell game
any different from Mulroney's shell game?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the difference is that during Mr. Mulroney's time he
moved the deficit up to $42 billion. We are reducing it to zero.
That is a very big difference. According to the Speech from the
Throne it will be done in the next year. We are not there yet.
It is amazing the satisfaction I am getting today standing in
the House seeing the Leader of Opposition very preoccupied with
the fact that we have been very successful in what we did with
the finances of the nation.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, anybody could have done better than the federal Tories
in reducing the deficit.
What the prime minister failed to mention is that the national
debt is $82 billion higher than it was under Mulroney. What he
fails to mention is that his government is ripping $3,000 more
from every average Canadian family in taxes than Mulroney did.
And on top of that there are 1.4 million unemployed.
If the prime minister is not playing a shell game, if he wants
to make himself different from Mulroney, then why does he not
pass the bulk of any surplus on to Canadian taxpayers?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if we reduce taxes we are not reducing the deficit. That
is something people will understand. We said that in the end
we will be in a position of surplus. It is coming but we are
not there yet because there are still some problems in the
nation.
When I look at the program of the Leader of the Opposition, he
promised to put $4 billion more into health care. He is a
spender.
That was not a promise from us. We have done it. Right at the
beginning of the campaign we said that next year the provinces
would receive $700 million more and the year after $1.4 billion
and the same thing in the years to come. So over the period of
our term we will have given more back to medicare.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the prime minister has done it to health care. He has
cut the transfer from $19 billion to $12 billion. That is a fact.
There are young families out there in which both parents are
working and they cannot make ends meet because of high tax
levels. There are businesses out there that would hire these
younger workers we are all concerned about except that the
government is charging excessive payroll taxes, and the throne
speech did not promise a cent of tax relief to those families or
those businesses. What it promised are 29 new spending proposals
from the government.
My question to the prime minister is who does he think would
spend any surplus more wisely, Liberal politicians and bureaucrats
or those families and businesses?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition wanted me to speak about
equality of the provinces. I am for that. I am for equality of
individuals. That is exactly why I said yesterday that to make
sure that everybody in Canada is equal we will put some of the
money in the surplus to give a chance for students to go to
university so they will be on an equal footing with the children
of the rich people of Canada.
1420
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Reformers believe that any surpluses belong to Canadians and they
are really demanding accountability. To lay to rest the
confusion over the government's 50:50 promise, will the finance
minister provide a separate accounting for the surplus in all
future budgets and will he commit to itemizing in the 1998 budget
all the new spending announced today? A simple question.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is axiomatic and very clear that in every budget the
government accounts for government spending. I can assure the
hon. member that I will do that.
The Leader of the Opposition drew the comparison between the
Tories and the current government and asked what some of the
differences were. There are a multitude. There is another
difference. I believe that the then minister of finance, Michael
Wilson, wanted to cut the deficit but he did not get the support
of his prime minister, and I did.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
are glad to see that the finance minister is making up with the
prime minister. That is wonderful.
In 1993 the finance minister said no government can operate
effectively when its projections fall consistently short of the
mark. Yet now even he refuses to set a mark. Is this 50:50
shell game a deliberate attempt to bamboozle the public and to
pick the pockets of the Canadian public? That is what we want to
know.
The Speaker: My colleague, I am having a bit of trouble
with the phrase “a deliberate attempt to bamboozle”. I want to
caution the member to please choose his words judiciously.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if anybody is going to make up with anybody, perhaps the
hon. member might make up with his leader whom he consigned to the
scrap heap of history yesterday.
Let me be very clear. We are going to balance the budget in
1998-99. There are going to be surpluses. We are going to be in
a position to cut taxes. We are going to reduce debt and we are
going to invest in the future of Canadians. We will set this out
in the budget and in the interim between now and then in the
fiscal update we are going to consult with Canadians as to their
priorities.
* * *
[Translation]
CALGARY DECLARATION
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Prime Minister made a very telling statement on the
consultations to be held by the provinces on the Calgary declaration.
The Prime Minister said that the federal government might consult
Quebecers, going around the Government of Quebec and the National
Assembly.
I simply want to ask the Prime Minister whether he knows how the
other provinces will consult their citizens on the Calgary declaration.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
provinces have used or will use all kinds of ways to consult their
citizens, and I think the Canadian government has the right to consult
Canadians throughout Canada. However, I did not say we would.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: No, that is not what I said. I said, in
response to a question by the member who asked us to do so immediately,
that I did not reject the idea. First we will see what the provinces
that agreed to work on this will do, and then we will let you know.
However, no one can deny the right of the Parliament of Canada to
consult the voters who elect the members of this Parliament.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister talks about all kinds of ways. We saw a number of these
mentioned in the newspapers. But the Prime Minister did not specify what
kind of means.
How could he, in a major speech he made yesterday, lend such
credibility to strategies as yet unknown, to consultations which may or
may not be reliable? How can he try to go around the Government of
Quebec and the National Assembly without knowing what kind of
consultations the provinces will hold on the Calgary declaration?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, each
provincial government will decide what form of consultation it will use.
At this point, it seems obvious that each government will opt for
different methods.
There are many ways to consult the public. We think that we can
consult the public if necessary. I never said we would do so, and we
never determined what form this would take.
We are perfectly happy to see the provinces select different
methods to consult their citizens, and we hope that at some point they
will adopt resolutions in their respective legislative assemblies, each
province according to its own lights.
As I said before, as soon as they have presented these resolutions,
a similar resolution will be put before this House, and then we will
discuss—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the Right Hon. Prime
Minister, but the hon. member for Temiscamingue has the floor.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Prime Minister.
The premier of Newfoundland has stated that his consultation
on the Calgary declaration would be done via the Internet, a 1-800
line, or at riding meetings.
Does the Prime Minister, who claims to be so concerned about
clarity and transparency, consider this method of consultation to
be sufficient and satisfactory?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the premier of Newfoundland is the one answerable to the voters of
Newfoundland, and it is up to him to defend his proposal.
According to what I have read so far, he has the agreement of
the opposition parties to do this. If he is making use of a modern
method of consultation, that's fine. Each province will have its
own method of consultation.
When the premier of Newfoundland faces his legislature, he
will have to justify his consultation formula. It is not up to me
to approve or disapprove of it, that is up to his legislature.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: And if the Government of Quebec
wants to consult the people of Quebec on the same subject, it can
do so, only it is up to the Government of Quebec to decide, not us.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are
very pleased to hear that it is not up to the Prime Minister to
decide how the provinces are to conduct their business. At last.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Pierre Brien: Since the Prime Minister does not, when it
comes down to it, know all that much about how Brian Tobin and his
colleagues are going to hold their consultations on the Calgary
declaration, how can he use that consultation, whose methodology he
does not know, as a pretext, in a major speech, to make yet another
threat against Quebec?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is of course no connection. I believe the hon. member is saying
that the procedure relating to a referendum on secession should only be
determined by the secessionist government. This is probably what the
member has in mind, but he certainly cannot name one country in the
world which would accept such a thing.
The hon. member must realize that the consultation process carried
out by the premier of Newfoundland has to do with a policy statement
which has no constitutional impact and which only involves that
particular province, for the time being. In the case of a secession, the
territory of Quebec would be excluded from the Canadian legal order and
from Canadian federal institutions, something which cannot be achieved
through such a procedure.
* * *
1425
[English]
FISHERIES
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the prime minister.
Our west coast salmon fishery is in dire straits. British
Columbians, indeed all Canadians, are offended at the federal
government's weak stance in this dispute.
Last week a congressional committee on the Pacific salmon treaty
heard testimony in Washington from key stakeholders. Members of
this House deserve to know that Canada was invited to testify at
those hearings.
Why did the prime minister fail to send representatives to
testify at these hearings and to stand up for Canada's interests?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the hon. member,
whose experience has been in a provincial legislature rather than
in the national legislature, would not understand that in Canada,
as in the United States, it is a decision of the committee itself
as to who will appear before it.
We have no more right to tell American committees who they will
have before them than they have to tell our committees of this
House who to have before them.
1430
I find it strange that the hon. leader of the New Democratic
Party would believe in a principle that would allow other
governments the right to attend all committee hearings of the
House of Commons and Senate.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, no
amount of wriggling and slithering on this issue is going to get
the government off the hook. The minister of fisheries knows
perfectly well that Canadians were invited to testify and they
failed to testify.
My question to the minister of fisheries is when is his
government going to stand up for the interests of Canadian
fishers in coastal communities?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think it is time for the hon. leader of
the New Democratic Party to speak with the leader of the New
Democratic Party in British Columbia.
We have consistently had from the New Democratic Party of
British Columbia rejection of the contacts with Americans that I
have made, with every senator from Alaska, Washington state and
Oregon, with representatives of the White House, representatives
of the state department and the governors of Oregon, Washington
and Alaska. They have said no to such contacts.
However, there is one committee in the United States which we
believe to be a domestic affair of the congressmen in the United
States and she then says that of course we have not done enough.
Is she following the policies of the New Democratic premier or is
she announcing a different policy here?
* * *
TRADE
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
He is preparing another team Canada trip for January. The Prime
Minister will know that notwithstanding these trips, trade with
Brazil has gone down 10 p. cent, with Mexico 19 p. cent, Indonesia 11
p. cent, China
24 p. cent. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce in the meantime continues
to repeat and argue that these trade barriers within Canada cost
Canadian families on average $1,000 per year and cost us jobs.
When will the Prime Minister show the same enthusiasm of
breaking down trade barriers within Canada as he shows for
charting up air miles outside Canada?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when I travel abroad I travel with all the premiers of
Canada who are always very delighted to travel on team Canada.
The business community of Canada is lining up to be on the trip.
In terms of trade barriers within Canada, the Minister of
Industry has worked very hard with the provinces and the
provinces have worked very hard among themselves to come close to
an agreement. If the hon. member is telling us not to respect the
provincial governments and just impose a regime, we will look
into that.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
think the Prime Minister has his priorities wrong. My question
was not for the premiers accompanying him. It was not for the
business community that is going to be accompanying him. It is
for the taxpayers who will be paying the bill for the people on
the trip; the people who pay $1,000 a year on average because of
trade barriers in Canada.
An internal memo of the Department of Industry established that
only 13 percent of the trade barriers had been struck down in the last
agreement. When is the federal government going to assert its
powers and leadership and deal with internal trade?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to inform the leader of the fifth party
that when we travel on these trips all the business people pay
for their trips. There is no big cost to the government.
Wherever we go everyone says it is the biggest trade mission
they have ever received. There is nothing better than having all
the premiers and the Prime Minister of Canada working together to
create jobs for Canadians. However, I know the leader of the
fifth party is not in favour of the provinces and the federal
government working together.
* * *
CANADA POST
Mr. Jim Gouk (West Kootenay—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Reform has just learned that the conciliator in the
Canada Post labour dispute filed his report with the minister
last Monday.
When was this government planning to get around to telling the
Canadian people that they are now on a 21-day countdown for a
national postal strike?
1435
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the conciliation officer has reported to me. I will
evaluate the report and make a statement before October 7.
Mr. Jim Gouk (West Kootenay—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, a postal strike is extremely devastating for Canadian
business and non-business alike. A strike shuts down Canada's
entire mail delivery system.
The minister has already interfered in the bargaining process
and he has failed to notify the Canadian public of the imminence
of this strike. What is he going to do to protect Canadians from
the impact of this national postal strike?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am certainly disappointed that my hon. colleague feels
that there is going to be a strike. The collective bargaining
process can work and will work. I certainly encourage both
parties to work together to have a collective agreement that will
be beneficial to both the union and the post office.
* * *
[Translation]
CALGARY DECLARATION
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we learned through
the newspapers that the premiers, including the premier of Newfoundland,
have decided to consult their fellow citizens regarding the Calgary
declaration. To this end, they will use fax machines, 1-800 lines and
the Internet. These are all modern tools, as the Prime Minister said,
but they are ill-chosen for a serious consultation on what should be a
serious issue.
Does the Prime Minister realize that the fact that the premiers
have chosen such inadequate tools for a consultation of this nature says
a lot about how little importance they attach to their own Calgary
declaration?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the premiers will use the means they deem appropriate to consult the
public about the seven principles set out in the Calgary declaration,
which the government of Canada fully supports.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, given the
openness displayed by the government, I have a supplementary for the
minister.
When will we be told that a premier representing an English
speaking province has decided to retain the services of Jojo the fortune
teller to find out what the public in his province thinks?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
premiers will choose the appropriate means to consult the public.
* * *
[English]
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today this government is proposing to introduce the
single largest tax increase in history. Working Canadians will
be forced to pay up to $3,300 each year in the form of CPP
payroll taxes for a maximum pension of only $8,800 a year when
they retire.
How can the Minister of Human Resources Development support such
a bad so-called investment for Canadians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, some time ago the chief actuary projected that unless
the federal government and the provinces did not come together to
deal with escalating premiums, he projected that they would have
to go to over 14 percent in order to preserve the Canada pension plan,
that in fact financial chaos would ensue. As a result of that,
together with the provinces—let me be very clear—the federal
government put in place a plan for more funding. Yes, it will
take the premiums to 9.9 p. cent. That is substantially lower than the
13 percent recommended by the Reform Party.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, when the CPP was introduced, the government claimed that
Canadians would never have to pay more than 5.5 percent of their
earnings to finance the plan, but now we see 9.9 p. cent, nearly double
its prediction.
How can the minister justify making Canadians pay more in CPP
taxes when he has actually admitted that his chief actuary of the
fund has said that there is no guarantee that increase will give
the return that Canadians have been promised?
1440
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Quite the
opposite, Mr. Speaker. The chief actuary has said that as a
result of the actions taken by ourselves and the provinces, as a
result of the fuller funding, as a result of some of the changes
to the benefits, in fact we have now preserved the Canada pension
plan for future generations of Canadians, for those who will
receive disability pensions which they would not receive from the
Reform Party, for those who would receive maternity benefits
which they would not receive from the Reform Party.
In fact we have put in place along with the provinces one of the
most modern and one of the most progressive retirement systems in
the world. Canadians are very proud of it and the Reform Party
should be too.
* * *
[Translation]
CALGARY DECLARATION
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
André Tremblay, the former constitutional adviser to several of
Quebec's premiers, including Robert Bourassa, said that the Calgary
declaration was an empty shell, that it amounted to next to nothing.
Since even Quebec federalists are calling the Calgary declaration
an empty shell, how can the Prime Minister see it as a huge step forward
on which we can pin all our hopes?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
we are to have quality debates in this House, members would do well not
to distort what has been said. The Prime Minister never said that it
was a huge step forward on which we could pin all our hopes.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: He said so yesterday.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Yesterday, that's right.
Hon. Stéphane Dion: We can pin our hopes on the fact that Canada is
a country Quebecers want to keep. And that is why the Bloc Quebecois
finds the Calgary declaration so annoying. It is annoying because
Quebecers want to remain in Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Stéphane Dion: And that is why they far prefer anything
advancing Canadian unity to anything calculated to destroy the country,
as one of the Bloc Quebecois members put it, and I am not distorting his
words.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, perhaps
the minister was listening to something else yesterday when the Prime
Minister gave his own speech in reply to the Speech from the Throne.
I have another question for the minister. Daniel Johnson, who is
recognized as a staunch federalist, is one of the few individuals in
Quebec right now who can go around and defend, in any event, he is one
of those defending the Calgary declaration. In order to sell the idea
in Quebec, he tells Quebecers that the unique character recognized in
Calgary is the same thing as distinct society.
Mr. Minister, do you support—
The Speaker: Dear colleague, I think he heard the question.
Moreover, you must always address the Chair.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
fact—
Some hon. members: Yes or no?
Hon. Stéphane Dion: —if ever the Calgary declaration were to
become an interpretive clause, which is possible, although it has not
happened yet, of course, as it is under discussion, the interpretation
given would guarantee Quebecers that the courts would take into account
today's unique, as opposed to yesterday's distinct, character of Quebec
society.
There is not a single serious jurist who would say that being
unique had anything less to recommend it than being distinct.
* * *
[English]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration.
As the minister is aware, there are in excess of 30,000 illegal
immigrants in Canada today. Can the minister confirm that there
are in excess of 200 citizens of Vietnam in Canada under
deportation order mostly for criminal activity? Can the minister
confirm that the Canadian government is negotiating with the
Government of Vietnam to take back a handpicked 100 of them?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I can confirm officially is
that annually in Canada we have over 200,000 immigrants who will
become Canadian citizens and whom we are very proud to welcome.
