36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 3
CONTENTS
Wednesday, September 24, 1997
1400
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MONITOR JET TRAINER AIRCRAFT
|
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Wood |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHINESE CANADIANS
|
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WHITBY WARRIORS
|
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judi Longfield |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
1405
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PLASTIMET
|
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Keyes |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WAR CRIMINALS
|
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MOTHER TERESA
|
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Pillitteri |
1410
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ALGERIA
|
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
|
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Jennings |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy St-Julien |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PAY EQUITY
|
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
1415
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRINCESS DIANA
|
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | UNIVERSITÉ DU QUÉBEC À CHICOUTIMI
|
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MOTHER TERESA
|
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Albina Guarnieri |
1420
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
|
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
1425
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1430
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1435
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1440
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THRONE SPEECH
|
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
1445
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1450
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL UNITY
|
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
|
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1455
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH CARE
|
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1500
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Carmen Provenzano |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
1505
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STANDING ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER OF CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Health and Drug Act
|
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Gouk |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | National Highways
|
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Finlay |
1510
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Criminal Code
|
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Finlay |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Co-Operatives
|
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Alex Shepherd |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
|
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Resumption of debate on Address in Reply
|
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
1515
1520
1525
1530
1535
1540
1545
1550
1555
1600
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1605
1610
1615
1620
1625
1630
1635
1640
1645
1650
1655
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1700
1705
1710
1715
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment to the amendment
|
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1720
1725
1730
1735
1740
![V](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
1745
1750
1755
1800
1805
1810
1815
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 3
![](/web/20061116194618im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, September 24, 1997
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for
Etobicoke North.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
MONITOR JET TRAINER AIRCRAFT
Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
to invite all members of Parliament to join me this evening at
the National Aviation Museum for the unveiling of the Monitor jet
trainer aircraft. This state of the art jet will be manufactured
in North Bay, Ontario, in my riding of Nipissing, by the Canadian
Aerospace Group in partnership with Sikorsky Aircraft, creating
140 jobs.
I am very proud of this success story which will see a surplus
defence department hangar utilized to build the first Canadian
made military jet in over two decades. The hard work of the Air
Base Property Corporation using Industry Canada and National
Defence adjustment funds has paid off. Their partnership with
Canadian Aerospace and Sikorsky will develop a new aerospace
industry in North Bay.
I ask all members of the House to join me this evening at the
Rockcliffe airport from 6 to 8 to view the future of military
aviation manufacturing in Canada. Experts from the Canadian
Aerospace Group and Sikorsky will be on hand to explain this
unique project. I look forward to seeing all members there this
evening.
* * *
CHINESE CANADIANS
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am honoured to speak in the House for the first time. More than
700,000 people of Chinese ancestry live in Canada today, but that
was not always so.
In 1902 a royal commission decided that Asians were “unfit for
full citizenship—obnoxious to a free community and dangerous to
the state”.
In 1923 Mackenzie King's Liberal government passed the exclusion
act which suspended Chinese immigration. Canadian Chinese call
July 1, 1923, the day the exclusion act came into effect,
humiliation day.
In 1947 the exclusion act was repealed and Canadians of Chinese
ancestry won their right to be reunited with their families. I
would not be standing here today if that act had not been
repealed.
1997 marks the 50th anniversary of the repeal. Justice will be
served only if Canada has learned a lesson from this bleak moment
in history.
* * *
WHITBY WARRIORS
Ms. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to recognize the outstanding achievement of the Whitby
Warriors Junior A Lacrosse Club. This past August the Whitby
Warriors won the Minto Cup as the best Junior A lacrosse team in
Canada.
In spite of losing the first two games to the Burnaby Lakers
they persevered and came back to win their next four games to
take the best seven championship round in six games.
The Warriors were led by their top scorers Paul Sallie, Pat
Jones and Gavin Prout and backed up by the most valuable player
awarded winning performance of goal tender Mike Wye.
The Whitby Warriors are coached by Jim Bishop whose involvement
in the sport of lacrosse spans some 51 years. Whitby's win was
Mr. Bishop's eighth Minto Cup, coming 28 years after coaching the
legendary Oshawa Green Gaels to seven consecutive Minto Cup
championships. The determination and sportsmanship of the Whitby
Warriors are an inspiration to us all.
I know all members will join with me in honouring the Whitby
Warriors as the Junior A champions in Canada's national summer
sport.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in 1989, the Department of National Defence was ordered by the Canadian
Human Rights Commission to enrol more women in the next ten years. At
the time, only 9.9 per cent of the members of our armed forces were women.
1405
Today, eight years later, their numbers have remained virtually the
same, with women accounting for a mere 10.7 per cent of the Canadian Armed
Forces.
We note today that the Department of National Defence has not done
a thing to recruit women. But now they would have us believe they are
complying with the Human Rights Tribunal order by launching a recruiting
campaign aimed exclusively at women and known as “Operation
Minerva”.
DND knows very well it is impossible to integrate women fully by
1999. All I have to say to that is: too little too late.
* * *
[English]
PLASTIMET
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise, on this first full sitting day of the 36th Parliament, to
reiterate my call to the Ontario government for an independent
public inquiry into the July Plastimet fire in Hamilton.
Conservative Premier Mike Harris and his environment and health
ministers have backtracked, flip-flopped on their pledges for an
inquiry, citing the pathetic excuse of the need for evidence of
wrongdoing.
Is it right that the local MPP had to awaken the provincial
environment minister at 3 a.m. before the premier would dispatch
air monitoring equipment to the toxic fire site? Why did the
province first refuse and then later accept federal government
assistance?
There are questions of compliance with the Ontario fire code,
inventory lists, security, and locating a recycling plant near a
hospital, schools and a high density residential area.
Frustrated with the Harris government smokescreen, my
constituents demand an independent public inquiry to clear the
smoke and to produce recommendations which might prevent an
environmental tragedy like the Plastimet fire from ever happening
again.
* * *
WAR CRIMINALS
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today in the House on a very important matter to my constituents
of Thornhill, and I believe all Canadians, and that is the
prosecution of war criminals.
The people of Thornhill, especially the Jewish community,
believe that Canada must be vigilant in prosecuting war
criminals. Canada has a moral obligation to deport those who
have been found guilty of committing crimes against humanity. We
must not be seen as a haven for Nazi war criminals and others who
have committed war crimes.
My constituents are aware of the commitment by the Liberal
government to move on denaturalization and on deportation of
those convicted of war crimes.
Finally Canada is taking action. Canada is doing more now to
track Nazi war criminals than almost any country in the world.
Since 1995 many deportation cases have been initiated and I am
confident we will continue to pursue war criminals to the fullest
extent of the law.
While this issue is of special importance to the Jewish—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.
* * *
MOTHER TERESA
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today so that the House and its members might pay tribute to
the life and memory of Mother Teresa.
It was with great sadness that Canadians learned of her recent
death. This godly and gracious woman was a beacon of hope to the
sick and the poor living in the streets of Calcutta and whose
suffering she tried to ease and deeply felt.
Her message to humanity was simple: yes, there is someone who
cares. It is a message that in our world will continue to
resonate loudly and will no doubt serve as her lasting legacy.
With the passing of Mother Teresa the world will indeed be a
colder place because the beacon of goodness, though not
extinguished, burns a little less brightly today.
I am sure all Canadians join me in being thankful for her life.
I ask for all members to observe a time of silence in their own
thoughts and pay tribute to the remarkable legacy of caring and
giving that was Mother Teresa.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this year the International Whirlpool Bridge that links Canada
and the U.S. celebrated its 100th anniversary.
This important celebration reinforced the co-operation existing
between our two great countries. It is therefore difficult to
believe that a new American immigration law will soon require
that all Canadian travellers entering and exiting the United
States complete a visa information card.
1410
The community I represent is very concerned that this will cause
endless hours of traffic jams and may damage the tourist and
trade links we have established over a period of many years of
co-operation.
It is then my sincere hope the proposed amendments exempting
Canadians travelling to the U.S. each year are passed as soon as
possible.
In the meantime I ask our government to keep pressure on our
friends south of the border to implement the amendments so that
this controversial law will not cause havoc in border communities
across Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
ALGERIA
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, five
months after condemning in this House the civil war in Algeria, the
Canadian government has yet to call upon the international community to
find a peaceful solution.
This silence has made it possible for the tragic events that took
place in Benthala, Algeria, over Monday night, to occur. The majority of
the 200 people killed in this massacre were women and children.
In view of the increase in acts of terrorism and senseless violence
in Algeria that have left more than 60,000 victims in recent years,
according to Amnesty International estimates, Quebec, Canada and the
international community must echo the voices of the bereaved families by
utterly condemning the use of violence and seeking a political solution
to the Algerian crisis.
* * *
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as a black Canadian from Quebec, of aboriginal and
French descent, I am very proud to represent the riding of
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine in the 36th Parliament of Canada.
The Speech from the Throne delivered yesterday is, in my opinion,
a speech on national unity.
[English]
I wish to advise the House, and in particular the Hon. Stéphane
Dion, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs—
[Translation]
The Speaker: My dear colleague, you must not refer to hon. members
by name, but by riding.
You have a few more seconds.
[English]
Ms. Marlene Jennings: I wish to advise the House that my
constituents are delighted with the initiatives of the government
with respect to the Canadian unity file.
I want to assure the House that I intend to continue to
contribute and encourage my constituents to actively support
these very welcome and timely initiatives.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there can be no
doubt that the Canadian economy is back on track.
The cost of living is going up very slowly, while retail trade is
stronger than it has been in years. Statistics Canada announced that,
between July and August, the consumer price index increased by 0.19
per cent,
the same level as for the two previous months.
Between August 1996 and August 1997, Canadian consumers have faced
an average increase of 1.8 per cent in the cost of living, which is pretty low.
All this is good news for Canadians.
* * *
PAY EQUITY
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
federal government has decided to give public service executives bonuses
totalling some $12.2 million, when close to $2 billion is owed to the
80,000 members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, and when many
Canadian families continue to live in poverty and unemployment.
The government is not in compliance with its own pay equity
legislation. While public service executives are getting significant
bonuses, many clerks, secretaries and other employees are still not
being paid the retroactive payments owed to them.
I hope the Treasury Board will pay what is owed to these employees
and thus fulfill its commitment to female members of the public service
and to women in general.
In order to correct this injustice, we are also asking that a new
budget be tabled as early as this fall.
* * *
1415
[English]
PRINCESS DIANA
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, death stalks all of us and can be cruel, but never more
so than when it takes the life of the young.
On August 31 the world lost a beautiful soul in the death of
Princess Diana. And we all grieved. We grieved not only for the
loss of someone filled with so much promise, but also for someone
in whom we saw ourselves.
She set an example in how to overcome our difficulties. She
taught us to reach inside ourselves to become something greater
than what we are by helping those who are less fortunate. Diana
championed the plight of sick children, AIDS patients, the
terminally ill. Recently she brought to the front of the world
stage the horrors of landmines and their tragic victims.
As Canadians, we extend our deepest sympathies and prayers to
the family of the Princess and especially to her sons, Princes
William and Harry.
* * *
[Translation]
UNIVERSITÉ DU QUÉBEC À CHICOUTIMI
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last Friday
I had the pleasure of announcing on behalf of the Government of
Canada the investment of $750,000 over five years, via the National
Sciences and Engineering Research Council, in a new industrial
engineering chair at the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi.
The professor currently holding that chair, Masoud Farzaneh,
will study the impact of freezing rain on power transmission
network equipment. Two industrial partners, Hydro-Quebec and Alcan,
have also contributed to the funding of this chair.
Creation of this chair is evidence of the Liberal government's
desire to work in conjunction with our partners in industry, the
universities and provincial agencies to develop new knowledge which
will improve electrical service and eliminate power outages caused
by precipitation freezing on transmission lines.
This is further evidence that Canada is working to ensure the
success of all Quebecers.
* * *
[English]
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday's throne speech gives Canadians every reason to be
worried about their future retirement plans.
Older Canadians have earned the right to a secure retirement.
Middle class workers cannot afford to pay more for the same
benefits. Younger Canadians want the CPP to be there when they
need it.
The Liberals plan to fix the CPP will be a further $11 billion
tax hike on working Canadians and employers if the government
refuses to reduce the EI premiums.
This government has a hidden agenda with the proposed seniors'
benefit. It hurts middle income Canadians the most. It
disproportionately attacks women by basing it on family income
and it discourages people to save for their retirement.
I ask the government to stop punishing Canadians who have worked
and saved for their retirement and urge them to put the seniors
benefit on hold until there are full consultations on the
proposed plan.
* * *
MOTHER TERESA
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, earlier this month the world lost the moral beacon of
the 20th century. Nobel Peace Prize winner Mother Teresa led a
life that challenged the modern world by teaching us that
lifestyle is not more important than life.
She accumulated no material possessions, shunned political power
and never succumbed to moral compromises. Her life was consumed
by the simple goal of providing food, education, medical care,
love and hope to the sick and desolate.
Her notion of charity was not to hold black tie fundraisers and
send others to do the messy work. No, Mother Teresa's example
was to pick the maggots out of people's open wounds herself.
No human has done so much, for so many, for so little. But her
life's work, not even respect for the dead, could spare her from
those who want to protect their world from her message. Fully
half of the media's coverage of Mother Teresa's death was devoted
to criticism of her life and beliefs.
There are obviously many maggot infested wounds that still need
to be cleansed by the millions she inspired. She will be
remembered simply and affectionately as Mother.
1420
The Speaker: Before starting question period I want
to share with you some of the intentions developed with the House
leaders in consultation with me.
I know that this is the first day and I will give us all a bit
of leeway. However, I would like to ask you to consider joining
with me in the days and weeks ahead in the following manner.
It would be my intention to shorten the length of time for both
the questions and the answers from what we had in the last
Parliament so that, on average, we can have more questions. This
will mean that the advance statements by the questioners will be
shorter. I would also ask for the help of the ministers to keep
their responses shorter.
[Translation]
So now we shall see how things go today.
[English]
We will keep track of the time.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to be back in the House, and I am not
just talking about Stornoway.
In his election platform the Prime Minister promised Canadians a
50:50 split between increased spending on one hand and debt and
tax reduction on the other. Yet in yesterday's speech from the
throne his government listed at least 29 new spending measures,
but not one single practical measure for either debt reduction or
tax relief.
Was this simply an oversight? Did he just leave something out
of the speech or does this signal a return to Liberal chequebook
spending?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I welcome the new Leader of the Opposition in this
House. We have made a commitment that very soon the country will
be in a position to operate with a surplus.
The budget is scheduled for the month of February. We have the
time but first we have to go to a zero deficit.
We had to reduce the disastrous deficit of $42 billion left by
the Conservative Party. Every year we are obliged to
spend some money on some programs because of the problems
in society which need to be taken care of.
It is always the Liberal approach to care and be responsible to
others.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my colleagues and I find it inconceivable that the
Department of Finance would truly endorse a return to spending as
the number one fiscal priority of the government.
Economists inside and outside the department have been saying
for years that the federal government cannot spend its way to
lower unemployment and that irresponsible spending and taxation
is what is keeping unemployment high.
Has the Prime Minister simply forgotten about the seriousness of
the debt or the high tax levels, or is he telling the House that
higher spending is the number one fiscal priority of his
government?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Obliged
by your dictum, Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, there are 29 proposals in the throne speech for higher
spending and nothing on debt reduction or tax reduction.
If the government makes higher spending its number one priority,
there will be no surpluses. Therefore 50 per cent of zero is zero, and
there is zero for tax relief or debt reduction.
1425
Is not this 50:50 formula simply a shell game, like the GST
promise in the previous election, to allow the government to do
what it really wants to do, which is to return to excessive
spending?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, obviously the Leader of the Opposition does not have
anything very concrete on which to attack the government. He is
setting a target to shoot at. We said very clearly we will spend
more money when we are in a surplus position.
When we were elected we said we would reduce the deficit to 3
per cent
of GDP. It now looks as if within the first four years of our
administration we have managed to reduce it to zero, or very
close to zero. At the same time there are problems in society
that have to be fixed and we will do it in a responsible way.
Around the world today people look to Canada because we are an
example of a fiscally responsible government and, at the same
time, a government caring for those who need the most help in our
society.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
February the Minister of Finance said a 5 per cent jobless rate was not
only achievable but desirable. However, according to his
department this is hogwash. It is forecasting 9 per cent, 8 per
cent next year
and 7 per cent until the year 2015.
Can the minister explain why he is publicly talking about a 5
per cent
unemployment rate when privately his department says the
opposite? Who is right and who is wrong?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is wrong.
The debate to which the hon. member refers is a discussion over
the natural rate of unemployment, the rate at which inflation
would take off, and there is, in fact, a difference of opinion.
This government clearly states that an arbitrary number, like 8
per cent
for a NAIRU, is not applicable to a country whose productivity is
improving, a country where interest rates are low, a country
whose industry has become lean and competitive.
All I can tell the hon. member is that Alan Greenspan agrees
with me and I will take him over the member for Medicine Hat.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
Canada several economists say that the long term natural rate for
unemployment is well over the 5 per cent that the minister is talking
about. Under this government my 13 year old son will be middle
aged before we get within shouting distance of that 5 per cent target.
When is the minister going to take the advice of the real job
creators and cut taxes? Canadians want tax cuts. I would like
an answer from the prime minister-in-waiting, please.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it does the member good to be in the official
opposition. For the first time he understands the real political
truths in this country.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Paul Martin: No, not about me, but that they will
never make it.
Let me give a couple of numbers. In the last four years under
this Prime Minister the Canadian public has created over 970,000
new jobs. This year under this Prime Minister the Canadian
public has created over 260,000 new jobs, the vast majority of
those in the private sector. Under this Prime Minister the youth
unemployment rate has started to go down. Under this Prime
Minister the—
Some hon. members: More, more.
1430
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Governor General read a speech from the Throne that
contained a number of particularly moving, even lyrical, passages
on Canada in the 21st century. The reality of the matter, however,
is quite something else.
Will the Prime Minister not acknowledge that the Speech from
the Throne sanctions his vision of Canada, where all major
decisions will be made in Ottawa, with the provinces being
relegated to the position of subsidiaries of Ottawa, and where
Quebecers as a people have no place?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we made frequent reference in the Speech from the Throne to the
partnership we want with the provinces. We made frequent reference
in the Speech from the Throne to what we intend to do for the
children of poor families in Canada.
I would like to make it clear to the former Leader of the
Opposition that, at the first ministers' meeting in June last year,
all the provincial governments and premiers in attendance,
including the Premier of Quebec, agreed to our establishing a child
credit program to help poor families. This shows that we can work
together within Canada as partners.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister uses the term “partners” because he thinks it is a
popular term and would give it the same meaning it was given by the
sovereignists. However, we have no illusions about this, because when
the Prime Minister talks about partnership, it is the kind of
partnership in which the political decisions are made in Ottawa and the
provinces are asked to carry them out. The provinces are being treated
like so many municipalities.