That is the federal system.
Clearly, however, there are always people in life who try to
abuse the system, and we have the tools necessary to deport and
return to their country those who try to abuse the system. This is
the case in a number of countries.
1445
[English]
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I assure the minister that this party is just as
happy with all the immigrants who come into this country legally
as her party is.
Could the minister confirm, after she checks out what she is
doing with the Government of Vietnam, that the federal government
is greasing the wheels with the Vietnam government for acceptance
of these deportees, that it is using an $8 million CIDA contract
in Vietnam headed up by Marc Lalonde, a former government
minister? Could she make sure the former minister is not part of
what is going on to solve the problem she has with these
Vietnamese deportees who are in Canada?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member of the Reform
Party is so proud to welcome immigrants to Canada, he should not
really be continuing to try to create myths about immigration.
That is just what he is doing with this sort of question and it is
unacceptable.
I repeat. In the case of those who abuse the system, who come
here illegally, we try to have official agreements with foreign
governments so they will take back their nationals who are here
illegally. This is the case with Vietnam, China and other
countries.
* * *
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Ms. Jocelyne Bujold Girard (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister responsible for Canada Post announced that his strategy in
negotiations with the postal union was first to let the workers
strike and then to negotiate special legislation to force them back
to work.
Could the Prime Minister tell us if this is indeed his
government's actual strategy to resolve the postal issue?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the member that I
have announced no strategy and that the only thing the government
wants is for the two parties—the union and the Canada Post
Corporation—to sit down at the bargaining table and come up with
a negotiated agreement.
* * *
[English]
PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
would the Minister of Public Works and Government Services share
with the House how the conflict opposing Bradson Security
Services and its locked out security officers was finally
resolved after almost a year?
Would the minister also inform the House as to the measures the
government will implement to avoid such deplorable situations in
the future?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me first inform
the House that Bradson Security has negotiated a tentative
agreement. Members of the union will vote on October 3.
Such a situation will not occur any more because last Friday we
went out for new tenders. There is a clause for the future that
will allow the suspension of any contractual obligation on both
the suppliers and the government in case of a strike or lockout.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today the
Supreme Court of Canada stated very clearly in a judgment it
rendered that the meeting between Ted Thompson and Chief Justice
Isaac which occurred on March 1, 1996 was clearly inappropriate
and breached the judicial independence of the courts.
Evidence in justice documents filed with the supreme court
indicate that a false story and cover-up of this incident were
created by senior justice officials. This is unacceptable. In
the face of this incriminating evidence and the statements of the
supreme court, will the new justice minister immediately dismiss
the officials involved in this cover-up?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his question. I point out to the House that what the Supreme
Court of Canada said today in a very important decision was that
the justice official in question exercised bad judgment but did
not act in bad faith.
Having said that, I reassure the hon. member that I will be
taking under advisement that which the supreme court said and I
will be reviewing it in the coming days.
1450
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I thank
the minister for her response. One of her own officials stated
that if the real story were revealed “the damage done to the
image of the department, the attorney general and the court will
be incalculable for all time and the consequences could
precipitate the resignations of the minister and the chief
justice”.
Again, will the justice minister immediately dismiss those
involved in what her own official described as a false story and
a cover-up?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to point out, because
it does not appear clear from the hon. member's question, that
the case he refers to decided by the supreme court today is in
fact a case we won.
It was a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in
which, yes, they did refer to an exercise of bad judgment by an
official within the Department of Justice; but they went on to
conclude that the exercise of bad judgment should not lead to a
stay of proceedings.
I am very pleased to announce to the House this afternoon that
the government will be proceeding in a very timely fashion with
the three cases involving alleged war crimes.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Considerable time has gone by since the last changes to the
employment insurance were introduced. The verdict is clear: ordinary
people and seasonal workers are hard hit by the changes introduced by my
predecessor, the former member for Acadie—Bathurst.
Consequently, is the government prepared to amend the Employment
Insurance Act to ensure that children from families affected by the
reform are not sent off to school on an empty stomach?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our employment insurance reform came into effect a
year ago. We have been monitoring its implementation very carefully and
closely and we are measuring its impact to make sure the interests of
Canadians from coast to coast are well served.
I can tell you that, after 25 years of an employment insurance
system that did not keep up with changes in the job market, it was
imperative that it be reviewed, upgraded and brought up to date because
it served Canadians very poorly.
I can also tell you that we are watching the system's results very
closely but we feel that, for the time being, it is in the interest of
Canadians to move from passive to active measures within the system.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, are the
minister and the government insensitive to the pain and suffering
inflicted upon these families? Will this government stop stealing money
from the unemployed by using the surplus in the employment insurance
fund to reduce the deficit?
The Speaker: In my opinion, the word “stealing” is unparliamentary;
I would therefore ask my hon. colleague to withdraw it.
Mr. Yvon Godin: I am sincerely sorry, Mr. Speaker, for using the
word “stealing”. So I will say “taking the money”.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what we do know is that workers
everywhere in this country want to retain jobs and have social
systems which help them adapt to the labour market.
That is what we have done with the transitional job fund. It
has helped thousands of workers in the Atlantic region work in
dignity instead of being limited to continual dependence on an
income coming from outside. Our respect for these workers is what
has prompted us to commit to active measures with enhanced budgets
which give them the dignity of real jobs, by moving from a system
of passive measures to active measures.
* * *
[English]
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
over the years the government has continuously picked the pockets
of Canadians through high employment insurance premiums.
1455
The Speaker: In view of the fact that I just had one
member withdraw a word that had to do with stealing, I wonder if
the hon. member would consider withdrawing the words “picked the
pockets”.
Mr. Jean Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I will.
In the Speech from the Throne the government announced that it
planned to go ahead with the seniors benefits, which discourages
retirement savings, attacks middle income seniors and earners,
and punishes women.
Could the Minister of Human Resources Development tell us what
his government has against Canadians who work, who want to work
and who want peace of mind and security in retirement?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, with respect to seniors benefits we are under great
consultation now with seniors right across the country.
The fact is that 75 percent of Canadians will do better. Nine out of
ten senior women will do better. We are bringing in these
fundamental changes so that middle income and low income
Canadians can be assured of a decent retirement.
I would ask the hon. member to hearken back to the last time
there was reform, when the Conservative Party sought to bring in
pension reform on the backs of the lowest income earners, on the
poorest in the country. We will not do that.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
government is going to let the Minister of Finance take money from
Canadians instead of stopping the waste of their hard-won earnings.
Can the Minister of Human Resources Development explain to us
why his government is intent on punishing a generation of Canadians
in retirement when it has taxed them to death during their working
years?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the reform has done was to
respond to a need, specifically the need to ensure that there would
be pensions in the next century, without having to pay an
exorbitant price for them. That is what we have done. We have
penalized no one, on the contrary, particularly not those women
they speak of. Nine out of ten women will benefit from this
reform. This is a reform which was necessary.
We are the first industrialized country faced with these
changing demographics to address this problem with such courage. I
believe that this government's courage in solving problems by
addressing needs, not only for the next few years but for the next
generations needs to be recognized.
* * *
[English]
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister for International Trade.
In my constituency of Oakville I am receiving letters of concern
about our negotiations toward a multilateral agreement on
investment.
Is the minister prepared to ensure that there will be public
consultations on the MAI and, if so, what mechanisms is he
planning to use?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me thank the hon. member for her
question.
Currently we are engaged in negotiations to set rules and
regulate the investment portfolio because today there are over
1,300 different bilateral investment agreements. In fact Canada
has either signed or negotiated up to 50 of the agreements. There
is a need to multilateralize.
At the same time I am sensitive to the hon. member and other
hon. members. Obviously we need to do that in an open and
transparent fashion. That is precisely the reason we have sent
members of Parliament information packages, briefed our trade
critics, offered briefings to our caucuses, as well as indicated
to—
The Speaker: That would bring to a close our question
period for today.
* * *
1500
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I wish to ask the government House leader to advise the House of
the nature of the government's business for the remainder of this
week and into next.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague across
the way for this excellent question.
The House will continue debate on the Address in Reply to the
Speech from the Throne today, tomorrow and Monday. Tuesday shall
be an allotted day. On Wednesday the House will consider a
motion by the President of the Privy Council to establish a
special joint committee to consider a proposed amendment to the
Constitution regarding education in the province of Quebec.
I expect to conclude the address debate next Thursday and
Friday.
While I am on my feet I wish to inform the House that it is the
intention of the government to refer Bill C-4, an act to amend
the Canadian Wheat Board Act that was presented to this
Parliament earlier today to committee before second reading
pursuant to Standing Order 73(1).
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
COMMENTS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Thank you, Mr.
Speaker, for recognizing me on a point of order arising from
question period. You will have guessed that it has to do with
the expression used in question period on which you intervened.
It has to do with the expression “picking the pockets of
Canadians”.
Mr. Speaker, I have looked in Beauchesne's sixth edition, page
142, the section on unparliamentary language. Unless I am
mistaken—and I have not had a lot of time to examine precedents,
as you will agree, Mr. Speaker—I have not found it in
Beauchesne's. In fact, I think it is an expression that I have
heard in this House before. It is an expression that I think is
widely understood by members in the House as not being derogatory
if that is not the intent of the person who is saying it.
I would respectfully submit that the expression used by the
member was an expression that should be allowed.
The Speaker: Many times in the course of the give and
take in the House of Commons certain words are used and
sometimes, as your Speaker, they seem to be inappropriate. I do
not know if this word is in Beauchesne's or not, but sometimes it
is the tone used with the word and sometimes it is circumstance,
that causes disorder, etc.
I hope the House would indulge me at the beginning. I will have
a look at Beauchesne's again of course. However, I would prefer
that we use words that are less inflammatory.
I will surely look at the precedents and refresh my memory. If
it is necessary I will come back to the House. With that said,
this point of order is over unless the member has another point
of order.
Hon. Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I did want to add a
very brief comment because I think it is relevant to the way the
House will operate and how you will, from the Chair, deal with
these matters.
I simply wanted to add that I find the same to be true for the
word “bamboozle”. I would appreciate if you would equally give
consideration to that word in your research of precedents.
The Speaker: There are no words that I know of which of
themselves are unparliamentary because they can be used in such a
way that they would not be.
1505
As your Speaker I have to decide matters during the course of
the give and take in question period. Surely I should have
enough room to make decisions on your behalf so that the debates
can continue.
If the hon. member wants me to look up the word “bamboozle”, I
will be happy to do that.
I hope that when I make decisions of this nature, that you will
grant me enough room. My intentions are to see to it that the
House functions properly. I will not intervene any more than I
have to.
We are going to go to tributes. I recognize the hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona who will be saying a few words about a very
dear colleague of ours who passed away, Mr. Stanley Knowles.
* * *
THE LATE HON. STANLEY HOWARD KNOWLES
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
when the last Parliament adjourned we were still fortunate enough
to be in the company of Mr. Stanley Knowles, the former member
for Winnipeg North Centre. However, as everyone here will know,
shortly after the general election of June 2 Mr. Knowles passed
away just short of his 89th birthday. At that time he was
honoured appropriately on the Hill.
In addition to the special honours that he received at that time
from the House, from the government and from the Canadian people
in a massive overwhelming way, we have a tradition in this place
of paying tribute to former members. It is at this time that I
would like to pay tribute to Mr. Knowles, the former member for
Winnipeg North Centre, whose association with this place
stretched over 50 years, 55 years from the time he was first
elected in 1942 up until 1997 when he was still serving as an
honorary officer of the table, with the exception of the four
years that he spent out of office from 1958 to 1962. But he
first ran for Parliament in 1935.
Obviously it was a tremendous span of association with Canadian
politics. He was someone who I think was regarded almost
universally as one of the great parliamentarians of our time. We
will miss him and we will miss having him here with us. Of
course as New Democrats we especially regret that he was not here
to enjoy our return to this Parliament with the status of an
official party. I know that my leader expressed similar
sentiments yesterday when she spoke to the Speech from the
Throne.
Stanley Knowles was a great defender of veterans, of the poor,
of women, of anyone who needed help, of anyone who should have
been the object of our compassion, either individually or as a
society. He saw government as something that could play a
positive role in the economy and in the creation of social
programs. He fought especially for the elderly and for pensions
and for a decent public pension system in this country and he
lived to see many of his dreams realized.
Unfortunately he also lived to see the day when some of those
dreams began to unravel as part of the policies adopted in recent
years. So many of us here, inspired by his work and by his
commitment to such things, intend to continue that work and to
defend and to promote the ideals that he represented in this
place.
One could talk about Stanley Knowles for a long time and never
say the same thing twice because there is so much to say about
the former member for Winnipeg North Centre but we only have a
brief time here today.
I want to extend on behalf of my colleagues and I am sure on
behalf of everyone our condolences to his family and our great
appreciation of the gift that they gave to us, all the hours that
Stanley Knowles spent in this place day after day, night after
night.
I remember seeing him the night before his stroke. It was 11
o'clock in the evening in the hallway of the sixth floor of the
Centre Block. He always paid attention to Parliament and cared
about Parliament and cared about what Parliament was doing and
how it was doing it. If there is one thing we can say about Mr.
Knowles, it is that he always carried out his duties with a great
deal of honour, dignity and a respect for the parliamentary
process. We mourn his loss here today and pay him tribute.
1510
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to be able take part in this tribute
to the memory of the late Hon. Stanley Knowles.
He was a vigorous spokesman for the elderly, for the poor, for
the less favoured people in our society. He was an outstanding
expert on the procedures and the rules of the House. He was one
of the ornaments of the House of Commons in this and in previous
generations. He will be very much missed. It will not be the
same when we look toward you, Mr. Speaker, and do not see Mr.
Knowles sitting at the table as honorary clerk, as the
proceedings unwind.
On behalf of the Government of Canada I would like to extend
deepest sympathies and condolences to the family, the children
and grandchildren of Stanley Knowles.
He will be very much missed in this House and in our country.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I also join with other MPs in paying tribute to the late
Stanley Knowles.
Mr. Knowles' contributions to this House and to Canada are well
known. His consistent advocacy of social legislation to help the
old, the sick, the young and the poor, his advocacy in defence of
democracy mainly through the development and the improvement of
the rules and procedures of the House, his contributions and
accomplishments as a social democrat are a monument in themselves
and there is little we can do to add to their lustre.
There is one other dimension of Mr. Knowles' life and career
that we should not lose sight of in praising his accomplishments
as a social democrat. Stanley Knowles began his career as a
minister of the Christian gospel. All the old western populace
movements, Réal, Social Credit, the Progressives, the CCF, which
later became the NDP, all had a spiritual dimension to their
beginnings and their mission.
Mr. Knowles, like his friends and collaborators J.S. Woodsworth
and Tommy Douglas who were also Christian ministers in the
Methodist and Baptist traditions, was a part of the social gospel
movement, a movement that true religion encompassed not only the
vertical relationship of individuals to God but also the
horizontal dimension of service to one's fellow man.
I think of Stanley Knowles as a servant of Canada, as a servant
of his party, as a servant of this House and a servant of the
common people. But I also think of him as a servant of a higher
master.
It is an honour to pay tribute to him today in all the
dimensions of his service.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure, on behalf of Bloc Quebecois members, to join with my
colleagues in paying tribute to Stanley Knowles.
When I became a member of this House, in 1984, Mr. Knowles had just
ended his last term as an active member of Parliament. A few months
earlier, the Prime Minister had offered him, with the unanimous consent
of the House, to sit at the clerk's table. So, during my first years in
this Parliament, I often had the opportunity to consult with him. He
became an effective conciliator between the leaders of the various
parties, as well as a knowledgeable consultant to each party and an
exceptional advisor to the House.
No Bloc Quebecois member currently in this House has had the honour
of sitting with him. However, most of us have heard about him since 1993
and seen him sitting at the clerk's table in the past few years.
Everyone knows of his tremendous efforts to introduce social measures in
this House.
Mr. Knowles' religious background eventually led him to run for
office. Sometimes he would say, and I do not know for sure whether he
was joking or not, that it was easier to change laws than souls. This is
why he went into politics.
He was elected to Parliament and quickly became an expert on
procedure.
I think his great parliamentary skills were confirmed during the famous
pipeline debate, in 1956. In addition to being an expert on procedure
and a man who devoted his political career to the poor, Mr. Knowles was
also a good organizer and he had the ability to bring people together.
This led him to create the New Democratic Party, in 1961.
1515
It was said that Parliament was not his second home, but his main
residence. Stanley Knowles was a man of conviction; he was always
prepared to fight for the poor and the elderly. He was a man of courage,
in spite of his physical frailty. He suffered from multiple sclerosis,
but this never stopped him from fighting for the poor.
He was an honest man, respectful of and respected by his political
opponents.
In a sense, Stanley was the conscience of this Parliament. He will
remain a legend in Canadian politics.
To his family, his friends and his party, I express, in my own name
and on behalf of my colleagues, our most sincere condolences. I conclude
with this beautiful line from the great French author Alexandre Dumas,
who said “Those whom we have loved and lost are no longer where they
were, but they are still everywhere we are”.
[English]
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
tributes the public paid to Stanley Knowles earlier this summer
here in this building and in this city and in Winnipeg stand as a
monument to a politician who cared deeply for his community and
for his country.
Behind the legend there was a mortal who saw his public duty,
who was prepared to engage in public life to change things, and
millions of Canadians benefited from his efforts, the poor, the
veterans, the aged, to name a few.
Mention has been made of the high honour the House gave to Mr.
Knowles by making him an honorary officer and giving him a seat
at the table. People who watched the proceedings of the House
perhaps remember him in that capacity in his latter years.
As we set out at the beginning of this new Parliament perhaps it
would be best to remember Stanley Knowles as a politician, a
political warrior who was armed with the strongest armour that
any of us can have, a writ of election and a seat in the House of
Commons of Canada.
It gave him the ability to confront the issues of our time as he
confronted the issues of his with determination, unfailing
courtesy and hard work. The families of politicians inevitably
pay a price for this dedication. I hope that the pride that they
are entitled to feel at the end of Mr. Knowles' life tempers the
sense of loss which, regardless of age and its infirmities, must
still be great indeed.
He was a House of Commons gentleman, a politician, a
parliamentarian, and we are better in this country because of his
dedication to Canada. On behalf of my party here, our deepest
sympathy goes out to Mr. Knowles' family. We want to say that we
honoured him greatly and we still do in the remembrance of him.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today also on behalf of my colleague, the member for
Winnipeg Centre, since both of us share in the privilege of
representing a constituency that Stanley held for 38 years.
Our only regret today as we take up our rightful places in this
Chamber is that Stanley Knowles is not looking over at us from
his place at the centre of the table in this Chamber. We know
that nothing would have made Stanley Knowles happier and prouder
than to know that his constituency, one for which he worked so
long and hard, had come home to the NDP on June 2, 1997.
The member for Winnipeg Centre and I, and I believe all of my
colleagues in our caucus and all parties in this House share in
the responsibility of carrying on the legacy of Stanley Knowles.
1520
We know it is impossible to fill his shoes but we can strive to
be like him, fighting for social justice with honour, pursuing
righteousness with kindness.
We also know that the best way to carry on his legacy and honour
his work is to try to maintain the high standards he set for all
of us, the standards of fighting persistently for social justice
and always doing it with honesty and integrity. It is our turn
to carry on the torch of Stanley Knowles, to carry on his fight
for security for seniors, for equality for all people and hope
for a better day.
We mourn the loss of a great Canadian, a founding member of the
NDP, the conscience of Parliament. But his work, his words, his
fighting spirit live on. The best way we could pay tribute to
Stanley is to use his own words, words he delivered in 1930 in a
valedictory address to Brandon College.
To paraphrase his words, as we stand here in this Chamber our
thoughts go back to the pioneering spirit of Stanley Knowles who
struggled and sacrificed for this institution here in this place.
His memory seems to hallow the very ground on which we stand.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
The House resumed consideration of the motion for an address to
His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the
opening of the session, of the amendment and of the amendment to
the amendment.
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
nice to be back here. I will be sharing my time with the member
for Shefford. I want to congratulate you on your elevation to
the Chair. Most if not all of us would agree that you are a
learned student of this House. I would say you have mastered the
rules of procedure and you are very diplomatic in your skills and
in handling numbers. Congratulations.
I want to thank my constituents for sending me here and for
placing their trust in me. I want to let them know back home
that I will do the very best job I can to represent them in this
House.
I want to mention my riding a little before I begin my address
to the throne speech. My riding is called Charlotte but it
contains seven counties either in whole or in part. The name
Charlotte really does not do justice to the description of the
riding. One of the things that we will be entertaining is the
possible name change for the riding to reflect those folks who
live in some of the other counties.
The throne speech was a big disappointment to me. It was filled
with vague generalities and all kinds of platitudes with not a
whole lot of meat or substance. I do not think many Canadians
could find satisfaction in what they heard in that speech the
other day, in particular when we note that Canada is going
through a high rate of sustained unemployment. We have had 87
months of unemployment at a rate of over 9 percent which is absolutely
unacceptable.
It is often said that the essence of life is hope. I do not
think there was much hope in the document of the other day.
Canadians, in particular Canadians from Atlantic Canada and some
of the poorer parts of Canada, would not take a whole lot of
comfort in it.
1525
It is interesting that last week when the Leader of the
Opposition was interviewed by a newspaper in Atlantic Canada he
alluded to some of the poorer parts of his province which
sometimes we do not understand.
I think that some of the hurt that is being experienced in the
country knows no bounds. I can talk about Atlantic Canada but
there are other parts of Canada that are also going through some
pretty tough times.
It is often said that a real measure of a government should be
how it deals with its poor, its elderly and its sick. After
examining this government since 1993, I would add to that list
the youth of Canada. The government has failed miserably. It
cannot seem to grasp the reality that there are a lot of people
hurting.
When we listen to the finance minister I believe he assumes that
since everything is well on Wall Street and Bay Street, that
everything is well in the rest of Canada. But let me tell the
House it is not. That is one of the reasons the House did make
some changes which were reflected during the election period.
As members have returned to the House there is a decrease in the
size of the majority of the government which it enjoyed in its
first mandate. I believe that was for a very particular reason.
I believe it is because there are lot of very disillusioned
people.
In the United States over the last 10 years there has been an
11 percent increase in real incomes. In the corresponding period in
Canada there has been a 1.3 percent decrease in real incomes. There is
something wrong when that happens and the government has yet to
figure out what it is.
When we take a look at the unemployment rates in the country we
are in the same situation. Our unemployment numbers are exactly
double those of the United States. There are many reasons for
that obviously. But I think one big reason we have had that
sustained unemployment rate in Canada is a lack of vision on the
part of the government.
The government has been blessed by many things, some of them
completely beyond its control or which it had nothing whatsoever
to do with. It has been blessed with a period of economic growth
since it took office but that has not actually been translated
into real jobs. It has been blessed with very low international
interest rates, which has played well for the government in terms
of debt reduction, which again has nothing to do with the
government itself. It has been blessed with some financial
measures which any government could have fared better with than
what it has.
Immediately on taking office in 1993 it proceeded on the route
it is famous for, downloading its problems on to another level of
government. It certain did that. If we measure the reduction in
spending in Ottawa since 1993, over 90 percent of that has been
downloaded on to the backs of the provinces. The statistics will
tell us that only 2 percent of the cuts came out of downtown Ottawa and
its government departments. The rest was downloaded on to the
backs of the provinces.
Health care is an example. A 40 percent cut in health care transfers
to the provinces. That translates into a figure of approximately
$8 billion. What the government and its finance minister and the
prime minister forgot is that there is only one taxpayer. When
they download on to the provinces they have to do one of two
things, accept the download or download themselves on to the
backs of the municipalities, again forgetting there is only one
taxpayer.
That has hurt us in Atlantic Canada. It has hurt us in a number
of ways but particularly in health care.
1530
I do not think there is anyone in any part of this country who
could stand up today to say with any degree of confidence that
our health care system can sustain those types of cuts. If we
measure what we have today versus what we had 10 years ago, there
are a lot of Canadians who are very worried.
The answers to some of these problems are not easy. There is no
question about that. It requires some ingenuity on the part of
the government to recognize that there are problems out there
which must be dealt with.
In Atlantic Canada we are not talking about handouts; we are
talking about strategic investment into the area of the country
that has the greatest amount of unemployment. In some parts of
Atlantic Canada the unemployment rate is over 30 p. cent. The
government has to do something about it. Just downloading onto
the backs of the provinces, particularly the poorer provinces, is
not going to solve the problem.
We have the brain drain of Atlantic Canada. We educate our
youth only to find that they have to move out to get a job. The
old expression is that Atlantic Canada is a nice place to live,
provided you can get a job. There is nothing in the throne
speech which would give Atlantic Canadians, particularly young
Atlantic Canadians, any degree of hope.
It is incumbent on this government to take the message which was
given to it on June 2 and respond to the needs of Atlantic
Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the speech of my
colleague from the Conservative Party with interest and was unable
to detect, in the part I was able to hear, any personal opinion on
the matter of the amendment to the amendment by the Bloc Quebecois.
I have two questions for my colleague from the Conservative
Party. Does the hon. member acknowledge that the Government's
legislative program denies the existence of the Quebec people and
its culture?
In responding to this question, can he tell us whether he will in
fact vote in favour of the amendment we are proposing? And even
more fundamental than that, does the hon. member acknowledge the
existence of the Quebec people as a people? Such recognition would
make it possible to reach a solution to the constitutional problem
which has been with us for more than 30 years.
[English]
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question.
I believe that one of the best things the government could do
for Canada—and obviously Canada in my eyes includes Quebec, a
healthy Quebec, a Quebec that is as vibrant as we want to see the
rest of Canada be—would be to get the economy moving in a way
that brings everyone in.
As I mentioned before, the government is taking a lot of
pleasure in the growth in the stock market and how well Bay
Street and Wall Street are doing, but it has forgotten that
consumer confidence in Canada is at an all-time low. The
sustained rate of unemployment is hurting us. Ordinary Canadians
have no confidence in the future. That includes the citizens of
Quebec.
Anything we can do to help in creating a healthy, vibrant
economy and anything that we can do to improve the lot of all
citizens in the province of Quebec, English as well as French
speaking, I am in favour of it and this party is in favour of it.
1535
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
know that time is short so I will simply move to one of the
member's statements and that was that there is only one taxpayer.
The member probably will know that in the province of Ontario
the Mike Harris government has extended a 15 percent tax decrease to the
residents of Ontario.
The member believes there is only one taxpayer. Would he not
agree that the impact of so-called downloading has not been as
severe as he might suggest simply because the government feels it
is important to have given that tax break notwithstanding any
changes from federal transfers?
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, if I were a member from
Ontario I think I could stand up here and boast about the economy
of my home province, but unfortunately I am not from Ontario.
Obviously that is one of the reasons why the Liberal Party won
every seat, with the exception of one, that of my colleague just
in front of me. It is because the people very seldom reject a
government if the economy is moving well as evidenced in just
about every election in the United States and Canada in the last
100 years.
If I were living in downtown Toronto or Oakville, Ontario I
would agree 100 percent with what the member has stated. They are
basically satisfied with the government.
This country as a whole is what I am worried about. That wealth
and industrial prosperity has not spread across this country in
the directions that we would like to see it spread. It has not
spread north, east, or west in some areas. As I mentioned
earlier in my speech, even places in British Columbia and Alberta
have their problems, but in Atlantic Canada we have serious
problems.
One of the things that the government does have to take a look
at is a reduction in taxes. We are proposing a reduction in
payroll taxes, those employment insurance taxes of which the
government today is sitting on a bank roll of somewhere between
$5 billion and $10 billion and using that for goodness sake to
reduce the size of the national debt, which is ridiculous. The
government is putting the problem right on the backs of the
unemployed, the very people it should be helping.
[Translation]
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, I would
first like to congratulate you on your appointment. I would also
like to take this opportunity to thank the people of Shefford for
the confidence they showed in me in the recent federal election.
I want them to know that I will work with all my heart to defend
their interests.
To return to Tuesday's speech from the throne, the government
has revealed its political intentions.
Satisfied with the current state of the country and unable to offer
Canadians a national vision with clear objectives for the country
as a whole, the Chrétien government has certainly set out its
intentions, but without structure or time frame.
Not only does the speech not put forward any creative vision
enabling us to move into the 21st century, but it fails to respond
to Canadians' real concerns. The speech is a Liberal speech, the
same one they have been dishing up for years. It says nothing to
me and enables them to improvise, as they always have. They turn
whichever way the wind blows, taxing, cutting, taxing, spending.
Tuesday's speech from the throne contained at least one piece
of good news. The government will soon have a budget surplus.
The bad news is that Canadians will not see a cent of it. The
Liberal government now has to repair the damage it did in its first
mandate and reinvest in the programs it had previously cut.
You know, we should not be surprised, this is the Liberal
style. We are here in the House of Commons to work together to
build a better future for our country. The challenge facing Canada
is of significant proportions and warrants all our energies and
creativity.
1540
We must build for our children a country in which they can grow and
develop without going hungry and without lacking quality health care, in
a context that will encourage them to excel.
My party, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, has
developed a plan providing Canadians with a vision for the future that
meets their aspirations and expectations, a simple, down to earth and
unifying plan. Time has come to take new approaches and to offer new
solutions. The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada has already come
up with a plan that will give Canadians a vision, a down to earth plan
for the future of our country.
However, a vision and a plan are not enough. Leadership is required
to achieve key priorities. Our program for growth has three main
thrusts: sound management of taxpayers' money; quality of life for our
fellow citizens and, finally, initiatives for a brighter future. Quite
simply, what sound management of taxpayers' money stands for is the need
for any responsible government to introduce legislation to make fiscal
balance mandatory, lower employment insurance premiums and reduce
personal income tax. What people want is not rhetoric and empty
promises, but action.
The government was in a position to act, but once again it sat back
and did nothing. There is also a need to improve the quality of life of
all Canadians.
Our social safety net, which is the envy of many nations around the
world, cannot be expected to withstand much longer the drastic cuts made
by the government across the way.
Concerned with putting its financial house in order, the
government, during its first mandate, brought all existing support
programs and the Canada Assistance Plan together under a single umbrella
called the Canada health and social transfer. Once again, concern about
saving money took precedence over common sense, and government
assistance was cut by $7 billion over four years with the results that
we know.
Instead of federal transfers leaving the provinces at the mercy of
the federal government's goodwill, we are proposing a tax point transfer
to the provinces and territories to ensure stable funding. This way,
provincial and territorial governments would be forever protected
against cuts like those imposed by the Liberals.
In addition, the public would receive services from governments that are
closer to them and their situation.
We applaud the government's desire to end child poverty.
Unfortunately, its efforts are directed more at the consequences of the
problem than at the problem itself. There are 1.5 million children
living in poverty in Canada. These children are poor because their
parents are poor. Their parents are poor because the government has
focused all its attention on one thing: the deficit. And all the while,
Canadian workers, children and the elderly have been paying the price.
The government even admits in the throne speech that it has the
means to improve our children's lives and that it intends to invest in
their well-being. Let us remember that the money referred to by the
government in its speeches has already been committed in the two
previous years' budgets.
Let us be clear: the government is promising us money it has already
invested and it is promising to invest at least that much again.
Is this another of those elusive promises, like the 150,000 day
care spaces, or will the federal government actually make a commitment
this time? Of all the promises made by the Liberals during the election
campaign, let us hope that those concerning children will be kept, and
kept a little better than the motion passed in the House of Commons in
1989 to end child poverty by the year 2000. If the current trend
continues, the child poverty rate will have doubled by then.
At the present time, over 1,500 food banks and hundreds of soup
kitchens are waging the fight against hunger. Under the present
government's plan, millions of children will still go to school hungry
tomorrow.
It is unfortunate that this sad reality is only brought home to us
during electoral periods.
It is not surprising that election-minded politics like this have
undermined the credibility of our institutions. When the public has
regained faith in its public institutions, we will have the stability
and confidence necessary to move forward. The country needs leadership
with the courage to renew and revitalize the federation in order to show
that it can work to everyone's satisfaction.
1545
The premiers have agreed on a work plan and on the main areas
of discussion. I am convinced that it is possible to find a basis
for agreement. Canadians from all walks of life will not waste much
time in extremist rhetoric, and they will demonstrate their
attachment to Canada, I am sure.
It is time again for us to join forces around a common ideal.
the polls clearly demonstrate that Quebecers have Canadian values
at heart and want to remain within the country they helped build.
Let us not get hung up on the words, the reality is clear.