Would the Prime Minister agree that the throne speech has
demonstrated, more clearly than ever before, that there are two
diametrically opposed visions of Canada: one in Quebec where, since Jean
Lesage, people have wanted to be
“maîtres chez nous” and one in the rest
of Canada, the one in the Calgary declaration where Quebecers are just
as unique as Pacific salmon?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
leader of the third party overlooks the fact that we have worked very
hard with the provinces since we came to power.
Take, for instance, Quebec's traditional demands regarding manpower
training. We have entered into an agreement with the provincial
governments, including the Government of Quebec.
For many years, the Government of Quebec and the other governments
complained that we were involved in areas they would rather see us out
of. That is why we withdrew from forestry, mining, tourism, social
housing and manpower training. We have adjusted many programs. Of
course, there is no way we can accommodate someone who wants separation.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the
Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister wanted, he said, to launch an
appeal to citizens to work together to save Canada, except that nothing
about the speech is likely to please Quebec.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Will he confirm that his
party has buried the concept of distinct society once and for all and
replaced it with the concept of “unique character”?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to point out to the member for Roberval that he voted against
distinct society here in this House.
I also want to point out to the member for Roberval that, when he
was an MNA, he voted against the Meech Lake accord in the National
Assembly.
We now have terms that are acceptable both to Quebecers and to all
Canadians. What the premiers wanted to do was to show Quebecers that it
is possible to be a francophone, to retain one's French culture, to live
in Quebec, to be very proud of what sets one apart, and to be perfectly
at ease within Canada. And I am very pleased with the premiers'
attitude in this regard.
Mr. Michel Gauthier(Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in exchanging
niceties with the Prime Minister, might I remind him that he was
the one who was traipsing all over Quebec during the last election
campaign promising Quebecers that he would sell the rest of Canada
on the idea of a distinct society, not I.
1435
Is the Prime Minister now telling us that once again he is
going to change his story and not fulfil the commitment he made to
the voters of Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have always stressed the necessity of recognizing the distinct
character of Quebec because of its language, its culture, and its
Civil Code.
The formula the premiers saw fit to accept a few weeks ago is
a new one which describes the Quebec reality, something we continue
to fight for, while the Bloc Quebecois, in the House of Commons,
and the Parti Quebecois, in the National Assembly, have voted
against anything which could accommodate Quebec so as to enable it
to prosper within Canada.
* * *
[English]
EMPLOYMENT
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have
waited a long time for this moment. My question is to the Prime
Minister.
On behalf of 1.4 million unemployed Canadians, will the
government commit today to set clear timetables and targets for
the reduction of unemployment? The government has done it with
respect to deficit reduction. When will the government do the
same for unemployment and show that it is serious about putting
Canadians back to work?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first I would like to welcome the hon. leader of the New
Democratic Party to the House of Commons. I am happy to have her
here. I know she has waited a long time and I hope she will stay
for a long time too.
I would like to say that we want to reduce unemployment and we
are working very hard on it. In fact during the last 46 months
the Canadian economy has created 975,000 new jobs. The level of
unemployment went down from 11.5 per cent to 9 per cent but we have to keep
working.
The first thing we had to do was to put the finances of the
nation in order. A few years ago we had a deficit of $42 billion
and very soon we will have reduced it to zero. We have
to do that in order to create jobs. When there is no inflation,
low interest rates and a competitive dollar, we can produce and
be very competitive. It is in that way that we will create the
jobs.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is
obvious that 155 Liberal cheerleaders over there are pretty
pleased with their record.
Since the last Liberal throne speech promised to tackle youth
unemployment, 26,000 more young people in this country have not
been able to find jobs and they are not cheering.
My question. Will the government commit today to set targets and
timetables to reduce unemployment? If not, will it admit that it
has simply given up doing anything to help the young people who
most desperately need its help?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have tried to explain in a few words that we must have
the basic elements to create jobs in the country. It is not by
spending money that we will cure the problems of the nation. We
have to do it in a responsible way and we have to put the books
of the nation in order.
1440
I would like to quote some advice I read on February 10 of this
year. It was said that we have come too far and have worked too
hard to restart the cycle of careless spending. Therefore, we
will not follow the advice of the leader of the New Democratic
Party. We will follow the advice of Mr. Roy Romanow who spoke in
front of the Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce.
[Translation]
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Prime Minister. It has to do with his government's shameful
abuse of the unemployment insurance system.
His government said in the Speech from the Throne that it cares
about unemployment in general and about youth unemployment in
particular. The government could take concrete action immediately by
reducing employment insurance premiums.
This is what the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian
Federation of Independent Business, as well as Quebec's Chamber of
Commerce and Conseil du patronat, are asking for.
What is this government waiting for to end this abuse and put
people back to work?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first
of all, I wish to welcome the Conservative Party leader, who is now back
in the front row. We are happy to see him and look forward to be closer
to him and to see him more often than in the last Parliament.
The Conservative Party leader should know that, when we came to
office, the unemployment insurance fund showed an enormous deficit,
because the Conservative government had not exercised prudence. The
Conservatives had to increase premiums from $2 to $3.30, at a time when
unemployment was on the rise in Canada.
These premiums were to go up to $3.30 on January 1, 1994 under the
legislation passed by his party's government. We reduced them to $2.90,
and will lower them again to $2.80 on January 1, 1998. We are reducing
premiums gradually, but we must do so responsibly, because we still have
work to do to clean up the fiscal mess we inherited in 1993 from the
Conservative Party leader's government.
[English]
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
want to thank the Prime Minister for his kind words in welcoming
me back to the House. I would caution him against wishing that I
be here too often and remind him of the old Chinese proverb that
he may end up getting what he wishes for.
Today I want to offer the Prime Minister a great opportunity, an
opportunity to do something for unemployed Canadians and young
unemployed Canadians. If he acts today he can put thousands of
people back to work in the next few weeks by reducing employment
insurance premiums, this tax, this rip-off on Canadians to the
tune of billions of dollars.
To be clear, I want to ask the Prime Minister one simple,
straightforward question. Does he and his government believe
that this employment insurance system should be used for the
purpose of reducing the deficit, yes or no?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we did not want to run the affairs of the nation the way
that the previous government did. It never had any surplus in
the unemployment insurance fund. When Canada was in a deep
depression in 1991, a time when there were more and more
unemployed in Canada, the Tories took the insurance premium from
$2 and moved it up to $3.30. That is not the way we want to do
it.
We want to act as prudent managers in order to make sure that
our financial situation is good in Canada and that we have low
interest rates. We have that now and that is what is creating
the 4 per cent growth that we will have this year in Canada. We are the
leaders of the G-7 countries in this.
* * *
THRONE SPEECH
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the equality of citizens and provinces became a huge factor and
played a large part in the Calgary premiers conference last week.
In fact their framework for discussion listed the word equality
five times.
Yet yesterday in the throne speech we did not hear the word
equality even once; uniqueness, diversity, all kinds of words,
but not equality.
1445
My question for the Prime Minister is in yesterday's throne
speech why in the world was the equality of citizens and
provinces deliberately left out?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when we said we want to work in partnership and in
collaboration with the provinces it is because we believe in
equality. That is exactly the purpose of it.
About the equality of individuals, I do not have any lessons to
receive from the hon. member for Edmonton North because I was the
minister of justice who gave the charter of rights to all
citizens of Canada to make them equal.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the concept of equality and the word equality is what is
important. Speaking of justice ministers, it is a wonder that
this justice minister did not notice the absence of the word
equality and insist that it be put in the throne speech.
It is very strange that the government would mention the unique
character of Quebec society and the diversity inherent in the
federation and yet not mention equality.
If it is important to him, let me ask the prime minister this
question one more time. Why does the prime minister not believe
in the inherent equality of all provinces and all citizens, and
why was it not in the throne speech?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is something I have talked about and lived by for the
last 34 years that I have been a member of Parliament. I do not
have to repeat the obvious every day, but if the hon. member is
not reassured, I am for the equality of citizens and I am for the
equality of the people of Canada. I have been for that all the
time I have been in Canada, but equality does not mean that
diversity cannot exist. This is very important.
Equality means that we recognize the people for what they are.
In a family equality means that sometimes we have to have
solutions that are meeting the needs in one part of Canada but
which are not needed elsewhere.
We have, for example, despite equality a terrible problem of
poverty in Canada. This means that those who are rich have to
help those who are poor. It is what we believe in. The type of
equality where we do not care about the poor like the Reform
Party—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Témiscamingue.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
directed to the Prime Minister.
In the throne speech we heard that the federal government, as its
financial position improves, intends to intervene increasingly in areas
of provincial jurisdiction, including health and education.
How can the Prime Minister justify increasing involvement by its
government in health and education, considering that these areas have
always been the responsibility of provincial governments?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada happens to be one of the most decentralized federations in the
world, and together we have built a federation that has provided us with
the best quality of life of any country. And we managed to do this
because both levels of government, federal and provincial, are learning
to work together and to concentrate on the areas for which they are
responsible.
In the health sector, the federal government's responsibilities are
those that are recognized in the Constitution. There is nothing
unconstitutional about having five moral principles that are accepted
throughout Canada, including Quebec, and as a result can be applied
anywhere in Canada, both in the wealthiest and the less wealthy
provinces.
I may remind the hon. member that the province that benefits the
most per capita from the Canada Social Transfer happens to be Quebec.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this is the
first time a federal government has so clearly indicated its intention
of interfering in areas of provincial jurisdiction, especially
education.
Would the Prime Minister or his minister agree that his program to
measure the readiness of children to learn is, in fact, a foot in the
door of the education sector, with all the consequences that involves:
federal programs, federal assessment criteria, federal employees, and on
top of that, taxpayers who will again pay twice as a result of this
latest duplication?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am always amazed by the excessive reactions we get
from that side of the House. However, if they get their kicks by
measuring the orthodoxy of every word, by all means, let them make a
study of semantics.