Quebecers are Quebecers, and just as proud to be Canadians.
What is less clear is that, in neither the last referendum nor
the last electoral campaign, not even in the meeting at Calgary,
was there any manifestation of leadership by our Prime Minister.
I apologize for not mincing any words, but his leadership is worn
out.
Our dynamic team, representing a new generation of
politicians, will advance some constructive ideas which will rally
the population. Rest assured that the only leader with a vision of
the future for Canada is the man you heard yesterday, Jean Charest,
and the true opposition which can speak on behalf of all Canadians
is the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.
[English]
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I remember in 1967 the Toronto Maple Leafs won the Stanley Cup
and 90 percent of the team was made up of older players who brought a
wealth of experience and knowledge to the team. Punch Imlach was
able to bring the Stanley Cup to the Toronto Maple Leafs.
Similarly, this administration and its leaders with a wealth of
knowledge and expertise has done many things.
I congratulate the member on her election. She referred to
damage done by the Liberal government's first mandate. I would
like to talk about that damage for a minute: damage such as
900,000 jobs created in its first mandate; damage such as
inheriting a deficit of $42 billion which her Conservative Party
left us with—and it is now said to be anywhere from zero to $5
billion; damage such as creating the fastest growing economy in
the G-7; damage such as creating opportunities for youth in the
programs outlined in the throne speech and before; damage such
as, as the national health forum indicated before the election,
the need to make the ceiling $12.5 billion. Immediately the
government restored it.
I have a question for the hon. member. She talked about
lowering payroll taxes. Is the member aware that when the
Liberal government took over in 1993 the Conservative government
had it pegged at $3.30 per $100? Does she know what the Liberal
government did from day one until now?
If she does not know, I will be glad to remind her. If she does
know, I would like her to point out what the payroll taxes are
today as opposed to what they were under a Conservative
government.
[Translation]
Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Mr. Speaker, I will try to respond. I
did not understand everything the hon. member said, but I think the
deficit he is talking about was created by the Liberals. We too
had to deal with that deficit, and, had the Conservative government
not introduced free trade, we would not be where we are today.
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with interest to the remarks of my colleague from Shefford.
She spoke on a number of subjects, including finance,
programs, children and the deficit, but the most important point
the Prime Minister raised yesterday was Canadian unity. I heard no
mention of that, particularly with respect to the people of Quebec.
I would like to ask her a question, because it is all very
well to talk of the economy, but I think the most important thing
is simply to reach a common understanding. What is the role of
each province in the Constitution?
1550
Does the hon. member acknowledge that the government's
legislative program denies the existence and the culture of the
people of Quebec? Does the member acknowledge the existence of the
people of Quebec?
Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Mr. Speaker, my answer to the hon. member is
that I am a Quebecer, I am proud to be a Quebecer and a Canadian, and
that if we consider the latest polls, many Quebecers still want to be
part of Canada. We must keep talking to try and find a solution.
[English]
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to indicate at the beginning that I am sharing my time with the
hon. member for Windsor—St. Clair.
[Translation]
It is a great pleasure to speak to this House in reply to the
throne speech, which outlines the government's priorities for the first
session of the 36th Parliament.
I would like to start by thanking the people of Simcoe North for
renewing their vote of confidence by granting me a second term in the
federal election last June. I would also like to mention the inestimable
support I have received from my wife and family.
There are many positive elements in the throne speech. Thanks to
the persistent efforts of the federal government and the support of
Canadians, we can at last enjoy the fruits of our collective labours.
Optimism is no longer the exception but the rule, since we now have
regained the ability to address the priorities of Canadians fairly and
equitably.
I would like to expand on three themes we find in the throne
speech: social reform, economic reform and national unity. The
legislation that will be introduced to implement the proposed changes to
the Canada Pension Plan and the non-taxable seniors benefit will, I
believe, ensure that our public pension system will remain sustainable
for generations to come.
I may point out that when the seniors benefit comes into effect in
2001, benefits for our neediest seniors will increase.
In fact, about 75 percent of seniors, which includes nine elderly women out of
ten, will have an income that is either equal to or higher than their
present income.
I support unconditionally the government's commitment to maintain
a comprehensive public health care system that provides universal access
to high quality care for all Canadians.
After the National Forum on Health tabled its report this year, the
government had to acknowledge its conclusions, and it did so in the
throne speech. Canadians, including many of my constituents, were
worried about the restructuring of our medicare system.
The announcement that the government, working with its partners,
will develop a national plan, time table and fiscal framework for
setting up a system that guarantees access to medically necessary drugs,
and will also support home and community care, shows that the message
sent by Canadians about public health care has been received and
understood by this government.
[English]
I am very proud of the government's economic record. The throne
speech reflects our commitment to thoughtful economic management.
I would like to mention some examples of this commitment, for
instance a balanced budget no later than 1998-99.
This will be the first time in almost 30 years that the country
has had a balanced budget.
With a surplus debt to GDP ratio the current account balance has
gone from a deficit of 4.2 percent of GDP to a surplus of .55
percent in 1996. The government achieved the first annual surplus
since 1982.
1555
All the spending contained in the throne speech is funded by
budgetary surpluses. I want to be crystal clear on this point.
The budgetary surpluses during this mandate will be the source of
funding for new programs.
The government will not be relying on borrowing moneys. We will
not be spending our children's inheritance. Fifty per cent of
budgetary surpluses will go to investments in social and economic
priorities and fifty per cent will go to tax reduction and debt
repayment. This 50:50 split ensures that the Liberal commitments
to sound economic planning and to social responsibility will go
hand in hand.
In the second mandate the government will do more on job
creation for young Canadians. In February 1997 the government
announced the youth employment strategy. This strategy
consolidates over $2 billion in new and existing programs and
services for young people.
The government will also work with the business community and
the provinces to forecast areas of job growth. This planning
ahead is a concrete example of how the government will help young
people meet the challenges of the job market.
I recently lead community consultation on job creation in my
riding of Simcoe North. The citizens of Simcoe North felt that
apprenticeship and training programs would help young people get
into fulfilling and well paying jobs. They also felt that the
perception of various kinds of jobs needs to improve. For
example, the skilled trades should be valued for the contribution
they make to a vibrant economy.
The government will be initiating measures similar to those
suggested by the people of Simcoe North. Internship programs
will be extended and expanded. The government will provide
enhanced funding for student summer placements. A Canada-wide
mentorship program will be created in partnership with the
provincial governments and the private sector.
Once again the government has shown that it is listening to
Canadians and working with them to secure a better future for
young Canadians.
I am particularly encouraged by the government statement on
national unity. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, I have had the opportunity to discuss
national unity with Canadians from Newfoundland and Labrador to
British Columbia. The government's approach to national unity
reflects the concerns I have heard from these Canadians.
First, the government is committed to the recognition of
Quebec's unique language, culture and legal system. The
government will work closely with provincial and territorial
leaders to advance the progress made in the Calgary declaration.
Recognition of Quebec's unique character, language and legal
system will not entail any new powers, privileges or rights. This
message must be carried to all Canadians in every province and
region.
Second, the government will ensure that the national unity
debate is conducted with clarity and frankness. It is critical
that Quebeckers, especially francophone Quebeckers, understand
the consequences and the implications of separation. It is
equally fundamental that Canadians outside Quebec understand the
same consequences and the implications.
In the words of the throne speech:
I congratulate the government on the commitment to deal
assertively to bring clarity to this debate.
[Translation]
None of this government's programs could be carried out if our
national unity initiatives were not successful. The government therefore
views its mandate in that area in a global and encompassing fashion. Any
measure that strengthens the country will have a unifying effect on
Canada.
That having been said, we pledge to work in partnership with the
provinces and territory. Our federation as we know it is flexible. This
needs to be repeated over and over in the presence of separatists. Far
from being fixed and immovable, our federation is one that keeps
evolving.
1600
During this second mandate, we will continue to reflect and meet
the demands of every province and region. I am confident that, with such
flexibility and the synergy fostered by this government, we will enter
the new millennium with a new invigorated Canada.
I realize that Canadians have done a great deal to help the federal
government put its financial house in order and strengthen the social
and political fabric of Canada. We have come a long, hard way, but the
end is in sight.
To conclude, I want to reaffirm my solemn commitment to represent
my constituents to the best of my abilities and to co-operate with all
members of this House to ensure our government reflects and is sensitive
to the needs of all Canadians.
[English]
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
very proud to be here today. I feel privileged to represent the
constituents of Kings—Hants.
Kings—Hants includes the Annapolis Valley where we grow the
best apples in the world as well as the Hants Shore where the
Minas Basin provides the highest tides in the world. I am sure
the members of the government will recognize the strength of
tides in the recent election.
The recent electoral tides in Atlantic Canada sent a signal that
Atlantic Canadians were not simply frustrated with cuts but
instead were frustrated with the lack of vision demonstrated by
the government to the needs of Atlantic Canada. Atlantic
Canadians want a future where they have access to the free
enterprise system and can utilize the tools of the free
enterprise system to build a stronger, more self-reliant Atlantic
Canada.
I am a Conservative, an Atlantic Canadian and a small business
person. None of these are mutually exclusive. Earlier today the
member for Medicine Hat referred to the member for Saint John as
a New Democrat because she expressed compassion for the
underprivileged.
Compassion is not partisan in principle. Compassion is
something we all should have within the House. While some
members in this House prefer to talk about fights for the right,
there are some of us who prefer to simply work hard for what is
right.
In closing, I look forward to working with the members of this
House and to making a difference in the lives of Canadians. I
would like to ask this government what, over the next four years,
it intends doing to demonstrate vision for Atlantic Canada.
Mr. Paul DeVillers: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to
indicate that the hon. member has some tremendous shoes to fill
in representing the riding of Kings—Hants. The former member,
John Murphy, served that riding extremely well. I visited the
riding with John and know it well so I wish the member the best
of luck in that endeavour.
His question concerned the vision the government intends to show
over the next four years. That is the subject matter of this
debate. The Speech from the Throne is the blueprint. There is
much that I and others have pointed out in our speeches which
addresses that question. For instance, the new commitment of
another $850 million to the child tax credit is something that
will address the concerns that were addressed by the member in
the prelude to his question. That is but one example of the
vision that we need to show.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity
to congratulate you on your appointment as Acting Speaker.
I wish to draw your attention to the speech made by the hon.
member, who is an experienced member of this House, and who
speaks in English in a certain way and in French in a different
way. I heard him speak in English about being firm. When alluding
to the issue of national unity in English he advocated the hard
line, because he was addressing English Canadians, of course, but
he used a much more conciliatory tone in French.
1605
The hon. member for Simcoe North speaks good French since he is a
francophone, but he is also the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Intergovernmental Affairs. I want to ask the hon. member if, as the
assistant to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, he does
recognize the people of Quebec. Is he prepared to say, in this House,
that there is a Quebec people? Is the hon. member prepared to do that?
Mr. Paul DeVillers: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois' strategy in
this debate is clearly to ask all Liberal members the same question. Of
course, we use inclusive terms such as “society”. The word “people” has
several connotations which may give rights in international law, but we
use the word “society” because it is more inclusive.
[English]
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.):
Congratulations, Mr. Speaker.
Before commenting on the motion before this House I would like
to take the opportunity to thank the constituents of Windsor—St.
Clair for their support in the June election. I am honoured to
be asked to represent them once again and their faith in our
government is not misplaced.
I wish also to thank the many volunteers who supported our
campaign and whose friendship I cherish very much.
Windsor—St. Clair, which is basically the east end of Windsor,
Tecumseh and the village of St. Clair Beach, have once again
placed their faith in our government. Throughout the campaign
they told us loud and clear what they were concerned about. Those
things included health care, education, unemployment and in
particular, youth unemployment.
These were local concerns but we would be mistaken to think that
the constituents of Windsor—St. Clair have only local concerns.
Indeed they were also concerned about national unity, Canada's
role as a trading nation and Canada's role as an international
broker of peace, her role generally in the global village.
The throne speech and the subsequent address yesterday by the
right hon. Prime Minister indicate that the government has
listened to Windsor—St. Clair. Not only did we listen but we
are putting in place programs to alleviate the concerns that I
have outlined. All the while we are maintaining our steady
attack on both the deficit and the debt. Canada will never under
a Liberal government, in any event, return to the financial
crisis that we faced when we came to power in 1993.
In addition to funds for health and education, we will continue
our attack on unemployment in general and youth unemployment in
particular. Programs like Youth Services Canada are already
operating in Windsor—St. Clair to give young people work
experience and a wage while they serve our community.
The focus of this government is such that we can be assured that
the concerns of the constituents of Windsor—St. Clair will be
met.
I would like to urge the government to work with us on more
specific areas which will help our community to prosper even
more. It is my belief that an economically prosperous community
is able to better overcome other social problems. It is my
belief that economic prosperity will lead generally to a better
quality of life, to lower crime rates, to a lack of other social
problems, to lower welfare rates and to a generally better
lifestyle.
One way to do that is to offer more support to our local
industries. It is no secret that Windsor is Canada's motor city.
I like to say that Windsor is effectively the centre of the
universe, but that may not be the case for some of my colleagues.
I can say however that it is urgent and very important for our
community to see support from the government for the automotive
industry.
The automotive industry employs directly or indirectly
approximately half of working Ontarians. It is the biggest
employer in our province and as an industrial group the most
important employer in our province. It is of the utmost
importance for the Government of Canada to focus on issues like
tariffs, apprenticeship training for skilled trades and on other
areas that will offer support to our domestic automotive
industry.
1610
Canada is a trading nation and in the 1960s under the leadership
of Prime Minister Lester Pearson and my predecessor in
Windsor—St. Clair or Windsor—Walkerville as it was then, the
Hon. Paul Martin, Sr., the auto pact was signed. The auto pact
has reached an almost sacred position in our community because
the auto pact is the engine that allows those industries to
exist, to prosper and employs our citizens.
In my view it is important that the government continue to focus
on agreements like the auto pact, to give them support and
strength so that we will have more employment, more prosperity
and therefore a better quality of life in Windsor, Tecumseh, St.
Clair Beach and in the province of Ontario generally.
It is important also that we support other industries. In the
last five or six years the tourism industry has become vital to
our community. Tourism and particularly the gambling industry
fuelled by Casino Windsor have become extremely important.
However, there is a fly in the ointment. That fly comes from the
Conservative government of the province of Ontario which has
consistently refused and neglected to take the steps necessary in
order to allow the government to legalize some aspects of
gambling which would help the casino to prosper. I am talking
specifically about games of dice.
In the near future we will be faced with competition from
gambling facilities in the city of Detroit. Those gambling
casinos will have dice games. It is important that Windsor have
the opportunity to compete but the initiative has to come from
the attorney general of Ontario. In spite of consistent promises
to the mayor and citizens of Windsor who want this to happen,
nothing has been done to approach our attorney general in order
to start the dice rolling, as we say in Windsor.
Tourism is a very important part of what our community can
provide to Canada. It is a very important part of the puzzle
that is unemployment. The more tourism there is, the more
service jobs and jobs in tourism there will be. It seems to me
that it is just a simple matter of a member of the Ontario
government picking up a pen and writing a little note and
whisking it off to the Attorney General of Canada. Once it gets
here I am sure the Essex County lobby and others can make sure
that the request gets the significant attention it deserves.
I hope members do not think this is too much about my community,
but I would like to talk for a minute about the heavy taxation on
distilled spirits. We are a town that provides what I like to
think of as one of Canada's basic food groups, Canadian Club
whisky. Canadian Club is an agri-food product and is also a
great symbol of our country in my view.
The federal government has been trying to initiate discussions
with the provinces. However, it is time for all of us to take a
look at this commodity which provides hundreds of jobs in my
community. The factory is a historic one and it is very
important to the community that this serious problem be
discussed.
In general foreign trade is very important to Windsor. I would
encourage the Prime Minister to continue his trade missions and
to continue to invite businessmen and women from Windsor,
Tecumseh and St. Clair Beach to join him as he promotes Canada
around the world.
As Windsor prospers economically our other problems subside. Our
crime rate is lower than it has ever been. When one is downtown
in the evening going to a movie or to one of our wonderful
restaurants there is a sense of vitality and prosperity there
that I challenge any other community in Canada to meet.
1615
I would urge the government to take a look at those things I
have outlined that are specifically of importance to Windsor. I
would also urge the government to continue on the track it is on,
and I would ask all members to support the motion of the hon.
member from Parkdale with respect to the throne speech.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I listened with interest to the hon. member across and I listened
with interest to her colleague who spoke before her as they say
they will continue to build on the financial successes of this
government.
I think she indicated she would continue to attack the
employment situation. I come from a region of the country that
has suffered unemployment rates of between 15 percent and 20 p.
cent for the continual life of the Liberal government.
Will the hon. member recognize that there is nothing in the
throne speech to address the urgent needs of Cape Bretonners and
Newfoundlanders and people in Atlantic Canada who have
persistently suffered under this economic policy?
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: No, I will not acknowledge that,
Mr. Speaker. I think my hon. friend misses the point here. The
point is this is a throne speech which leads us down the track of
prosperity.
Just as I am disappointed that they did not mention Windsor,
Tecumseh and St. Clair Beach, the virtual centre of the universe,
I am sure he is disappointed that his towns were not mentioned
specifically either.
The fact is this is a good general plan. Within that plan there
will be solutions for Sydney, for the Cape Breton Island, for
Windsor, for Tecumseh, for St. Clair Beach. The plan is there.
The plan is working and the people of Canada have sent us back to
continue with it.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I too wish
to congratulate you on your appointment as acting speaker of the House.
Since I am a new member, I would like to take this opportunity to
thank my constituents in Manicouagan. Manicouagan is one of the
loveliest ridings in Quebec.
I listened with great interest to the hon. member's speech and I
have two questions for her. Does she admit that the government's
legislative program denies the existence of the people of Quebec and of
their culture?
Does the member recognize the existence of the people of Quebec,
and if so, is she going to support and vote in favour of the amendment
presented by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois?
[English]
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: Mr. Speaker, I see a theme
evolving on the Bloc benches. There is a theme on the government
benches too. We recognize that there is a Canadian people made
up of a great many diverse groups.
I am proud to be a Canadian. I am pretty much satisfied that
the majority of Quebeckers are proud to be Canadians as well.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate
you, sir, on your appointment to the Chair. You look great.
I appreciate the comments that have been made but I wanted to
raise a question about the throne speech opening up a pathway to
prosperity.
1620
The difficulty I see in my riding is that I talk to elderly
people who are having to sell their homes because of clawbacks.
They have small incomes and they cannot afford to pay the taxes.
Youth cannot get enough money for education. Men and women are
losing established jobs from established companies and those jobs
are not being replaced.
I see nothing in this throne speech which would offer hope to
these people. Is there some mechanism which the Liberal
government has in mind to guarantee that taxes will not be raised
and to give Canadians relief from the taxation which is killing
us economically and destroying the social fabric of the lives of
so many families?
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: Mr. Speaker, that was a long
question and, leaving aside the preamble, the nub of it was are
we going to cut taxes. The answer is that there is still a
deficit and there is still a debt. As well we have some
spending to do to assist Canadians with respect to health care,
education and youth unemployment.
Let me say that when the deficit is settled, when we are sure
that the country is healthy, we will spend time looking at
taxation. We will spend time looking at the debt. We will make
sure that Canada is on the right track. We will do what the
Canadian people elected us to do.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak today in response to
the throne speech.
I want to thank the constituents of Prince George—Bulkley
Valley who in the June election gave me a huge victory. I want
to commit to them, as I have in the past, that my task here is to
represent their voices and concerns to this Parliament. My
promise to them was to keep the Liberals accountable for every
single thing they try to do, and I will do that.
It is predicted that the Liberal government will in 1998-99
achieve a balanced budget, using Liberal numbers. I do not know
whether we can trust Liberal numbers, but let us say they are
fairly accurate. It must be remembered that this could be the
first balanced budget that we have had in some 30 years. It is
sort of ironic considering that some members of the government
are the same members who sat in previous Liberal governments
which helped to run up our massive debt and helped to create our
deficits which occurred year upon year. It is surprising but at
the same time I suppose somewhat remarkable.
Before anyone decides to heap any praise on the Liberal Party
for this predicted balanced budget it is important to clearly
identify the reasons why this balanced budget may be occurring.
I do not think the Liberals should be expecting any praise for
the prediction of a balanced budget. I suggest that this Liberal
government should be giving thanks to the millions of Canadian
taxpayers who have been taking all the hits over the last three
and a half years as the Liberals have attempted to dig themselves
out of this massive financial pit that they along with the
Tories, cheered on by the NDP, have created for Canadians.
I would like to give the House some examples. I am talking
about the employers and the employees of the country who have
contributed significantly to the reduction of the deficit through
employment insurance overpayments. Let us make it clear that the
Liberals have been treating the EI surplus as if it were their
own money to put toward deficit reduction and to cover their
wasteful spending. Everyone who can think clearly has to
consider the EI overpayments as being simply another tax. That
is what it is, another tax.
1625
Would it not be preferable to let Canadian workers keep the
amount of this EI overpayment and let them have the freedom to
spend, invest or save? All these things would create jobs in
this country and would help to get a more buoyant economy.
Would it not be preferable to let Canadian businesses and
employers keep their overpayment to the EI fund as well so they
could invest in their businesses and hire more people, which
would also lead to the creation of a more buoyant economy?
Talking about people who have taken hits, let us not forget the
public servants in this country who have been working since 1990
without a raise. They have also been forced to make a tremendous
sacrifice because of previous Liberal-Tory overspending.
I also believe the Liberals should give thanks for their deficit
reduction prediction to the people in Canada's poorer provinces
who have had to bear the brunt of Liberal offloading because of
reduced equalization payments.
This is my favourite one. Let us not forget that during the
last three and a half years of Parliament this Liberal
government, this very Liberal government that is going around
looking for pats on the back for its balanced budget prediction,
increased taxes in this country in 36 different areas. There
were 36 individual tax increases brought in by this government.
It wrenched out of the pockets of ordinary Canadians, Canadian
businesses and Canadian investors over $25 billion in increased
tax revenue. Let us not forget that.
Is the government heading for a balanced budget because it has
been prudent in saving money? Mr. Speaker, I know you will agree
with me that is not the case. Let us not forget how the Liberals
got there. Let us not be too anxious to go over and pat them on
the backs as they are expecting. We see the Liberals running
around seeking praise for such a great job they say that they
have done but, to use the famous phrase of the finance minister,
the fact is what they have really been doing is pulling on their
magic tax lever to fill their coffers while Canadian businesses
and Canadian workers have had less and less to spend, less and
less to invest and less and less to save.
In the throne speech they mentioned the word partnership many
times, over 10 times. Given the Liberals' performance one can
only assume that the Liberal definition of partnership means
“you work, send us most of your wages and hey, we're partners”.
The sad part of this is that despite all the taxes Canadians are
paying, by the end of the century we will still only be getting
about 68 percent in services for every dollar they send to this place.
Let us also remember that these tax and spend Liberals are not
as compassionate as they like to appear. They took little or no
notice of the pain they were inflicting on Canadian families,
Canadian workers and Canadian businesses over these last three
and a half years as they grabbed this tax lever and over and over
again pulled it and pulled billions of dollars more into their
coffers.
To add insult to injury, at the same time these Liberals were
heaping tax upon tax on the Canadian people, they were still
pursuing their insatiable appetite for spending money in
ridiculous and wasteful ways. Our member for St. Albert has a
weekly waste report. I would like to read a few of the ways the
Liberals have spent some of the money so that people can get this
into perspective.
The Liberals thought it prudent to give the multibillion dollar
company American Express $17,000. One has to ask did they get
any flyer points for that. How about Big Bill's furniture and
appliance store, $176,000. I wonder if that is a relative of one
of the Liberal ministers. How about Nothing Fancy stores,
$89,000. Here is one that I should not be upset about but I am.
A golf tournament for literacy received $85,000.
1630
Literacy is a good cause. However, I would like to remind the
House that I host an annual golf tournament for the special
Olympics organization in my riding. I do not get any grant. I
raise $25,000 a year on that one-day golf tournament. I do not
ask the government for a grant. I go out and look for sponsors,
supporters and people who believe in the cause. I do not look to
the Canadian taxpayer for money.
It goes on and on. One hundred and sixteen thousand dollars was
given to a committee to study the sexual habits of seniors. One
has to assume that by the time someone gets to be a senior he or
she probably has his or her sex life figured out pretty well.
The throne speech is like a shell game. I am glad that we are
the official opposition because without the Reform Party here the
Liberals would not even be talking about reducing the deficit. I
assure the House that we are going to keep the pressure on.
Our approach to ensuring responsible future spending will
include asking Canadians what their priorities are. Do they want
debt retirement, tax relief, reinvestment in health and education
or a combination of all of these?
With the Reform Party as the official opposition, and these
Liberals know it, the government is finally going to learn the
difference between good spending and bad spending. I know the
difference, Reformers know the difference and ordinary Canadians
know the difference. By the time this Parliament is through, the
Liberals are going to know the difference.
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay—Nipigon, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to respond to the question
posed by my friend from Prince George. First, let me congratulate
you, Mr. Speaker, on assuming your position in the chair today.
We are sure that you will fulfil the mandate required of all
Speakers. All of us on this side of the House wish you well.
Someone on the other side who was speaking earlier made some
reference to your looks. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, from my
advantage point down here you look a lot better than the people
to your left.
I am really quite taken aback by my friend who just spoke.
Evidently he has not been listening to his leader for the last
two or three years. All we have heard from the Reform Party is
its interest in making sure that we had a balanced budget and
that we reduced a horrendous debt that was left to us. I do not
know how to refer to Reform members, but would it be kind to say
they were kissing cousins of the previous government that had the
administration of this country for nine years? If not kissing
cousins, they slept in close proximity to each other.
The debt that we inherited in 1993 was what the Reform Party,
when it first came into the House, talked about incessantly.
What we have done as a Liberal government in four short years is
simply this. We have eliminated the deficit which is what
Reformers have been talking about. Once we have the deficit in
this country under control then we can take a good run at working
on the debt that was assumed by their kissing cousins or whatever
way we want to refer to them.
Before we took government, if they look at the facts of the
situation, the debt in this country was $140 billion. When the
Conservative government left power it was about $530 billion. We
have been able to temper that debt over the last four years by
something under $600 million. We are beginning to reduce the
debt because we know how to administer the financial affairs of
the country. That is basically what their leader has been saying
and that is what we have done.
I cannot believe that my good from from Prince George is not
giving the Liberal Party and ourselves the credit for that. I
would like him to respond to that, but just one more minute.
I want to know what my friend from Prince George has against
finding out about the sexual habits of seniors? What has the hon.
member got against the senior citizens in this country? Could he
respond to that please.
1635
Mr. Dick Harris: First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me assure
the member from Thunder Bay that he will never ever find a
Reformer kissing a Tory. That is a certain thing.
Second, I have nothing against seniors having fun. My parents
are seniors and they are always happy, so obviously they do not
need any books.
There is an interesting point about reducing the deficit though.
Yes, we have been talking about this Liberal government getting
the deficit reduced. The difference is that we wanted the
government to reduce it by cutting its insatiable spending
appetite, by cutting the grants and handouts that are rampant
throughout the waste reports, by cutting the patronage
organizations, such as the western economic diversification fund
and the economic development funds that are in eastern Canada,
all the hundreds of millions of dollars that it gives to Quebec
companies to keep the Bloc off its back.
We ask the government to be more prudent and reduce its
spending. That is something that is foreign to a Liberal
government. Yes, it may get to a balanced budget but it has done
it, as I said, by wrenching an additional over $25 billion out of
Canadian taxpayers, Canadian workers and Canadian business. That
is why the government is having such a hard time getting the
unemployment rate down. It knows, though it will never admit it,
that taxes kill jobs.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
first of all I would like to congratulate you on your
appointment. We are very confident that you will be an impartial
Speaker. It is a great thing to see you there. It is a great
thing for your constituents as well.
I would also like at the beginning of my maiden speech in the
House of Commons to thank my constituents for this great
privilege. It is a humbling experience to stand in this great
Chamber of democratic deliberation for the first time and
experience what the veterans are familiar with. I only hope that
I can, in whatever modest way, meet the aspirations and
expectations of my constituents of Calgary Southeast.
I have been asked to speak in reply to the Speech from the
Throne. The Speech from the Throne is remarkable. It occurred
to me that it was simply a more stilted and formal version of the
56 page red book II, the one that we released ahead of the Prime
Minister. It was a book filled with congratulations. The
government congratulated itself on what it sees somehow as a
brilliant record. But let us take a closer look at that fiscal
and economic record.
The Liberals talk about job creation and prosperity. What we
have today is 1.4 million Canadians out of work. We are now in
the 98th straight month of unemployment over 9 percent, the
longest string of high unemployment since the great depression.
That is the economic record of this government. Youth
unemployment is over 17 percent. In some regions it exceeds 25
percent. Young people, people of my generation, are without hope.
They have lost economic opportunity because of the policies of
this government.
We have seen a 7 percent decline in the after tax family income of the
average family since the beginning of this decade because of the
tax increases of the Liberal government and its Tory predecessor.
A quarter of Canadians tell us that they go to bed worried about
job security, worried about whether the next day they are going
to have enough money to put bread on the table and take care of
their families. We see anaemic economic growth of under 3 p.
cent. While we have 9 percent unemployment, our largest trading
partner, the United States, has an unemployment rate of almost
half that. Our second largest trading partner, Japan, has an
unemployment rate at a third of that level. The government calls
this an economic record to be proud of.
The Liberals tell us that they have managed nearly to balance
the budget which they helped to create over the last 25 years
with their Conservative friends. How did they do that? By acting
responsibly as so many of the provincial governments did? By
acting in the same way a small business or family would by paring
back the non-essentials, by cutting? No, it was done by
increasing the tax burden on Canadian families, by killing jobs,
by increasing payroll taxes. It has income tax hikes riding on
top of the de-indexation of the tax system imposed by the Tories
in 1986. That grosses $23 billion in new government revenues
through 36 tax increases on top of the 72 tax increases
introduced by the Mulroney Tories. That is the shameful fiscal
record of this government. And what has it done?
1640
It has added $100 billion of debt and called it responsible
fiscal management. That $100 billion brings our total
indebtedness to just under $600 billion which, of course, does
not include another $600 billion in the Canada pension plan Ponzi
scheme for which my generation is going to have to pay. That is
the fiscal record of this government which has led to $47 billion
a year in annual interest payments, a sum large enough to be the
operating budgets of five of the the smaller provincial
governments. That is a shameful record and one it ought not to
applaud.
So what is the answer? One would think that here in this last
Parliament of this century, in this throne speech which sets the
agenda for the new millennium that there would be a great vision,
a new departure, a new direction for Canada. It might take the
advice of the overwhelming majority of the people in the business
communities who know how to create wealth because they do it
every day.
Instead, the government has gone back to the traditional, old
1970s Liberal policies of bigger government, chequebook politics,
trying to buy the votes of its special interest friends by
opening up the treasury yet once more for all its pet projects.
The throne speech is filled with page after page of new spending
programs. There was only one mention of tax decreases and debt
reduction while we are sitting in the midst of an economic crisis
in the country. There is no imagination, no vision in this throne
speech.
Why can the government not think about the kind of real economic
distress that real Canadians are feeling? For instance, what
about providing Canadian families with tax fairness? The
government's throne speech is filled with talk about children who
do not seem to have families, children who seem to be the worthy
recipients of government programs designed by the Liberal
government's social engineers. It does not talk about
traditional families who choose to have a parent stay at home to
raise their children receiving tax fairness, even though this
House with all party support in the last Parliament passed Motion
No. 30 sponsored by the member for Mississauga South, calling for
tax fairness in the tax code. The government has done nothing to
act on that. It seems to be satisfied with penalizing families
who make the sacrifice of giving up a second income to get by.
They really believe that Liberal politicians and big government
bureaucrats know better how to spend a dollar raised from the
taxpayers than does a family or small business person or someone
who is struggling to get a foot up in the labour market.
I want the government to listen to the message it got from the
last election. It came within a whisker of losing power. We
know that the Liberal Party exists to take and maintain power.
The government ought to listen to the message that was sent by
the voters. The message was, let us not go back to the future.
Let us try a different approach.
What about tax fairness for families? Heaven forbid, what about
cutting capital gains taxes to increase investment and
productivity, to reward people for taking risks in our economy?
What about cutting payroll taxes so that we are not penalizing
people for creating jobs and small businesses? What about
cutting income taxes and doing it now so that people can see the
light at the end of the tunnel and not just another big
government spending program? Why can it not see that there is a
different solution.