1450
What we promised in the throne speech yesterday was to let
Canadians benefit from a study by Statistics Canada, for which my
department is responsible. I am referring to a national longitudinal
survey we have been doing for several years. Since we invest enormous
amounts of money in the well-being of our children, we feel it is very
important to measure their progress, so that when they go to school,
they are in the best possible position to learn.
* * *
NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, except
for Premier Bouchard, who did not attend the Calgary conference, all of
Canada's provincial premiers agreed to put the question on national
unity to the Canadian people.
Does the Prime Minister think it is acceptable for Quebecers to be
the only Canadians who will not be consulted on national unity?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to thank the hon. member for his question. Right now, the
provincial governments have made a joint decision to consult the people
before adopting resolutions in their respective legislatures.
In the case of Quebec, the present government of Quebec is not
interested in consulting Quebecers on their genuine participation within
Canada. Right now, the provinces have decided to consult their citizens
before adopting their resolution. As soon as Quebec wants to adopt its
resolution, I would ask the Government of Quebec to do likewise.
As far as we are concerned, if these resolutions are passed or
adopted by all the provinces, I said before that the House of Commons
has voted on distinct society, and we are prepared to vote on the words
chosen by the premiers after a debate in this House. But we will have to
wait and see what happens in the provinces, which are working on this
right now.
[English]
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Mr. Bouchard has said that he will not take part in any
public consultation process. Meech Lake and Charlottetown failed
because Canadians were not consulted.
Knowing this, will the prime minister clarify how the Calgary
declaration will be communicated to the people of Quebec and by
whom?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, with due respect to the hon. member, on Charlottetown
people were consulted. There was a referendum. Among the reforms
that we favoured was the election of the Senate. The Reform Party
voted against it.
At this moment the provinces are doing their work. In due course
we will act. I have talked with the premiers and they are doing,
in a very different way, the way they want, their own
consultations before they vote on the issue. We do not want to
duplicate that in the other provinces.
At this moment there is no debate going on before the national
assembly on the question of the Calgary declaration. When there
is a debate I hope they will consult with the people. If need be
we might consult with them, but at this moment the timing is not
appropriate.
* * *
[Translation]
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the
throne speech, the government claims to be sensitive to the problems of
low income families with children and the problems in the education and
health case systems.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Does the Minister of
Finance admit that the problems the government has identified in these
areas are basically due to the cuts of over $40 billion it made during
its first mandate and intends to keep on making during this mandate?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, because
of the efforts made by this government, and indeed all Canadians, in
terms of putting our fiscal house in order, the government can now
afford to provide assistance to society's most disadvantaged, namely
poor children.
In fact, our intentions were not expressed only in the throne
speech. Judging from recent budgets and the actions taken by my
colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development, and by other
colleagues regarding the child tax credit, internship programs and all
this government has put in place for the poor in this country, it is
very clear that what our government intends to do is to help Canadians,
not to divide them.
1455
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
axeman seldom woos his victims, but that is what the Minister of Finance
is doing, since he is responsible for poverty in Canada.
By the way, will the minister admit that his solution to health,
education and poverty problems is to cut $42 billion instead of $48
billion as initially planned? In other words, all he has to offer as a
solution is to cut $6 billion less than he had planned.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
suggest that the hon. member across the way, where he was before the
election, compare the first Campeau budget tabled when the Parti
Quebecois took office in Quebec with the forecast now being made by Mr.
Landry.
He will see that, thanks to federal activities and initiatives, the
amount available to Mr. Landry to help the disadvantaged is $1.5 billion
higher than originally planned by Mr. Campeau. I do hope the PQ
government will use this money to help the most disadvantaged in Quebec.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when the
health minister was recently asked where he would find the money
for national pharmacare, he replied: “I don't know but it's a
really good idea”.
When patients are trapped in the longest waiting lines in
history why would anybody be thinking about a brand new national
program?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the first and fundamental challenge we face with our health care
system, and I know the hon. member is aware of this, is restoring
the confidence of Canadians in the basic medicare which we have
come to know and depend on.
The government is firmly committed to not only the five
principles of the Canada Health Act but to working with our
partners in the provinces, with providers and with other
stakeholders in the system to restore the health system to the
quality Canadians expect and deserve.
That is going to mean a lot of work. It is going to mean
working with provinces and others to tackle issues such as
waiting lists. It is going to mean dealing with—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Macleod.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, they really
had quite a commitment as they chopped 40 per cent from the
health care transfers. Now they come along and promise us
national medicare with no clue how much this program will cost,
with no clue where the money would come from. I call that
clueless.
Medicare has suffered and lies wounded. Why would anybody carry
on with a brand new program like this when medicare itself needs
to be fixed?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I know the hon. member is a better doctor than he is a
mathematician. He knows full well that the cuts by this
government were nowhere near 40 per cent.
What I said to my provincial partners is that we are going to
work toward pharmacare as a long term goal because this
government believes that in the long term the partners should
work with us in creating a system where every citizen of this
country should have access to the drugs they need and should not
be kept from them because of price.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human
Resources Development.
The Liberal government has cut unemployment insurance by billions
of dollars, turning a deaf ear to the cries of alarm coming from the
unemployed and from seasonal workers.
How can the minister justify a throne speech that contains nothing
at all for the unemployed and for seasonal workers, when he knows that
the unemployment insurance fund will again this year produce a surplus
of at least $7 billion?
1500
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will have to take another look at
the throne speech, because there are several references to what we are
going to do and have been doing for some time now. In particular, we
announced a youth employment strategy, which is extremely important. We
are working very hard on the unemployment issue and you know it. This
strategy, which creates work experience, is doing well.
We have identified tools that worked well and we will consolidate
and extend them so that the work experience young people need to make
the transition from school to the work place is a very positive one.
There is also the transitional job creation fund, $95 million of which
has been invested in job creation in Quebec.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is very clear from the minister's reply
that he is not in the least concerned about the plight of seasonal and
other workers entering the job market.
My question is not what he is doing to help them re-enter the job
market, but what he is doing to help them survive and not all end up on
welfare.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are very concerned about the situation the member
describes and I would appreciate it if he listened to the reply, because
it is important that he tell his constituents and all those living in
his riding what to do.
We have set up a transitional job creation fund. We do not believe
in passive income support. Our preference now is for active job
creation measures, which we have transferred to the Government of
Quebec. We are talking about $800 million in active job creation
measures and a $95 million transitional job creation fund for Quebec
alone, precisely so that people can have real work and not rely on
passive income support. That is what our workers want.
* * *
[English]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Foreign Affairs.
A new American law requiring Canadians crossing into the United
States to undergo a lengthy and invasive inspection process could
have disastrous effects on Sault Ste. Marie tourism and the
normal flow of business between our city and its American
neighbours.
What steps is the federal government taking to ensure Canadians
will continue to have easy access to the United States?
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the new measures
announced by the United States are extremely damaging to Canadian
and to American business. They are counter to the initiatives
taken by the President of the United States and the Prime
Minister to dismantle controls at borders and to promote the free
circulation of people and of goods. They are probably counter to
NAFTA.
Our objective is to secure the removal of those controls from
application at the Canada-U.S. border. We are encouraged already
in our efforts by the amendments introduced by a member of the
United States Senate and a member of the United States Congress
to this effect.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has made a mess of the Pacific salmon
dispute. We have seen four years of mismanagement on this file.
The fisheries minister is from British Columbia. Why was the
minister sport fishing in Newfoundland at a time when he should
have been dealing with the height of the crisis in British
Columbia?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's assertion is incorrect.
The issue, however, of the salmon treaty is an important one. I
am disappointed the fisheries critic of the official opposition
would choose for his first question such a trivial, irrelevant
and inaccurate comment as the one he has made.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the throne speech contains not one word about resolving
the Pacific salmon dispute. The government continues to show a
lack of commitment to British Columbia.
Will the minister make resolving the treaty by January 31 the
number one priority of his department?
1505
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are again hearing questioning by
Reform members who obviously have not read the throne speech or
listened to it.
The fact is that in the throne speech there is a clear
commitment to continue to deal with the issue of foreign
overfishing.
If the fisheries critic of the official opposition knew
something about the problem of the Pacific salmon treaty, he
would know that it began because the Alaskans overfished Canadian
bound sockeye salmon in northern British Columbia going to the
Nass and Skeena Rivers, to the tune of three times what they had
done previously under the treaty.
That is what he has not understood and he has not understood
that the throne speech addresses it directly.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
STANDING ORDERS
The Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table
a reprinted copy of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons dated June
1997.
* * *
[Translation]
CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER OF CANADA
The Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table the 1997
report by the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada on the 36th general
election.
This report is deemed to have been permanently referred to the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
* * *
[English]
PETITIONS
HEALTH AND DRUG ACT
Mr. Jim Gouk (West Kootenay—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present three petitions on the same
subject that vary a bit.
Each of them calls on the government to reject proposed changes
to the Canada Health and Drug Act that would prevent people from
taking dietary supplements or herbal goods of their own choice.
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
congratulations on your re-election, Sir.
I have two petitions to present today. The first petition is
signed by 30 of my constituents and calls upon Parliament to urge
the federal government to join with the provincial governments in
making the national highway system upgrading possible beginning
in 1997.
1510
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition is signed by 57 of my constituents.
It calls upon Parliament to enact legislation to amend the
Criminal Code, specifically sections 173 and 174, the indecent
act and public nudity provisions, to clearly state that a woman
exposing her breasts in a public place is an indecent act.
CO-OPERATIVES
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure today to present a petition on behalf of 57 constituents
who live in a co-op housing project on 610 Beatrice Street in my
riding.
In part they indicate that the Government of Canada and the
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation have begun secret
negotiations with the province of Ontario, that the people who
own and operate co-operatives have been excluded from these
negotiations, and that the Government of Ontario has already
breached its own agreements with provincially funded housing
co-operatives.
They pray that the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and
Housing will immediately suspend negotiations on social housing
with the province of Ontario and resume negotiations only if the
minister proceeds under publicly declared principles established
with the input of the co-operative housing stakeholders.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all notices of motions for the production of papers be
allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
The House resumed from September 23 consideration of the motion
for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to
his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to open debate on the Speech from the Throne. I
wish to begin with some sincere congratulations. First I
congratulate you on your re-election to the Chair. I extend best
wishes to you on behalf of the members of the official
opposition. We wish you patience and wisdom in your
deliberations in guiding our deliberations and express the hope
that the spirit of democracy expressed on the first day you were
elected will continue throughout this Parliament. Congratulations
to you, Sir, on behalf of all of us.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[Translation]
We would like to congratulate the hon. member for
Laurier—Sainte-Marie, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, and his
colleagues on their election.
While we disagree profoundly with the policies of the Bloc, we
respect the democratic process that permitted the election of Bloc
members to this House. We will continue to try to convince them
and their electors that real reform of the federation is possible
and preferable to separation from it.
[English]
To the hon. member for Halifax and our NDP colleagues we extend
congratulations as well. I also ask the leader of the NDP to
convey our best wishes to her predecessor, Ms. Audrey McLaughlin.
So often members leave the Chamber of their own accord after
serving their time with little acknowledgement or recognition. I
ask members to simply join in applauding Ms. McLaughlin for her
hard work, her compassion and her contribution to Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Preston Manning: I congratulate the leader of the
Conservative Party and his colleagues. We exchanged some harsh
words during the course of the election campaign. It is perhaps
time to bury the hatchet. I will not try to bury it in his head
if he will not try to bury it in mine.
I congratulate the Right Hon. Prime Minister. He has had a long
career in politics.
We were attempting to terminate it a little earlier but we were
not quite successful. It is a remarkable achievement to lead a
government into a second term. That is no insignificant
accomplishment and we want to congratulate him.
1515
Jason Moscovitz on the night of the election said that the
member for Sherbrooke won the leaders debate, that Reform won the
campaign but that the Prime Minister won the election. We would
have preferred his victory to ours.
I would also like to congratulate the prime minister and his
gracious wife Aline on their 40th wedding anniversary a few weeks
ago. Forty years is a long time and we take inspiration from the
fortitude of Madam Chrétien. If she can put up with the prime
minister for 40 years I guess we can put up with him for another
four.
To all hon. members I would like to extend congratulations on
elections and re-elections. I want to pay a welcome and special
tribute to our 60 Reform MPs. We have 40 members who are
returning and we have 20 new members, including some of the
youngest members in the House of Commons, three under 30 years of
age. I would like to say to all the younger MPs and to the new
MPs that we wish to encourage them. I think they can bring
invigoration and a fresh spirit to this institution which
sometimes shows signs of age. I would encourage all members to
encourage these new members and to give them the respect they
deserve. They do represent really the vanguard of the future and
we welcome them to this House.
Last of all but not least I want to acknowledge and thank the
people of Calgary Southwest. As I have frequently said to them,
this seat in my judgment does not belong to me. It does not
belong to my party. It is their seat. I consider it an honour
to sit in it, occupy it on their behalf and to represent their
views.
Turning to more important business, on June 2 over 12 million
Canadians participated in the federal election. When the ballots
were counted the seats were allocated, whether we like it or not,
the way we see them in the House. It seems to me at the outset
it would be important to ask ourselves precisely what did
Canadians do on June 2 and what message were they endeavouring to
send by what they did.
I suggest they were saying four things. First, they reduced the
representation of the both the government party and the official
opposition of the last Parliament; fewer seats for the Liberals
and fewer seats for the Bloc. There is a message in that of
dissatisfaction. It was not enough dissatisfaction to upset the
government but it was dissatisfaction that the government needs
to heed.
Second, the public increased support for three very different
parties, the Reform Party, the NDP and the Progressive
Conservatives. There is a message in that. The public is
searching for different ideas and different personalities to
represent different realities in the country. That is one the
public wants to see, for better or for worse, reflected in the
House. It is incumbent on us to reflect that.
The third is one of the most interesting things. When
historians write about the 1997 election I think this is one of
the things they will single out. The Canadian people
regionalized this Chamber in a way that they have not done for a
long time.
If we look at the votes, while Reform got one million votes east
of the Manitoba-Ontario border, all our seats are in the west.
The Bloc is exclusively a Quebec party. Even within Quebec its
vote is regionalized primarily in the area east of Montreal. The
NDP is divided between members in Atlantic Canada, in the west,
but with no seats at all in central Canada. The Progressive
Conservatives have 90 per cent of their seats east of Ontario,
with a majority in Atlantic Canada. While the Conservatives will
continue to represent themselves as a national party in the House
they are in essence an Atlantic party with a Quebec contingent.
For the government of course two-thirds of its seats are in
Ontario, with half of the remainder in Quebec. While in theory
it too is a national party, or claims to be a national party, in
fact in the House it is an Ontario party with a Quebec
contingent.
1520
If there is a lesson in this, it is that this country continues
to pay a price for failing to reform the upper house. In Germany,
Australia, the United States and in other big federations of the
world regional interests are expressed in their federal arenas
through an effective upper chamber. When you do not have that
one of the consequences is a regionalization of your lower house.
Those who think regionalization of this House is a backward step
or something that will hurt national unity should join the ranks
of those who demand an effective upper chamber to represent
regional interests.
The fourth thing that Canadians did in 1997 was allow a 10 year
old federal party, with roots in the west and proud of it, and
with aspirations to become a truly national party, to occupy the
role of official opposition and to become the alternative to the
government.
As we begin that new role and analyse the Speech from the
Throne, we owe it to the public to share with it how we see this
role being discharged.
We see ourselves as having a twofold mandate. The first is to
hold the government accountable, to commend it on actions which
we consider in the national interests but to criticize it on
actions which we consider not to be in the national interests.
Second, we see our role as one of proposing constructive
alternatives consistent with the big themes of equality,
accountability and fiscal responsibility on which our members
were elected.
In relation to the Speech from the Throne I would like to
perform these two functions. I want to commend the government
where it deserves commendation. We want to criticize the
features of the speech which we consider inadequate. Most
important, we want to present constructive alternatives where we
see those deficiencies.
As the Speech from the Throne remarked, the 36th Parliament of
Canada is a transition Parliament. It is the last Parliament of
the 20th century and the first of the 21st century. Therefore
people can ask in which direction it is going to look. Is it
going to continually look back over its shoulder at old ideas and
concepts from the past or is it going to squarely face the
future?
The throne speech professes to look ahead. It is important that
we look at the reality behind the words.
I see a great historical and political analogy between the end
of the 19th century politically and the end of the 20th century.
By the end of the 19th century the governing party, the
Conservative Party, had run out of leadership, ideas and energy.
It had run out of steam.
Macdonald, the guiding light, was gone. The lesser lights,
though well meaning, who took his place were unable to build on
the foundation which he had laid. Once new ideas, such as the
federal union, the national policy or the transcontinental
railway, were by that point in time the status quo. As J. Arthur
Lower the historian put it, the once vital era of Macdonald
sputtered to a dreary conclusion after the death of its guiding
spirit.
While an exhausted government was still running the country,
Canada itself was bursting with the new ideas, new energies and
new potentials of the 20th century, and while the government was
mired in the past, the people started to seek ways and means to
express their frustrations with a government whose time had past.
With their desire to see new ideas expressed in the federal arena
they started to search for new personalities and new groups. The
personality they settled on was Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the new
group of MPs around him.
The throne speech quotes Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I would like to
quote Sir Wilfrid Laurier back to the government. He said about
the government of the day's unwillingness to face realities:
“A true patriot does not, like the ostrich, hide his head in the
sand and ignore the facts, but he looks the real situation of the
country in the face”.
He was talking about fiscal realities. He described Canada not
as a country led and inspired by government policy but as a young
giant shackled and manacled by government policy.
He said about the Conservative government which was re-elected
in 1891 but with a reduced majority: “Another such victory and
the government is undone”.
1525
He said about the need for a fresh start: “I say that the time
has come for gentlemen on the other side to cease their boasting
and self-glorification and for the people of the country to open
their eyes and see that a new departure must be made from the
policy which has been followed for the last 10 years. I have
said that a change has become absolutely necessary to the
well-being of the country”.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier on the weakness of the previous government's
legislative program in a debate on the speech from the throne,
precisely like this, said: “The speech from the throne has been
for some years past a very dry skeleton. This year it is drier
than ever and the few bones that are in it rattle together with
an ominous sound”.
I see a striking parallel between the end of the 19th century
politically and the end of the 20th. The once great Liberal
Party is running out of steam. The leading lights, Laurier,
King, Trudeau, gone. Once new ideas, constitutional change,
unity through special status, the welfare state as a way to care for
people, prosperity through government spending; all of those
ideas are either passé or hopelessly out of date.
Canada outside of Parliament is brimming with ideas, excitement,
ways to solve problems, ideas that see little reflection in the
representations of the government or in the speech from the
throne. I suggest that the current government, like the old
Tories that followed Macdonald's day, is mired in the past and
out of touch with reality.
The throne speech, despite forward looking language, offers no
brilliant illumination of the horizon of the new millennium.
There is no connection to the forces of innovation and change and
reform that are at large in the country which if harnessed to
national policy will help propel Canada into the 21st century
with vigour and optimism.