In closing I invite my colleagues on the opposite side of the
House to take a serious look at the kind of economic record that
30 years of Liberal and Tory big government spending has brought
us. Governments around the world are doing that.
The government's ideological friend in Washington, President
Bill Clinton, a Democrat, said last year that the era of big
government is over. The Labour Prime Minister in the United
Kingdom said that the end of the welfare state has come.
Yet this government is the only Liberal government in the
developed world which seems to think that the old policies of the
welfare state are the ones that can sustain a healthy and
prosperous economy.
1645
Their allies overseas and outside this country know differently.
Governments like the New Democratic one in Saskatchewan know
differently. Provincial governments that have made the hard
decisions know differently. It is time that this government
finally came down on the side of fiscal responsibility, growth,
hope and opportunity for Canadians by providing them with real
meaningful tax relief.
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to start by congratulating the member on what I
believe is his first speech in the House. I would like to
welcome him to the House. I am going to try to be very quick
because I know the member for Broadview—Greenwood would also
like to ask a question.
We on this side of the House heard the message of the last
election. We won a majority government, something that has not
happened that often in this country. The people endorsed our
programs.
I would like the member, who has been thoughtful on these issues
for some time, to step aside from the rhetoric that he has
brought into this House from his research department and sit down
and itemize for me on the record the cuts that he would make in
order to do it differently.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I would hate to point out
to the member that they won a majority government but with the
smallest percentage of popular vote in Canadian history for a
majority government. If that is not chastisement with a divided
opposition, I do not know what is. We still see the Liberal
arrogance creeping into that member's comments.
We were very clear in our fresh start platform document about
precisely which programs we thought were priorities and those
that we thought could be cut. Let us talk about some of this.
How about eliminating grants and handouts to special interest
groups whose sole purpose is to demand more government spending?
How about paring back some of the giveaway programs of the hon.
Minister of Canadian Heritage, like her $23 million flag
giveaway? How about starting with the hon. members pension plan?
Mr. Speaker, 51 of 52 of my colleagues in the last Parliament
gave up their pensions as a sign of sacrifice, as have many
provincial legislators engaged in the same deficit cutting
exercise. Why don't my hon. friends start with the same kind of
leadership by example?
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first
of all I would like to congratulate you on your appointment and I
would like to congratulate the member on his election.
It is unfortunate that there are not more members in the House
today. It may be due to the fact that we keep hearing all the
negativism. Canadians are fed up with negativism. Clearly we
point out to the member that his party not that long ago talked
about the deficit as the number one issue in this country.
Maybe the member of the opposition went to the school of
Orwellian politics, doublespeak. On the one hand, they want the
deficit eliminated. Now the deficit is being eliminated and they
say “Well gee, we don't like the way this is being done”.
My comment is that in order to stimulate the economy, we had to
get that deficit down, slay that $42 billion dragon. Clearly
there are more Canadians going back to work. We saw 900,000
Canadians put back to work because of this government and the
actions of this government. Want ads are fuller today than they
have ever been.
Clearly reducing taxes, yes, I think all Canadians would like to
see taxes reduced. The question is the timing of those
reductions basically because, if we are taking in more money in
order to be able to deal with the deficit and certainly the
debt—we have a $600 billion debt which I hope they would deal
with—I would say that the hon. member talks about chequebook
politics. Could he explain to me what are the chequebook
politics? Helping Canadians I believe is what the government is
doing in the throne speech. Maybe he should read that.
Could the member comment on what he defines as chequebook
politics?
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, talk about Orwellian
rhetoric. My goodness, that is quite a question. I am not sure
whether the member is from the Liberal or Tory party seated to my
right and I am not sure that it matters.
1650
The simple answer is yes, we did call for the elimination of the
deficit and the reduction of the debt, not as an end in itself
but as a means to an end. That end is greater prosperity, hope,
growth and opportunity for Canadians through tax relief. You
cannot provide Canadians with tax relief if you are spending the
money instead of reducing it. It is a simple mathematical thing.
Perhaps you have never balanced a family budget. Heaven knows
this Liberal government has never balanced a government budget.
But when you cut your spending, you get a surplus and that means
that you can reduce people's taxes. That is why we have been
pushing successive governments in this country since the Reform
Party was founded a decade ago to get our finances under control
so we could let Canadians keep more of their own money. It is not
money that belongs to this Parliament or this government or the
Liberal Party of Canada. It is money that belongs to Canadians
and they ought to be able to keep it.
The Deputy Speaker: I regret to inform the large number
of members who want to ask questions that the time for questions
and comments has expired.
The hon. member for Broadview—Greenwood on a point of order.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Mr. Speaker, this member of
Parliament, who has just arrived here, as we all know, is one of
the foremost experts in the country on the whole issue of tax
reform. I wonder if we could have the unanimous consent of the
House to extend this period of questioning for a few more minutes
because we cannot let him off this easy.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to extend
the time for questions and comments?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, thank you very much. I am happy to be here in the House
for the member's maiden speech. I have always had great respect
for the member's work in the whole area of tax reform. I
sincerely welcome his presence here in the House with the Reform
Party because during the last Parliament, with the exception of
Mr. Silye, very few of the members of the Reform Party really
stuck with the whole issue of tax reform.
One of the reasons why they failed to stick with this issue was
because they talk about the tax grants to social organizations,
but the real tax grants in this country are the tax expenditures
that are buried in the 1,500 pages of the tax act and most of
those tax grants go to large multinational organizations. They
are in the guise of saying they will give them this tax
expenditure or this tax grant so they can stimulate jobs. No
accountability.
I want to ask the member of Parliament for Calgary Southeast if
he will undertake to make sure in this Parliament that he will
champion eliminating all of those hidden unaccountable tax
expenditures, especially those that go to the oil and gas
industry in western Canada. I want him to make sure that he will
stand in this House and champion that part of tax reform.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the
hon. member for his kind words and extend some of my own.
I have enormous respect for the hon. member for
Broadview—Greenwood's long and principled crusade for tax reform
in this country. He has been against the stream in his party and
his government in calling for a single tax that would ultimately
give Canadians what I advocate as well.
Would I support the elimination of all the so-called tax
expenditures? Of course not because the single largest tax
expenditure is the RRSP which most Canadians rely on for their
retirement savings.
There are of course tax preferences that some large companies
have which I think are unreasonable in terms of creating a hugely
complex tax system and which require tens of thousands of tax
lawyers, accountants and bureaucrats at Revenue Canada at untold
public expense to administer.
However I think the solution is not to eliminate those things
while keeping the same tax rates thereby squeezing more revenue
out of the economy. If we are going to eliminate exemptions and
deductions and credits for individuals and for companies, we need
to do it within the context of overall radical tax reform which
results in overall lower tax levels for Canadians. On that
condition I would support it.
The Deputy Speaker: Are hon. members rising on questions
or comments? Is it the wish of the House to continue with
questions and comments in this case?
Some hon. members: No.
1655
The Deputy Speaker: In fairness to the other members who
are on the list to speak, I think it might be more prudent to
continue with the debate.
Ms. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is both an honour and a privilege for me to rise in my place
as the new member for the riding of Kitchener Centre to
participate in the Speech from the Throne debate. I am sharing my
time with the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington.
I am both honoured and humbled by the support of the people of
Kitchener Centre who have brought me here to Ottawa. As well, I
would like to acknowledge and send good wishes to my predecessor,
Dr. John English, who has moved on to new challenges while he
continues his work on the anti-personnel landmine issue.
It is the faith of Kitchener Centre in my ability to represent
their best interests which has brought me to this historical seat
of democracy to be a part of the historic second consecutive
Liberal government, the last Parliament of the 20th century and
the one which will lead Canada into the next millennium.
There are a couple of things I would like to share with the
House this afternoon.
First I would like everyone to know why I support the Speech
from the Throne as presented by the governor general on the
opening day of this Parliament.
Second I would like to offer the government an idea. It is an
idea which builds on the agenda presented in the Speech from the
Throne and one which would effect real change in the perception
and effectiveness of government.
It is important to recognize the foundations which were laid for
Canada and Canadians by those who have sat in this House
throughout the last century, those who have shaped Canada's
identity from coast to coast and abroad.
We are known for our Canadian values, generosity of spirit and
collective action; values which have set us apart in the areas of
health care, foreign affairs and peacekeeping; all those
characteristics which lend to our pride in our country and the
respect of the maple leaf worldwide.
In addition to Canadian values, much of our success is based on
at least four principles of Canadian liberalism as laid out by
Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
The first is faith in the individual, which implies freedom of
the individual to make his or her own decisions within the
constraints of a democratic society.
The second principle is compassion for the underprivileged, a
principle which is the underpinning of a social safety net which
Canadians of all parties speak of with pride.
Third is the principle of tolerance toward individuals and
groups. It is this principle which enabled Laurier and his
successors to bridge the ethnic, racial and cultural differences
which characterize Canada.
The fourth principle is that of reform, pushing to develop new
policies in keeping with changing times.
The Speech from the Throne provided the vision as to how this
government, the 36th Parliament, will continue to act on these
principles, and to ensure and work to enhance the quality of
living we experience as Canadians.
The theme of partnership permeated the Speech from the Throne;
partnership between governments, provincial, territorial and
federal; partnership between the public and private sector, large
corporations, small businesses, communities and individuals;
partnerships which will provide a well-rounded, multifaceted
approach to program development and delivery.
I am pleased with the government's commitment to this type of
collaboration as I believe it is important for the government to
address issues on local and regional levels with the assistance
of supporting organizations, businesses and government services.
One of the outstanding characteristics of my riding is the high
degree of volunteerism from the community and the willingness of
the corporate sector to support both with personnel and funds the
initiatives which the community values.
It is the government's ability to draw on the strengths of our
country's differences which will build a stronger Canada.
Kitchener is fortunate to be a part of Canada's technology
triangle comprised of high tech companies located in
Kitchener-Waterloo, Cambridge and Guelph. The success of
partnership in these areas demonstrates that no longer can any
one group or sector effectively operate and succeed in isolation.
This initiative has created a vehicle with which our area is able
to compete in a global economy. As stated in the Speech from the
Throne “one in three Canadian jobs depend on trade”.
1700
In the last Parliament the government made progress in promoting
trade both within our borders and beyond through reducing
internal trade barriers and using the team Canada approach to
open doors to Canadian businesses in Asia.
A number of Kitchener area businesses which were represented on
that mission have benefited from increased international demand.
The success of this approach demonstrates what can be
accomplished when governments and the private sector work
together.
I am pleased with the government's commitment to build on this
success with a focused strategy. I am confident that upcoming
team Canada missions will be as fruitful for Kitchener area
businesses as well as others throughout Canada. By mounting
these initiatives the government is providing fitting leadership
which facilitates lasting job creation in the private sector.
Tourism plays a significant role in the economic mosiac of
Kitchener and surrounding areas. Many visitors, future residents
and investors became acquainted with our community through
tourism. Kitchener's rich ethnic diversity and cultural wealth
have certainly aided the development of various industries
including tourism.
Kitchener is the ninth largest destination for new immigrants.
The community benefits greatly from the contributions of these
citizens. I am sure many are familiar with what has become
Kitchener's most famous celebration by far, Ocktoberfest, a
wonderful celebration of the largest German population in Canada
drawing an average of 700,000 participants each year. It is an
excellent example of people taking pride in their heritage and
working together for the benefit of the entire community. The
associated economic benefits are in the millions of dollars and
continue to grow each year.
While Kitchener enjoys steady growth, the health of a community
cannot be measured solely in economic terms. We must also
recognize the areas which require attention: continued quality
health care, reduced child poverty, improved community safety,
lower unemployment and sustained economic growth. All these
areas must be addressed without jeopardizing how far our
government has come in getting our fiscal house in order. In the
Speech from the Throne the government has offered a positive
approach to these issues through strategic investments.
I propose that our government promote the integration of various
government services and agencies to target the issues and work
together with the business community, faith communities and the
volunteer sector to create private and public partnerships. As
suggested in the Speech from the Throne, if we tackle the problem
together we will gain strength as a country.
I come to the 36th Parliament with one agenda: to be the best
representative I can be, to fulfil this role with energy and
dignity, and to participate in the development and implementation
of legislation that is good for all Canadians.
The Speech from the Throne set the foundation for an exciting
and fulfilling term. Together we can bring a stronger, united
Canada into the next millennium.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, at the onset I congratulate you on your well earned
appointment. I also congratulate the hon. member on her maiden
speech.
The hon. member sang a hymn of praise to team Canada and told us
about all the wonderful things that happened as a result of its
overseas missions. The figures are in; I am sure she is aware of
them. Our exports have dropped substantially to every area where
there was a team Canada mission. This is a fact as presented in
the government's own figures. If this is indeed the case, why is
she so proud of the work of team Canada?
1705
My second question, if she will be so kind as to address two of
them, is with respect to internal trade barriers. She said the
right things, that we have to bring down internal trade barriers.
My question to her is when and how.
The Government of Canada has the constitutional power to do
this. We have a constitution that says that interprovincial
trade must be free and open. What does the government have in
mind? When will it get off its tail and actually do it?
Ms. Karen Redman: Mr. Speaker, I will reply to the two
questions the hon. member has posed.
The city of Kitchener was able to send a mayor on team Canada to
the Pacific rim. The message he brought back was the fact that
people in other countries needed to have a relationship built up
over time. To look for a quick turnaround and have all
government policy be a bottom line ledger is not quite practical.
We are looking for long term gains. It is an investment that
will accrue over several years.
As far as the internal trade barriers are concerned, I mentioned
in my comments about partnership. One thing that a partnership
relies on is a relationship between the two parties. While we
may have the federal power to impose, it is much better if we can
bring the provinces along with us. We have to acknowledge that
when we share a vision we have to let the partner help shape it.
I have every confidence the government will get where it needs to
be.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, once again,
I have listened carefully to what the hon. member had to say, and like
all her colleagues, she did not mention the people of Quebec's interest.
I think this is important, and I wish to pursue the point, because
when I came to Ottawa, to this House, I came with my head held high,
because the people of Quebec elected us. We represent 60 per cent of
the members from Quebec, and we have a sovereignist government in Quebec
City with whom we share the same option and which holds 80 per cent of
the seats there.
Those of you who believe the polls, who try to say that we are not
legitimate and that the people of Quebec do not want sovereignty, are in
for some surprises.
I have two questions for the member who just spoke. I would like
to know if she admits that the government's legislative program denies
the existence of the people of Quebec and of their culture? Does the
member recognize the existence of the people of Quebec? If so, is she
prepared to support the amendment presented by the leader of the Bloc
Quebecois?
[English]
Ms. Karen Redman: Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge that one of
the exciting parts of coming to the House of Parliament and this
democratic process steeped in history was to be able to brush
elbows with people in all parts of Canada.
My Canada includes Quebec. It is a vibrant, thriving society.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Kitchener Centre not
only on her maiden speech but also on her excellent replies.
It is very difficult to come into the House and suddenly face
opposition questions. It will be difficult to follow that act,
as it were, but I will try to do my very best.
I will begin by commenting on the speech in reply to the Speech
from the Throne by the member for Calgary Southwest, the Leader
of the Opposition. I draw the attention of the House to two
points he made.
1710
He condemned the Speech from the Throne because it did not state
anything about the accountability of MPs. I find this rather
confusing because MPs are naturally very accountable. We are one
of the most accountable people in the land simply because if the
people of Canada, the electorate, do not like us or are not
satisfied with us they can fire us every four or five years, or
whatever the case may be. They can fire us nonetheless. The
Reform Party and hopefully some of the new parties might bear
that in mind.
The other point is that the member for Calgary Southwest
probably meant we should be seeking more accountability from
government machinery. We are all here to try to make government
run better and more effectively for Canadians. One of the ways
of achieving that is to strive for more accountability within
government machinery, all government departments. All MPs on all
sides of the House share this responsibility. We express this
responsibility by the questions we pose in committee.
I spent some time on the government operations committee when we
scrutinized a number of departments and found a number of flaws.
Many of the flaws were due to a lack of accountability. I am
quite happy to say that the search for better government was not
exclusively Liberal. It was predominantly Liberal, but I was
assisted by my colleagues, members of the Reform Party and the
Bloc Quebecois.
As MPs we are accountable. It is the machinery of government we
must scrutinize. Reform Party members certainly have no
exclusivity on the desire to bring accountability to government
and to reform government. Just because they have the name Reform
in their party title does not mean they are the only MPs who seek
reform.