I say in applying glorious analogy to this throne speech, it is
a dry bone speech lacking in the flesh and blood and muscle and
sinew and heart and soul required to inspire Canadians for the
21st century.
I would apply the words exactly: “The speech from the throne
has been for some years a very dry skeleton. This year is drier
than ever and the few bones that are in it rattle together with
an ominous sound”.
With this sobering historical parallel and Laurier's analogy
before us let us analyse the government's speech from the throne.
We want to examine the dry bones. We want to give credit where
credit is due. As any dog will tell you, a dry bone is better
than no bone at all.
Where deficiencies exist what we will endeavour to do is not
simply to be critical but to offer new ideas that can perhaps
turn this dry bones throne speech into something vibrant and new
and appropriate to leading the country into the 21st century.
Let me look first at the economy. The government proposes
little with respect to the economy. It mentions none of the
resource sectors. It mentions nothing about the manufacturing
sector. It does mention investing in knowledge and creativity.
We find all the government's references to high technology
tiresome because the rhetoric is there and yet we cannot even get
electronic voting in this House. Let us start practising high
tech if we believe in high tech and not just talking about it.
The principal argument in the government's throne speech with
respect to facilitating economic recovery is that it now has the
deficit under control. When we first came here in 1993 our
analysis was that the federal financial vehicle had four flat
tires. One of them was the deficit, one was that spending was
out of control, one was the debt out of control, the other was
taxes out of control.
The government has partially fixed one of those flat tires, and
we give it credit for doing that. We disagree with the way it
was done. We do not think the timetable was right but at least
one of those tires is now getting close to being in good shape.
The question is what to do about the other three tires. In the
speech from the throne there is virtually little or nothing on
the subject of how to fix the problem of the debt and how to fix
the problem of excessive taxation and how to ensure that future
spending will not get out of control the way it did in the
past.
1530
We ask where are the commitments in this speech from the throne
to debt reduction targets and tax reduction targets? Where are
the principles that will guide us on these issues? Does the
government have a view on what is the optimal size of government,
on what is the optimal revenue that it should be taking out of
the economy? Does it have a view on what is the optimal debt
size for a government of this nature in this type of a country?
The government may say wait for the budget, but the government
had no hesitation at all about naming 29 measures for spending
more money with absolutely nothing on these other great
questions.
My colleague, the member for Medicine Hat, has been circulating
a discussion paper entitled “Beyond a Balanced Budget”. What
he is finding and what we have found for the last three years is
that there are all kinds of ideas out there in the country, with
the think tanks, with the business people who have had to
rationalize these problems within their companies or they would
go under, with younger Canadians who have been thinking about
these things because it is their future that is jeopardized. The
tragedy is that very little of that thinking is seen at all in
the government's program or in the speech from the throne.
My colleagues in their discussion of the speech from the throne
and in legislation that comes before this House will endeavour to
bring that muscle, sinew, tissue, spirit and body required to add
some substance to the dry bones on economic recovery contained in
the throne speech.
Let me talk for a moment about the social safety net. The
government to its credit acknowledges that the social safety net
is frayed, that we are in trouble with respect to health care,
with respect to pensions, with respect to child poverty and in
some respects with regard to education. We agree with that
assessment. However, in the throne speech there is only dry
bones, administrative tinkering to deal with the problems of
these programs.
The social safety net in our judgment requires a new approach.
It requires acknowledgement that the frontline caregivers in this
country, mothers, fathers, families, and services given by
governments closer to the people are the elements of social
safety nets that need to be strengthened by government policy.
Where is the recognition in the speech from the throne that many
government initiated social programs, no matter how well meaning
they would be, are simply no longer affordable, no longer
workable and no longer even supported by the clients that they
were intended to serve.
The speech from the throne refers to children but it seems to
refer to children as if they were disembodied spirits not
connected in any way, shape or form with families. In fact they
are in most cases connected with families, many of them in
desperate straits. That family is the most important primary
caregiver in our judgment and if you want to do something for
social policy, do something for the family.
The hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill and other of our
colleagues will be advancing some new principles and ideas for
real social reform in the days ahead. We do not just criticize
the government's attempts to patch up a creaking welfare state.
We think that there are new ideas that involve personalizing,
decentralizing and localizing social service delivery that can
offer more hope to people in the future. That will be our
contribution to this throne speech debate in the area of social
reform.
With respect to criminal justice, we look at the speech from the
throne and we ask what happened to the new justice minister's new
tough agenda on criminal justice that was announced in August.
She was going to do something to tighten up the Young Offenders
Act. She was going to have sentencing reform. She was going to
have parole reform. Yet there is absolutely nothing on that in
the speech from the throne at all. The one sentencing measure
actually made sentencing easier rather than tougher.
Where is the response to the needs of victims of crime? I think
of the families of the victims of Clifford Olson and what they
have endured as a result of the faint hope clause. Did the
government not feel any twinge of conscience in seeing those
people watch Clifford Olson parade passed the cameras on his way
to a parole hearing? Our hearts go out to them. I feel like
apologizing to them on behalf of at least part of this Parliament
for our inability to prevent them from suffering the pain that
they did.
Where is the government's response to families that suffer and
are at risk because of violence and because of defects in the
Young Offenders Act, defects in the parole system, defects in the
court system and defects in the penal system?
1535
I think of the member for Surrey North, himself a victim of
crime with the murder of his son, and how he has struggled and
fought to get to this House so he could represent victims. When
it comes to the speech from the throne, this being the passion of
his political life, what does he see? He sees a little section
with three or four paragraphs in it. It would have been better,
Mr. Prime Minister, to have not had that section in the speech
than to have it there with such a bare bones agenda.
My colleagues, particularly the member for Crowfoot and others
interested in criminal justice reform on the Reform side, will
endeavour to remedy this deficiency in the government's
legislative program by proposing reforms, particularly those that
put the rights of victims ahead of anything else.
With respect to accountability, members who were here in 1993
will remember that the throne speech referred on numerous
occasions to integrity, to ethics, to ethics commissioners, to
guidelines for ministers, to accountability. We cannot help but
notice in this year's throne speech that element is completely
missing.
In no way does the government accept responsibility for
political interference with the Somalia inquiry. In no way does
it acknowledge its responsibilities in that area and agree to
implement the recommendations of that aborted inquiry.
We see no acceptance of responsibility by the government in
stonewalling the Krever inquiry. It was all for that inquiry as
long as it was looking into the misdeeds of the Tory government.
As soon as it started to get back to the period before that, the
government stonewalled the inquiry.
Perhaps most serious of all is that we see nothing in the throne
speech which would make ministers more accountable to this House
and politicians generally more accountable to the people of
Canada. If you go out not just in this country but in virtually
every country in the world, there is a current running around
ordinary people demanding a greater degree of accountability from
their politicians. This is not just a phenomenon in Canada. It
is a phenomenon in eastern Europe. It is a phenomenon in China.
It is a phenomenon in Asia. It is a worldwide phenomenon:
democratic revolution from the bottom up.
Yet there is not a flicker of recognition in the speech from the
throne of that desire for accountability, not even a willingness
to look at some of the mechanisms that can be used to hold people
more accountable: greater use of referenda mechanisms; greater
use of citizens initiatives; treating petitions with respect
instead of parading them here in the House and storing them in
the basement the next day never to see light again.
In speaking on the speech from the throne, one of the things
that we will endeavour to add to the non-existent skeleton of
public accountability is a proposal for making this chamber and
its members, not just ourselves but all members, more accountable
to the people whom we serve.
Lastly I want to turn to the never ending subject of national
unity. I note that the government has made some modest changes in
its approach to national unity, small steps I suggest, but in the
right direction.
In 1995 prior to the last referendum the government was
completely unwilling to challenge the legality of a unilateral
secession. It was unwilling to address with frankness and
clarity the practical, hard questions that arise when some
province decides to secede; issues like boundaries, debt
allocation, what happens to minorities who do not want to remain
in the seceding province, et cetera. Not only did the government
not have that on its agenda, but it castigated as traitors to the
unity effort those who insisted such questions be dealt with and
that such consequences be communicated to the people of Quebec.
Until recently the government has also been putting all its
unity eggs in one basket, a basket with a hole in it. It has
been relying on the distinct society clause to move public
opinion in Quebec, despite the fact that that has been tried
before and despite the lack of support elsewhere in the country
for that approach.
That was the government's position in 1995. As I say, we see now
some modest changes.
1540
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, to his credit, is
starting to address the negative consequences of secession and we
commend his efforts.
The government appears to be accepting some advice from the
premiers, although we question this based on the Prime Minister's
replies in question period today. However, we thought there was
some movement in accepting the inadequacies of the distinct
society clause and accepting the premiers' view that the language
has to be changed and the concept has to be changed. The concept
should be changed by marrying it to the principle of equality and
making crystal clear that any recognition of uniqueness in Quebec
or elsewhere, a uniqueness that we applaud, will not confer on
one province powers not conferred on another.
These changes are far too small. They do not add up to a fresh
vigorous vision or federalist initiative to unite the country for
the 21st century. They are just a skeleton, dry bones rattling
against each other. If the government desires to clothe the
skeleton of its national unity strategy with real spirit,
substance and muscle, I would urge it to start accepting more
substantive proposals from other quarters beginning with the
premiers. Let me mention what some of these would be.
The section in the throne speech on unity is extremely brief. It
contains only one paragraph recognizing the work of the premiers
in Calgary on September 14. The paragraph reads:
The government will work closely with provincial and territorial
governments to further advance the progress made by nine premiers
and the territorial leaders last week in Calgary toward the full
recognition of the diversity inherent in the federation,
including the unique character of Quebec society.
Members who have read the premiers' declaration from Calgary
will note the selective editing in the speech from the throne. It
quotes what the premiers said about diversity and uniqueness. We
have no quarrel with that. However, it completely ignores what
they said about equality of citizens and provinces, and it
completely ignores the subject to which they devoted
three-quarters of their communique, namely a process to involve
the public at the front end of the consideration of any proposals
having to do with national unity.
The official opposition urges the federal government to pay more
attention to what premiers and Reformers have said on both
equality and on public participation.
The premiers' framework of principles for discussion mentioned
equality five times. In the throne speech the government uses a
hundred adjectives to describe Canada but it does not make one
single mention of the equality of citizens and provinces.
If the government thinks it can develop a unity position that
ignores the principle of equality of citizens and provinces and
more importantly, ignores practical measures to make it workable
in the real world, which involves getting equality into the
exercise of the federal spending and taxing powers, if the
government thinks it can ignore that principle, it will be
designing a unity position that will not be acceptable to
millions of Canadians. Why take that chance on the unity issue?
We also say if we take the premiers seriously that the
government should develop a deeper commitment to public
consultation on unity initiatives. It could start by doing two
things. It could start by assuring this House that it will
respect the output of the public consultations the premiers are
initiating in their provinces even if it does not agree with all
the points that are raised.
More particularly, the government will answer definitively the
question asked today by the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona:
What is its role going to be in ensuring that unity proposals
developed in the rest of the country are heard and considered in
the province of Quebec?
Lack of meaningful public involvement was the single greatest
weakness of past constitutional efforts. It marred the 1982
Constitution. It was not just some Quebec politicians who were
left out of the 1982 Constitution, it was the public who were
left out. It marred Meech. It was fatal to Meech.
Then there was the consultation that was done in Charlottetown.
The public's view was that it was after the fact consultation.
Meech was just packaged up in a slightly different form. Spicer
went out across the country and came up with dozens and dozens of
recommendations, not one of which really found its way into the
Charlottetown accord.
1545
We Canadians, in pursuit of national unity, have been like a
family packed into the family car trying to get to a destination
called united Canada. But so far the only people who get to
drive the car are old line politicians and leaders. Canadians
are jammed in the back asking “Are we getting to united Canada
yet? Are we getting to a united Canada?”.
But what has been our experience? For a number of years we let
Mr. Trudeau drive the car. Everyone remembers Trudeau, one hand
on the wheel—he was a great cavalier driver—and the other hand
out the window giving the finger to Alberta and other places. We
forgive him in retrospect. Canadians in the back are asking
“Have we got to a united Canada?” And what did Trudeau say?
He said “We have not got there but it just over constitution
hill. Get to constitution hill and we will have a united
Canada.” We got to constitution hill. We got the 1982
Constitution and we were not at united Canada. In fact Levesque
was getting car sick in the back and tried kick out the window.
Then we got another driver, Prime Minister Mulroney. Canadians
in the back were asking “Are we at a united Canada yet?” And
he said “No, but it is just over there by Meech Lake.” So we go
to Meech Lake and we are not at united Canada. He said “No, it
is at Charlottetown.” We go to Charlottetown and we are not at
united Canada yet.
A little later our current Prime Minister gets to drive the car.
He drives very, very slowly. And we are in the back asking
“Are we at united Canada? Mr. Prime Minister, are we there yet?
Are we there yet?” But there is no answer. He is dozing at
the wheel and we almost went into the ditch at the referendum.
The distinguishing characteristic of all these drivers, and
every male member of the House can identify with this, they never
stop to ask instructions about how to drive.
We are saying that if we stop to ask instructions that the
public has good sense of where a united Canada lies. That is why
I plead with the Prime Minister to give greater weight to public
consultation. If you come up with some new initiative on uniting
Canada, certainly the House has to look at it and give it due
deliberation. What is even more important is that the public
gets a kick at the cat at the front end because if they do not
they are going to reject whatever package we come up with no
matter how well it is conceived.
What are some of the other things that maybe should be in a
national unity initiative that really address where the public's
mind is at? I suggest one of the other ingredients which the
premiers are starting to talk about is a rebalancing of the
powers and also institutional change.
We had a meeting of our little caucus unity team just this week.
If we had been writing the speech from the throne and wanted to
demonstrate to Canadians that we had some substances behind our
unity proposals, what would have been in our legislative package
that might have sent that signal? I have a list two pages long.
We would have had a bill expressly recognizing equality of
citizens of provinces and applying that principle to the exercise
of the federal spending and taxation power. Some day in the
House I would like to discuss in detail the inequality that
exists in the country with respect to the exercise of the federal
spending and taxing powers.
We would have had a bill with statutory adjustments respecting
provincial jurisdiction over natural resources, respecting
provincial jurisdiction over worker training, respecting
provincial jurisdiction over social services, respecting
provincial jurisdiction over housing, respecting provincial
jurisdiction over tourism. We do not regard, nor do most of the
provinces regard, mere administrative agreements which vary from
province to province and do not exist in half of the provinces,
as being anywhere near recognition of provincial responsibility
in these areas.
We would enact bills to strengthen the economic and Canadian
union. Where is the bill from the government to establish a
mechanism to beat down internal barriers to trade?
This House has the power to pass that bill whether the provinces
agree with it or not.
1550
Where is an act to facilitate the development of national
standards? The federal contribution to the total health care bill
is now less than 10 per cent. It will be technically and
economically unfeasible for the junior partner in health care to
dictate standards in the way it did in the past. That does not
mean we will not have national standards or that people do not
want them, but we need a new mechanism for the federal government
to facilitate national standards for interprovincial agreement.
I look at the speech from the throne and if I were an aboriginal
person I would not pick it up. There is nothing in it that
really addresses the problems of aboriginal people. Where is the
bill that starts to decentralize and ultimately do away with the
department of Indian affairs and transfers functions and funding
to local aboriginal governments? Where is the parallel bill?
They will never get that bill accepted even by rank and file
aboriginal people unless there is a parallel bill establishing
mechanisms for financial accountability and democratic
accountability on reserves.
Where are the bills and motions to strengthen the regional
sensitivity and accountability of national institutions? Where
is the motion in the House to amend the standing orders so that
the defeat of a government motion does not result in the defeat
of the government unless specifically designated a vote of
non-confidence? That would allow more regional representation in
this House than it has ever enjoyed.
Where is a non-constitutional Senate reform amendment, at least
to make the place elected? Where is the constitutional
resolution to at least start the Senate reform process? Where is
representation by population in this House? Where is the bill to
get that? If the upper House was regionalized we could have
genuine representation by population in this House and it would
be different in the upper House.
Where is the bill to provide for constituent assemblies if and
when this country ever decides to completely write its
Constitution? This House is supposed to be looking ahead. We
cannot wait until the day when Canadians finally decide they want
to rewrite the Constitution to start setting the mechanism up.
We should set the mechanisms up in advance. Two mechanisms are
needed. One is a bill for constituent assemblies, the other is
an ironclad guarantee of constitutional referenda at the end of
the day.
I suggest to the government that if it had brought in a package
of those types of proposals, or even the promise of bringing
them, it would add up to something. They add up to a Canada that
respects uniqueness. They add up to a Canada that respects
equality. They add up to a Canada that has the institutional
arrangements to make that practical. They add up to a new
division of powers for the 21st century. There is none of that
in this speech from the throne.
To add breadth and depth to national unity strategies we ask
where are the policy initiatives to address the big regional
concerns that are so apparent in this House? If the federal
government had been truly consulting Canadians it would be
acutely aware of our regional differences. I said at the outset
that this House more accurately expresses some of those regional
differences than many House have in the past.
I was frankly surprised when I first opened the speech from the
throne that some of the big headings were not the regional
interests of the country. Where in the speech from the throne is
the new Atlantic Canadian economic initiative, one that
recognizes that the approaches of the past, the subsidies and
handouts and that type of thing, are simply not working? Where
is the economic initiative that uses the new tools of expanding
trade, of beating down internal barriers to trade, of expanding
trade with New England and of making Atlantic Canada the gateway
to European trade with the American community? Where is the
proposal for public-private partnerships to build roads and short
line railways and container ports? There is nothing in this
speech about the new ideas that are out there and nothing related
to Atlantic Canada.
I ask where is the new vision for Quebec, the troisième voie? In
this throne speech there is no fresh vision for Quebec.
[Translation]
There is no third option for Quebec. There is no option
between separation and the federalism we have today. There is
nothing but the revamping of the division of powers under way at
present. There is no third option which would allow a true reform
of the federation by rebalancing powers.
1555
[English]
With all the new Ontario members in this House, surely in caucus
they must have been looking for an open invitation from the
federal government to develop a co-ordinated fiscal policy to
sustain the economic recovery in Ontario. We simply cannot have
the biggest government in the country, this government, and the
government of the biggest province in the country, Ontario,
pursuing fiscal policies that are either going in opposite
directions or at 90° to one another. You could not think of a
way to hinder economic recovery better than that. You cannot
have Ontario with the priority of tax relief and the federal
government having the priority to spend. The danger to the
investor is he sees that whatever tax relief Ontario gives, the
federal government will move in to that tax room and the taxpayer
will never see it.
What about the north, our last frontier, demographically and
ecologically? There is no recognition of the north, no vision of
the north. Even Diefenbaker had a vision of the north. He did
not have much substance but he tried to get a vision of the
north. The north is completely neglected, left as a distant ward
of the federal government, ignored or forgotten.
I left the best for the last, the west. I ask the government
members to listen for a moment. Where is the acknowledgement and
the recognition of the new west and what it brings to Canada's
21st century? There is a new influence for good, for prosperity
and for unity emerging in this country. It is an influence whose
strength and vitality in the 21st century is like that of
Atlantic Canada in the 19th century and Quebec and Ontario in the
20th century. It is the growing influence of the new west, that
portion of our country that stretches from western Ontario across
the vast prairies and woodlands of Manitoba and Saskatchewan,
into the plains and foothills of Alberta, across the mighty
Rockies to the Pacific coast of the great province of British
Columbia.