The member for Calgary Southwest also criticized the Speech from
the Throne because it devolved certain responsibilities that were
once federal to the provinces. The member for Calgary Southwest
complained this devolution was done purely for administrative
means. He said that his party, were it in power, would have
passed a bill and made these changes statutory. He is referring
to transferring certain responsibilities for forestry, social
housing, mining and several other issues to the provinces.
I remind members opposite that Ontario is experiencing the
consequences of transferring power, that is the power to control
the responsibility for social housing. What happens when it is
given to a provincial government that does not have the same
spirit of generosity and caring as the federal government?
In Ontario right now there is a controversy. The Ontario
government wants to have no responsibility whatsoever for looking
after the poor and the disadvantaged people in society who occupy
social housing. Now it is devolving it to the municipalities.
The lesson for us is that we ought to make sure that when we
transfer federal powers we transfer them in a way in which we can
take them back if we need do so. That is the situation in
Ontario.
More unfortunate in the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition
was that he suggested transfers of responsibilities should be
done by statutes. When he says that, because he is talking about
provincial and federal powers, he can only mean changes to the
Constitution.
All Canadians from sea to sea were fed up with attempts to
change the Constitution by a previous party that I would prefer
to leave nameless in the House. Canadians do not want to see
tampering with the Constitution. It is the last thing Canadians
want. I am absolutely amazed the Leader of the Opposition should
propose going into the Constitution again.
All I can say is good luck. Look at what happened to a former
Conservative prime minister.
I have to come to the Speech from the Throne.
[Translation]
I am sorry, but I found it a bit uninspiring. I think that the
throne speech lacked eloquence and inspiration. The ideas are good,
they are all good, but the speech did not have what I was looking for.
1715
Fortunately the next day the Prime Minister spoke on the
Speech from the Throne, and I found his remarks full of eloquence
and ideas. I found him eloquent on the subject of the government's
ideas.
[English]
I especially like the idea in the prime minister's remarks of
supporting young people. I have to tell the House that I wanted
to see the Speech from the Throne talk about citizenship, getting
rid of the monarchy and a number of other things. Instead I
found a Speech from the Throne that was directed to helping
Canada's youth. One of the most important points in the prime
minister's remarks was the fact that he proposed more exchanges
of young people across Canada. He mentioned that when he was
young he remembers sitting in kitchens in Saskatchewan, shooting
pool in Newfoundland and that kind of thing.
I can relate to that because when I was young I travelled across
Canada, the first time out to the Rockies, into Reform country if
you will, and saw the Rocky Mountains for the first time. I was
inspired. It is beautiful country. Any Reform MP who is from
the Rockies or the prairies should be proud of it.
Similarly later I visited Quebec. I visited first Montreal and
then Quebec City, actually right at the height of the FLQ crisis.
[Translation]
What I found was a unique and vibrant society, whose language
I did not understand. A marvellous society. I have become a
federalist with my heart in the mountains and in the province of
Quebec, because of that.
[English]
I think the prime minister is right on when he said that the new
Parliament and the Speech from the Throne, even though it did not
express it very well, but he expressed it so much better, should
be about the future generation, the new generation of Canadians,
Canada's young people.
I would like to conclude with a quote. The prime minister said
this part of his speech in English and so with a certain amount
of pride and perhaps trepidation I will attempt to say the prime
minister's words in French. Here is what he said and I do not
think I could say it better.
[Translation]
He said:
We have built that nation and we continue to shape its
elements. Our young will do so in the next century. Their
architecture will be new but it will be Canadian. Greatness
may have a different meaning, but it will still be Canadian.
That is the essence of the Speech from the Throne.
[English]
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House the
member's comments and his criticisms against the member for
Calgary Southeast. He was quite critical of the member when he
was referring to accountability in suggesting that he has an
exclusive on accountability and suggesting that the Liberal Party
can be just as accountable and its members can as well.
1720
I would like to remind the member that it is very easy to speak
of accountability but the Reform Party has an absolute
exclusivity on actions when it comes to accountability. That is
the only way he is going to be able to show the Canadian people
accountability, through actions like giving up his pension. The
Liberal Party has not come through with actions on
accountability, but the Reform Party leads the way.
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, as an individual member I
would like to refer the member opposite to some of my efforts
with respect to bringing accountability to charitable
organizations which, in a sense, are government organizations in
the sense that they receive taxpayer dollars.
Also I think when he gains a bit more experience around here he
will discover that there have been many initiatives not just
among Liberal colleagues but among Reform colleagues and Bloc
Quebecois colleagues that have sought better accountability in
government, something we all do as MPs and we all should do as
MPs or we certainly ought not to be here. I think the member for
Calgary Southwest should have recognized that he was criticizing
MPs as MPs rather than criticizing the government. He got a
little confused there, if you will.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first I
wish to congratulate you on your appointment. You are one of the Reform
Party members with whom I have had the opportunity to work. In fact,
when we worked together, it was precisely on a youth initiative program,
as our colleague mentioned earlier.
What I want to ask the hon. member is whether he admits that the
federal government is about to get fully involved in areas under
provincial jurisdiction.
Mr. Speaker, you will remember that the national conference on
youth and the new economy had young participants from everywhere,
including eastern and western Canada, Quebec and other regions of the
country.
These people from every region of the country told us that these youth
initiatives, these employment initiatives must be implemented, to the
extent possible, where the problems are, namely in the regions. In other
words, we must take measures that are appropriate to the specific
problems of the regions.
Listening to the hon. member opposite, one gets the impression that
the federal government is the saviour of the world and that the
municipalities and provincial governments have no jurisdiction and are
not accountable to the public. Upon reading the throne speech, one
cannot help but conclude that the federal government is trying to get
involved in areas under provincial jurisdiction and to enhance its
visibility.
I have a question for the hon. member. What does the federal
government have to gain from getting involved in areas under provincial
jurisdiction?
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion it is simple. The
federal government's most important responsibility is to help young
people everywhere in the country, including those from Ontario and
Quebec. This is a great and most important challenge.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to start, first of all, by thanking the people of Témiscouata who
supported me for three and a half years during my first term. For the
information of the hon. member opposite, as a result of electoral
reform, Témiscouata is now part of the riding of
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, represented by
our colleague, Paul Crête.
I now wish to take this opportunity to thank the people of
Rimouski—Mitis for giving me their support. Mr. Speaker, I realize you
have already visited our lovely region and enjoyed the beauty of the
St. Lawrence and our forests. I happen to live in one of Quebec's many
beautiful regions, but this one is particularly attractive, in my
opinion.
I will now comment on the Speech from the Throne. The Liberal
government could have taken advantage of the initial days of this new
Parliament to take some concrete action that would have shown they have
a number of answers to the problems besetting Canadian and Quebec
society.
1725
Unfortunately, the government is not really working for the people.
It would rather perpetuate the doctrine of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who
advocated a dominating and centralizing federal government and would not
recognize the identity and aspirations of the people of Quebec.
Lester B. Pearson's legacy has completely disappeared. I will
remind the House that Mr. Pearson had asked that the Laurendeau-Dunton
Commission recommend steps to ensure that the Canadian confederation
would develop in accordance with the principle of two equal founding
peoples. Those days are really gone now.
Of course, in the eyes of the Liberal government, there is no
such thing as a Quebec culture. In fact, the Prime Minister once
said there is only one, Canadian culture, which may be of French
or English expression. The Speech from the Throne may talk about
a “tolerant and highly diverse society”, but the government still
fails to recognize the basic historical fact that Quebec is one
of the founding peoples of this country.
I will use the rest of my time commenting on how empty this Speech
from the Throne, the third one of the Chrétien years, is. It only gets
worse. The vacuum is particularly noticeable in the area of cultural
development. This lack of vision and commitment is sad for Quebec as
well as for Canada. Quebec however has a way out: relaim all its powers
and achieve sovereignty in a hurry.
During the 35th Parliament, the government demonstrated that
culture was not one of its major concerns. It contented itself with
micro-managing seriously reduced budgets. In addition to cutting back
funding, it did nothing to encourage culture. It has taken the
relentless efforts of the Bloc Quebecois to persuade the Liberals
finally to bring in copyright reform.
In its speech, the government says it wants to make it possible for
Canadian culture to reach audiences abroad. We can only hope that this
intention will take the form of support for creators and cultural
industries. We do not want to see a repeat of last year's attempts to
force artists to promote Canadian unity, or to judge projects on the
basis of political rather than artistic criteria, or to require artists
to pay a visit to the member for Verdun, whom they did not know and had
never met, in order to collect their cheque.
The government speaks proudly of our films. What it should do is
conduct an in-depth review of Telefilm Canada's film policy, which was
seriously criticized in an internal report. One of the things this
report mentions is an overall lack of funding—cuts of $84 million do
not go unnoticed in a budget—as well as shortcomings in marketing, and
distribution problems. Telefilm Canada has its work cut out for it.
If the government truly wants to reflect social and linguistic
diversity, it should stop censoring artistic projects that deal with the
history or culture of Quebec, as it did with Pierre Falardeau's plans
for a film about the life of the Patriot Delorimier, entitled Le 15
février 1839.
The most vital criterion should be script quality. The
decision making process ought to be free of any conflict of
interest or political partisanship, which was not the case with Mr.
Falardeau's production, as we now have all the evidence we need to
prove.
The government is boasting about the quality of our books, yet
it refused to listen to our suggestions when the Bloc Quebecois
came to the defence of the publishing industry. If the government
still does nothing in this area, fewer and fewer books with
Canadian content will be published, because our entire industry
will have been sold out to the Americans. In this area, the
anglophone culture is more vulnerable than the francophone.
1730
The government must react to the World Trade Organization
decision on split runs of American periodicals. The Minister of
Heritage had, moreover, made a commitment to present a plan in
support of the magazine publishing industry as soon as Parliament
reconvened. Is she going to stick to that campaign promise, or
will she be forced to resign a second time? Watch for the next
instalment.
The Minister of Heritage will need to find ways of supporting
the periodicals and scientific and cultural periodicals which are
being seriously threatened by the reduced postal subsidy and the
changes in its rules. I must point out that, in this area, there is
a particular threat to specialized French language periodicals,
given their limited market.
In the Speech from the Throne, there is also a reference to
videos. If the government really wants to develop this industry and
encourage creativity, it must immediate review the Copyright Act,
for the audiovisual sector was excluded from the recent revision of
that legislation. A guarantee of receiving the revenues generated
by their work would be the best way to stimulate creators and
craftspeople in this area of cultural activity.
In the same vein, the $45 million in cuts made by the Liberal
government have resulted in the National Film Board's virtually
abandoning its assistance to independent film making, and this
particularly jeopardizes the careers of the young film and video
makers who represent the future of their industry.
We read in the Speech from the Throne that the government, and
I quote “will provide increased support to the Canada Council”.
Now that is really playing with words to mislead us in this area
too.
Here as elsewhere, the government will probably be content to give
back some of the funding it cut in the past. There will have to be
a number of years of Liberal generosity before the Canada Council
returns to the level of funding it enjoyed before the Liberals came
to power. As Liberal spending power is legendary, the government
will announce straight faced and glowing with pride the ever
increasing budget of the Canada Council.
Regarding the information highway, the government talks of the
urgency of making Canada “the most connected nation in the
world”.
We have seen how that could help in consultations on certain
declarations, because a number of provinces are contemplating using
the connection from Industry Canada.
Being “connected” is a praiseworthy objective. However, the Speech
from the Throne makes no mention of the promise of the second red
book to create a $15 million multimedia fund and fails to act on
the recommendation of the advisory committee on the information
highway that a $50 million, and not $15 million, fund be set up.
Will the Minister of Industry be the only one overseeing Canada's
information highway, disregarding its cultural and education sides?
This is another subject to follow.
We read in the speech that “A connected nation is more than
wires, cables and computers”. What a discovery. “It is a nation
in which citizens have access to the skills and knowledge they
need”. We agree.
This is why the Bloc Quebecois has insisted for nearly four years
now on the need to develop francophone content for the information
highway.
1735
There are gaping holes in this speech. In their first red book, the
Liberals were committed to stable multi-year financing for the CBC.
Every budget in the past four years has broken this promise, and the
corporation has had to absorb $350 million in cuts. Should we be alarmed
by the fact that the speech does not mention the CBC? When it was
promised stable financing, it actually got cuts. This time, it is not
even mentioned. Does this mean that its financing will be maintained,
cut, or that it will again benefit from the government's largesse? On
this, we will have to wait and see.
Is the government finally going to give equal treatment to the
French and the English networks? At present, one hour of
programming costs on average $37,500 on the English network and
$18,390 on the French network. The government should stop
treating francophones as second class citizens, and set up two
autonomous corporations with equivalent budgets based on the same
cost per hour of programming.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Per hour of programming?
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes, sir.
Before the last federal election, the health minister promised
amendments to the tobacco control bill to allow sponsorship of sporting
events. Since there is no mention of this in the throne speech, are we
to understand that the government has already forgotten its promise?
What will happen to cultural events in danger of losing their sponsors
as a result of this bill?
At issue is the potential loss of some $30 million in economic benefits
these major cultural and sporting events generate in Quebec, mainly in
Montreal. Is the Liberal government once again going to abandon the
cultural sector?
One of the few promising aspects of this speech is the federalist
propaganda campaign. We are told they are going to rev it up as we
approach the new millennium.
After announcing that it will cut health, education and social
assistance programs by another $42 billion by the year 2001, the
government introduces new programs in areas of provincial jurisdiction
so that it can mail directly to Canadians cheques emblazoned with a nice
red maple leaf. The government is not interested in how useful or
effective these programs will be.
What matters to the government is to be visible with its flag.
It must be noted that on July 1, the government did not hesitate to
take down our flag from our Parliament to replace it with the Queen's
standard to show how dominated we are.
Where does this idea of visibility over effectiveness come from?
Again it comes from Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who wrote in a 1967 book
entitled Federalism and the French Canadians, and I quote: “One way of
offsetting the appeal of separatism is by investing tremendous amounts
of time, energy and money in nationalism, at the federal level. A
national image must be created that will have such an appeal as to make
any image of a separatist group unattractive”.
The Liberals are obviously inspired by this ideology.
Contrary to what we heard in previous throne speeches, there is no
question of working with the provinces to improve the federation. Now
the only thing that matters to the government is to create an image, an
illusion. While people are getting poorer and poorer and while the
government refuses to recognize Quebec's identity, it will create the
illusion of wealth and the illusion of the acceptation of Quebec by the
outstretched hand that actually just wants to crush us and bring us down
to our knees.
1740
We must remember that the money we receive is our own money. It
comes from our taxes. The federal government does not have a penny. It
gets its money from the Canadian taxpayers and does not own it, although
it may think it does. The federal government can start spending once
again only because it keeps on cutting social programs and transfers to
provinces and because it diverts the unemployment insurance fund from
its intended purpose. The money belongs to us and not to the
government. It wants to use it to serve its own interests and improve
its visibility, not to ensure our development.
The Bloc Quebecois will never stop calling for the federal
government to stop useless and unwarranted spending for propaganda
purposes.
You will be surprised when we reveal these figures. The sums are really
huge. The amounts recovered in these ways should be spent on cultural
activities and on promoting freedom of artistic expression.
I can tell you right away that the Canadian heritage minister will
soon cheer when she learns that her government has raised her budget by
3 percent. Beware. Take a good look at Statistics Canada's figures. You will
see, in black and white, that the increase went to operating
expenditures and capital expenditures and that it was used for severance
packages given to employees laid off by the department and its agencies
and not for the promotion of cultural endeavour.
In fact, transfers to artists and cultural organizations have
dropped by more than 5 percent. The only new expenditures will be similar to
those made by Heritage Canada over the past 15 months for billboards and
flags.
In concluding, the strategies contained in the Speech from the
Throne are basically aimed at restoring the tarnished reputation of this
federal government and giving it a semblance of relevance. This the
government intends to do by using money cut from transfers to the
provinces for health, education and welfare and money saved at the
expense of ordinary citizens: the unemployed, workers, seasonal workers,
the sick, students and welfare recipients.
Instead of concentrating on rebuilding what it had destroyed, the
federal government has embarked on new intrusions in areas under
provincial jurisdiction. It is triumphant, carefully disguising the fact
that we can expect at least $42 billion more in cuts between now and the
year 2001.
Concealment is definitely the name of the game for this government.
However, Quebecers are nobody's fool. When the time comes for them to
determine their future, they will realize there is no risk involved in
having one own's country and being sovereign, in exchanging the maple
leaf for a fleur de lys, since all the money will stay in Quebec and be
used to meet their own needs.
[English]
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Thank
you, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing me. I am pleased to have a new
riding. I want also to begin by complimenting you on your
elevation to that very wonderful post. I hope that we are able
to see many more of these emotional discussions.
[Translation]
Instead of ranting and raving for the benefit of the cameras,
instead of turning this into a public circus and saying things like the
federal government is destroying something it has built, perhaps the
hon. member would entertain a constructive suggestion. How about
starting on a policy, a movement for the purpose of building a good
country, a country like Canada, the best country in the world to live
in.
I was interested in the hon. member's comments to the effect that
she was very worried about cultural problems. We all know that people
who work in the cultural industries, especially in certain provinces,
have a political agenda.
I am not particularly interested in all that. My interest extends to the
work I did in committee last year. The hon. member was on the same
committee.
1745
There was $600 million from the cable operators' production fund.
We were able to discuss how to use that money, and distribute it to
people working in cultural industries.
I find it quite depressing, today, when some talk of not supporting
francophones while others speak of preserving their culture in other
provinces, to hear the position taken by members of the Bloc Quebecois,
including the member who has just spoken. Such a position goes totally
against the interests of francophones in Ontario, it is totally
divisive, it divides the country and makes things even more difficult
for people like me who fight for the preservation of their language
outside Quebec.
You are not the only ones who speak French. I find your position
interesting, though it does constitute a shift. I find not only
depressing but sad that they do not realize the harm they are doing to
others, outside Quebec, who do not share their interests.
I would like the member to respond to that, if she can.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: The hon. member opposite has some nerve, Mr.
Speaker.
First, I suggest he reread my speech over at leisure. He will
realize, after reading his own remarks, that he did not understand what
I said. I have never said that we were the only francophones—
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Don't be arrogant.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, would you ask the minister to
be quiet? He is carrying on.
I think this is an important point. We never claimed to be the only
ones who speak French in Canada. I never said such a thing.
We have followed with interest the situation in Ontario. We have
seen what happened with Montfort Hospital. We have seen Mrs. Lalonde
resign from her position as chair of S.O.S. Montfort. Why? Because the
City of Vanier voted in favour of partition.
Realizing what they had done after Mrs. Lalonde's resignation, they
said: “Oops, this might have been a mistake after all; we will
reconsider”.
So they reconsidered their position and decided it was such a
mistake to support partition that now Vanier would almost go as far as
to support Quebec's sovereignty. You know, the hon. member opposite is
in no position to criticize us. He used to be the member for Ontario;
that was easy enough to remember, but I forget what his new riding is
called.
An hon. member: Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: There is “Ajax” in there and, to me, that is
stuff used to clean the sink.
Some hon. members: Ha, ha.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: That is the kind of trick I will use to
remember the name of his riding in future.
Naturally, we all have our own personality. I for one am a
passionate person. He should watch the program on the French
network of the CBC this evening, at 7.30 p.m. He would get to
know me better because tonight is about who I am really, behind
the image. This is an invitation. However, he will realize that I
am a passionate person, and I am not about to set this aspect of
my personality aside just because it does not please the
Liberals. If there is something I intend to do, it is to show
passion in this House.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to comment on the speech by the hon. member
for Rimouski—Mitis. First, I must congratulate her for a very
passionate and good speech, in which she defends culture.
The hon. member has always been known to defend culture and I
congratulate her for doing so. However, in her enthusiasm, she is
wearing blinkers and is too focused on herself, on what she calls the
people of Quebec. When she talks about the two founding nations, she
talks about Quebec. She forgets the francophones from Nova Scotia, New
Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia
and even Yukon.
1750
When the hon. member refers to us, francophones from outside
Quebec, it is always in a negative way and I deplore that. I do not
think she does it out of malice but, rather, out of separatist idealism
to try to make a point. She should instead encourage francophones
outside Quebec and show what is happening among French Canadians.
The hon. member talked about Quebec's culture. There is a French
Canadian culture. There are many cultivated people in Quebec. There is
a thriving culture, but francophones living outside Quebec also
contribute to that culture.
When she talks about the francophonie, I wish the member for
Rimouski—Mitis would include francophones outside Quebec as well as
those in Quebec in Canada's French-speaking community.
Together, we can make Canada an even better place, with a strong,
thriving Quebec in an even greater country and in a world in which we
can be proud of our dynamic culture, since the hon. member is always
raising the issue of culture. Perhaps I should commend her for her
interest in this matter.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
kind words, of course. I am flattered.
First of all, in my speech, which I also invite this member to
read, I never excluded francophones outside Quebec. I asked whether
there would be an information highway for francophones. I did not
specify that it would be for Quebec alone and that it would not go
outside our province. The information highway covers quite a distance.
I would have a lot of trouble stopping it at the Quebec border. I spoke
about an information highway for francophones, meaning all francophones
in Canada.
I have no objection to there being a French Canadian people. But I
am no longer part of that group. When I was growing up, I was taught in
school that I was a French Canadian. Later on, I was told that I was a
Quebecer and I like that better. But I will not be faulted for
preferring to be a Quebecer to being a French Canadian. As a French
Canadian, I am a second class citizen.
As a Quebecer, I am a first class citizen. That is the difference. I
have no objection to their being French Canadians, but why are we given
less money to produce television programs?
Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the Canadian
Constitution. French Canadians are not second class citizens, as the
member has just said.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): With the greatest of
respect, as the hon. member knows that is most likely a point of
debate.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first let me offer my congratulations to you on your new
office. We are all confident you will do a great job.
Let me also say that I am sharing my time with the hon. member
for St. Catharines.
I am very pleased to participate in this debate. There is no
question the Speech from the Throne we heard this past Tuesday
speaks for itself. Nonetheless we are here, opposition members
from one point of view and government members from another, to
debate the merits or demerits of the throne speech.
The fact I am here as the member for Algoma—Manitoulin is due
to the voters of my riding who expressed their support in me. I
appreciate that.
We all had supporters among our volunteers and our loved ones. On
behalf of all of us may I thank many people across the country
who participated in the political process, in the democratic
process. They are helping to make this country the greatest
country in the world with a parliament that at times seems to be
raucous and noisy but a parliament that works, a parliament in
which we can all have confidence.
1755
I never cease to be in awe of this place even though this is my
second term. I say to first time members of the House that they
can make of this job what their efforts produce. If they serve
their constituents and their country well, they will feel the
reward of knowing that the country is bit by bit moving
positively into the next millennium.
It is appropriate that a Liberal government will lead the
country into the next millennium. Our Prime Minister is the
right person to lead the government into the next thousand years.
The throne speech has shown in many ways the caring and
nurturing side of government. Too often our citizens are cynical
about government at all levels and the processes which seem to
take place behind closed doors and in faraway places. We
demonstrated in the last Parliament—and we will show it
again—that this is an open, transparent government, a government
that will listen to the people and will make decisions, often
tough decisions, that are needed to continue keeping the country
the best country in the world.
I will quote one sentence from the Prime Minister's speech of
yesterday which sums up for me the theme of my remarks. He said
“Canada will remain the best country to live in because it cares
about people”.
In my time around here as the member of Parliament for
Algoma—Manitoulin I have learned that ultimately voters want to
know their governments and representatives care about them and
their communities. The less we express and show that, the more
distant they feel.
My riding in northern Ontario stretches from Manitouwadge in the
northwest to Chapleau in the northeast and south to the north
shore of Lake Huron including Manitoulin Island. Whether we
represent a downtown city core or urban riding or a large rural
riding, we are representing Canadians. They are Canadians who
all feel the same way about their country.
The throne speech expresses the caring nature of the government.
We can find no greater evidence than in the words of the throne
speech.
Let us start with the issue of the economy. In the last
Parliament a tremendous challenge was facing us with the deficit
at record levels. Let us imagine newspaper headlines screaming
aloud that the government has brought our country into the black.
Over the next year and a half, if not sooner, we will be in a
surplus position. What greater thing can we do for preserving
our health care programs, our pension programs, programs for
youth and so on, than by ensuring our economy is strong and
vibrant based on a set of books we can all be proud of whether a
member of the opposition or not.
That essence of caring has given Canadians for the first time in
a long time a real sense of hope, optimism and confidence about
the future. We are certainly not there yet when it comes to
solving all the problems of the country. There will always be
challenges and problems to face. It has been a long time since
this country has been at such a tremendous juncture in its
history.
In fact there is so much confidence as we approach the next
millennium that the Prime Minister in the throne speech announced
that we are going to have a tremendous millennium party in two
and a half years, a party which I believe the world will come to
because people around the world know that we have a country that
cares about people.
1800
Even though we hear complaints from different parts of the
country it is only because people know that the government will
listen when they speak and cry out for help. They know we will
respond.
A caring government must look at the first and most important
group in our society, our children. We have recognized that
children must get a good start in life, be it through proper
nutrition or through proper education. We have made tremendous
strides, in co-operation with all the provinces, in developing a
national child benefit system. It is not completed yet but I
believe it will evolve into a model for the world.
When it comes to the young people of our society, people who we
worry a lot about because of their concerns of future employment,
this government in the last Parliament, and even more this
Parliament, stands ready to make sure that in co-operation with
the provinces through an enhanced scholarship program, through
initiatives with industry it can make sure that they have a
chance at that first job, at starting life on the right foot.
If, for some reason, they get off on the wrong foot we are there
to make sure they have a second and a third chance if necessary.
We are also looking out for those in our society who find
themselves in the middle ages, sometimes victims of structural
change. With changing societies and economies, we will see jobs
lost here and jobs created somewhere else. That is the nature of
our modern society. We have the sadness which comes with losing a
job maybe at the age of 40 or 50 years of age. Many of my
constituents have faced that challenge, particularly in Elliot
Lake. It is incumbent on us to continue to assist people caught
in this way with retraining or appropriate early retirement
programs.
For the final age category, that being our elderly, what more
can a government do but to make sure that the pension systems are
secure and that seniors do not have to worry about the future.
I heard from the seniors. They were worried about the future.
When they understood through our campaign that we were committed
to securing the Canada pension plan for the future and that we
were developing the seniors benefit plan, they knew that the
government would be watching out for them.
This does not say that some people don't get lost in the cracks.
It is incumbent on the government to close those cracks, to make
sure that nobody is left behind. It is an absolute feature of a
caring government that no one gets left behind.
Mr. Speaker, again I wish you the very best in your new office
over this next Parliament. I wish the best for all my colleagues
as we look forward to an exciting and vigorous Parliament over
this next few years.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member for Algoma referred to the strong voice of the government
that is there for the people. That strong voice just was not
there. It was a silent voice for the people in Atlantic Canada
in the last Parliament.
Atlantic Canada has 8 percent of the population and it was taking 27
percent of all the cuts.
1805
I have a shipyard, the most modern shipyard there is in Canada,
in Saint John, New Brunswick. Four thousand men used to work
there. None are working there now. I used to have all of my
electricians working in the province of New Brunswick.
Seventy-six percent of them are now gone. Seventy-six percent
of them are not working. They have gone illegally to the U.S.A.
to work so they can feed their families.
The government is selling off all the housing of CMHC. Do you
know who lives in CMHC housing? All the low and middle income
people live in those houses. When you privatize it, the rent
doubles and triples and the people are out on the street.
I do not believe that the government understands what it has
done. It is time for it to stop and take a look. The member
talks about a crack. What is in the throne speech is a crack the
size of the Grand Canyon. I appeal to the government to please
tell us what it is going to do for the people who are hurting
like never before. I do not want to hear about governments in
the past who did this or that.
All I know is that when I was mayor our people worked and we had
a low unemployment rate. I had 4,000 people working at my
shipyard, some as plumbers, some as electricians. It was
beautiful. However, right now it is a total disaster.
Please tell me what you are going to do for our people?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I would remind hon.
members to please address each other through the Chair.
Mr. Brent St. Denis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
remarks of the hon. member for Saint John.
I admire the member for Saint John. She was very effective in
the last Parliament and I expect that she will be in this
Parliament. However, I believe she is missing the point.
In the last Parliament the government had to make some tough
decisions. You can care about the people and still make tough
decisions knowing that what you are doing will be better for all
the regions of the country.
In my home town of Elliot Lake, starting in 1990 we experienced
a job loss of some 5,000 in the uranium mining industry. There
was a lot of adjustment, but in the long run the changes which
took place have shown that Elliot Lake and that region will
survive and do very well.
I know that the spirit of the citizens of the Atlantic provinces
is very much the same. They will respond to change and they will
deal with the challenges that face them in a very creative way.
I have every confidence in the citizens of Saint John and the
other ridings of the Atlantic provinces. They will take up the
flag and march into the next millennium with all of us. All of
our regions will be better off with the changes and improvements
that we have made in the governance of this country.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to congratulate you. You occupy the chair so well. Not
only do you look well, you act well, you speak well and you have
such a passion for the House.
1810
I would like to refer to the speech we have just heard from the
hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin. He used little phrases in
his comment that really caught my attention. He said “and no
one shall be left behind”. Now that was very interesting. In
fact I think “no one is left behind” were the exact words he
used. That is very interesting because the moment he finished his
speech, the hon. member for Saint John had to point out to him
that there are people who are already being left behind.
I would like to ask the member for Algoma—Manitoulin what he
considers to be accountability and what he considers being left
behind. I draw his attention to the the allocation or awarding
by the Minister of Industry of TPC grants. It is is clearly the
spoken intention of the Minister of Industry to say very clearly
that these grants are to be in support of and to develop small
industry in Canada. What do we discover? Until this point as of
August 31, 1997, 75 percent of all of those moneys were not given to
small industry but to large industries in aerospace and defence;
75 percent on industries that are wealthy, industries with a profit, yet
the small businessman could not get in. Does he call that
accountability? Does he call that being left behind? What is he
talking about?
Mr. Brent St. Denis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what I
think was a question from the member for Kelowna.
If he can check the blues, I believe he will appreciate my
clarification on the people in our society who are being left
behind. None of us in the House wants anyone to be left behind.
I believe I said that this government in the last Parliament and
again in this Parliament will take steps to ensure that as much
as possible no one is left behind. It is a sad fact in the real
world of life that some people for one reason or another find
themselves lagging behind the bulk of society and it is necessary
for society at large to reach back and make sure that no one is
left behind. But sadly we do not live in a perfect world. I
doubt that we will ever live in a perfect world, but we can all
work together to make it a better world and a better country.
I know that opposition members of all parties will work with us
to make Canada a better and better place in which to live where
no one will be left behind. That is not a fantasy nor is it a
dream. It is a very high goal that will take a lot of effort and
time to achieve.
I believe the programs that we have and will put in place will
provide our citizens with the very best possibility to achieve
their own individual successes in life. Take for example the
scholarship fund that the Prime Minister referred to yesterday in
his speech, the details of which will no doubt come out over the
days and weeks ahead. It is a scholarship fund designed
specifically for post-secondary aspirants who find themselves in
low and modest income family situations. That among many
initiatives is an indication of the government's commitment to
those who might otherwise be left behind. While he might want to
say that I said we were there, he knows full well it is an
objective that will be best achieved through the efforts of this
government no doubt with the co-operation of the opposition
parties.
1815
[Translation]
The Speaker: It is now 6.15 p.m. and we are out of time. Perhaps
we can come back to this next time.
It being 6.15, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put
forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the motion now before
the House.
[English]
The question is on the subamendment. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the subamendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the subamendment will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
1845
(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was
negatived on the following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Brien
|
Canuel
| Crête
| de Savoye
| Desrochers
|
Dubé
(Lévis)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Guay
| Loubier
| Marceau
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp – 33
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Adams
| Alcock
| Anders
|
Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Cadman
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Casey
| Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Charest
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
Cummins
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Duncan
| Earle
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Hanger
| Harb
| Hart
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Lill
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Manning
|
Marchi
| Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Meredith
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Mitchell
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Pankiw
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Penson
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
|
Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
| Richardson
|
Ritz
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Solberg
| Solomon
| St. Denis
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Wilfert
| Wood
– 222
|
PAIRED
Members
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Caccia
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Debien
|
Dromisky
| Finestone
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lefebvre
| Minna
| Phinney
|
Rocheleau
| Speller
| Steckle
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare the subamendment defeated.
It being 6.47 p.m. this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.47 p.m.)