The new west is built on the principle of freedom of enterprise,
fiscal responsibility, compassion for the young, the old, the
sick and the poor, equality of citizens and provinces and
democracy that reflects the common sense of the common people.
The new west is exercising new muscles and energy, not simply to
get its old grievances addressed, but by offering a new source of
hope and energy to unify our country and strengthen our economy.
Reform is the principal spokesperson for the new west in the
federal Parliament. Those who think that Reform is simply a
protest party or that the new political energy in the west is
simply protest are 15 years behind the times. The west can take
care of its own regional grievances. The west believes that it
can compete with the Americans and beat them two times out of
three if it is on a level playing field. It demonstrates it
every day.
Pacific rim trade is now twice Atlantic rim trade. Its
possibilities are infinite. The greatest single private sector
job creation machine is operating today in the city of Calgary.
It is no longer based on oil and gas. It is an example that can
be multiplied in other parts of country. The west is ready to
bring those ideas and energies to the national scene, not simply
to advance its interests, not to protect its interests, but to
make a contribution to the new Canada.
This throne speech fails to speak to that spirit in the west. It
fails to try to harness that substance to the national interest
and thus misses a golden opportunity at the end of the 20th
century to harness energy and vigour to the task of uniting our
country and making our economy strong.
I conclude by commenting on the the dry bones throne speech once
again.
Perhaps some would say that dry bones are enough. I hear an hon.
member saying that it is, but there are others among us who are
not satisfied. There are those of us who want something bigger,
deeper, fuller and wider; who want tissue, muscle, heart, spirit
and soul added to those bones; who want to exit the 20th century
with a baying, not with a whimper. This throne speech is a
whimper.
1600
I do not believe the government is up to that challenge but
prove me wrong if I am wrong. The challenge to other members of
this House, and I do not just say Reform members, I say the
challenge to other members in this House, including some of the
government backbenchers who know that what I am saying is true,
our challenge is that what realities the government has failed to
recognize, let us recognize. What sources the government has
failed to consult, let us consult. What voices the government
has failed to hear, let us speak for them. What values the
government has failed to represent, let us represent. What ideas
the government has failed to acknowledge, let us pursue. What
policies the government has failed to develop, let us propose.
What hope the government has failed to give, let us inspire so
that the 21st century does in truth belong to Canada.
To sum up, I move:
That the following words be added to the address: “and this
House regrets that your government is proposing a legislative
program that is mired in the past, out of touch with the present,
and incapable of leading Canadians with foresight and vigour into
the 21st century”.
The Speaker: This is an opposition amendment to the
speech from the throne moved by the Leader of the Opposition.
[Translation]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this week we begin the last Parliament of this century and the
first of the new millennium.
I congratulate you on your election and express to you my high
regard for your office. You bring decorum and dignity to this
House and represent its great traditions and the historic
responsibilities of your office.
Among those responsibilities which you discharge so will, is
turning off the microphones when they are meant to be off.
I can assure you that both my party and I will support you fully
in this task and the other important functions of your office.
I also want to congratulate the hon. member from Parkdale-High
Park for her eloquent speech as mover of the address in reply to
the speech from the trone, and the hon. member from Beauce for
his speech as seconder.
I am very proud of their maiden speeches and I must say their
careers are definitely off to a good start. I can tell both
members have great futures ahead of them in this House.
1605
Since I last spoke in the House, we have had a general election.
This is the 11th time I have been elected to Parliament. The
voters of Saint-Maurice have supported me for the tenth time and
their confidence in me inspires me in my public life. They have
taught me that politics is about people.
What I've learned on the sidewalks of Shawinigan, at the kitchen
tables of rural farmhouses, and with workers on factory floors
enriches all I do here as a member of Parliament and Prime
Minister. The people of Saint-Maurice want a government that
listens to them and respects them, and that is the kind of
government I want to lead.
[English]
Parliament opens appropriately as another glorious Canadian
summer comes to its end. Our farmers reap their harvest and the
young return to school. This fall, Canadians, especially young
Canadians, begin to reap the rewards of what we have done
together in the past four years.
When I stood before you in January 1994, many forecasted bleak
economic harvests in our future. In reply to the speech from the
throne I said then that everything that we would do would be
“aimed at rebuilding our economic vitality to ensure that every
Canadian is able to realize his or her potential”.
Now we can say that we needed no polls to tell us that most
Canadians did not think that we could ever gain control of the
massive deficit that had deeply wounded the economy and Canadian
self-confidence.
Who then would have believed that Canada would create 974,000
jobs between October 1993 and September 1997? Who then would
have predicted that our interest rates would fall far below those
of the United States, in fact three and three-quarter per cent
for the prime rate?
Who then would have believed that we would have inflation lower
than 2 per cent, growth close to 4 per cent and the highest rate of job creation
in the G-7? Who then would have believed that four years later
all the international forecasters would be predicting that Canada
will enter the next millennium with the best economic performance
of the G-7 countries?
Who then would have believed that I would be joining Canada's
premiers in a spirit of co-operation in the fall of 1997 to
discuss how we could help our youth, how we could improve our
health system, how we could strengthen our social programs in an
era of balanced budgets?
By working together, by being bold, by conquering fear and
despair, Canadians have done much for themselves and for others.
We have rebuilt economic vitality.
Indeed last week the Governor of the Bank of Canada said,
“Canada is in better shape now than it has been for many years
to face the economic challenges of the future”. He said, “The
Canadian economy has the potential for a long period of sustained
growth in output and employment, with rising productivity and
improving living standards”.
1610
Now is the time for Canadians to realize their vast potential,
to turn toward the new century, to invest wisely and
strategically in people and ideas, to build a secure foundation
for Canada's future.
We made our priorities clear in the election campaign and in the
speech from the throne. We will invest in children, our most
precious resource. We will invest in knowledge to prepare
Canada's youth for the technologies and knowledge based society
of the future. We will work closely with the provinces to
strengthen our health system following the excellent suggestions
of the National Forum on Health.
As a nation we invested in medicare exactly 30 years ago. I was
in the House when we did that. What incredible dividends it has
paid to Canadians, to our economy and even to our sense of
identity. By strengthening and modernizing medicare to meet new
needs, our health care system in the 21st century will yield even
greater returns.
I would like with your permission, Mr. Speaker, to salute the
Minister of Finance who introduced medicare, Mr. Sharp, who is in
the gallery.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning
of the election campaign we said that we would spend some of our
fiscal dividend on health care.
We will be introducing legislation to increase health care
transfers to the provinces in accordance with the recommendation
of the National Forum on Health that the cash floor be $12.5
billion. This means that in 1998-99 the provinces will receive
$700 million more than is currently budgeted. In 1999-2000 the
provinces will receive $1.4 billion more than is currently
budgeted. Canada will remain the best country in which to live
because it cares about its people. These are words that we did
not hear in the speech from the Leader of the Opposition this
afternoon.
We will work very hard to continue to strengthen the economy, to
continue to create a climate for more jobs and for sustained
economic growth.
I want to pay tribute today to the Minister of Finance for his
remarkable achievement in managing the finances of the nation. I
want to tell the House that we will never again allow the
finances of the country to get out of control. We have already
begun to reduce the debt as a proportion of the size of the
economy. By 1998-99 the government will balance the budget for
the first time in almost 30 years.
1615
Working together with members of Parliament, with the provinces
and, above all, with Canadians, we have removed the burden on our
future that the deficit represented. No longer will we pass on
present problems to future generations of Canadians. No longer
will we have the large deficit that prevented governments from
meeting real human needs. No longer will anyone be able to call
Canada a bankrupt nation worth leaving. No longer will critics
say that Canadian federalism does not work.
Canada is working so well that leaders throughout the world are
speaking about the Canadian miracle and the Canadian model. There
is a new optimism in Canada. Canadians have begun to dream
again, and this Parliament's challenge is to live up to the
spirit of those dreams.
Now we must move forward together into a new millennium. Many
in the House today are having their first taste of Parliament.
From my long experience I can say that the taste will be
enormously satisfying, of course spicy at times but in the end
satisfying. Some denigrate what Parliament can do but they are
wrong.
I have seen over the years how individual MPs on all sides of
the House advance causes they believe important to them, their
constituents and Canadians. Over the last four years our
government has opened this process more fully than ever before
for private members' bills, for serious work by parliamentary
committees and for open participation in parliamentary debate. We
will continue.
The situation today is much better than when I became a member
of Parliament. Even as a private member I was able to pass an
important private member's bill changing the name of Trans-Canada
airline. I worked with colleagues on both sides of the House. I
asked some of them to shut up and to help, and we made that
change. My success was shared with members on both sides of the
House.
When I first got on a plane marked Air Canada I knew that the
new member for Saint-Maurice had made a little difference. Many
members will, as individuals and as part of this great
Parliament, make a difference.
[Translation]
Let me tell you what we can do together as Canadians and
parliamentarians. When I first entered Parliament, Canada faced
a major crisis of poverty among seniors. Despite general
prosperity, many seniors found themselves victims of inflation
and of the fact they had not been able to save much during the
hard years of depression and war.
The challenge was great, and the responsibility for dealing with
it was shared.
The federal government had an old age pension scheme, but, of
course, the provinces had principal responsibilities in health,
welfare and housing.
1620
The government of Canada worked with the provinces and through
Parliament used the flexibility and creativity of our federal
system to confront seniors' poverty. We proved then that we share
more than we admit; we differ less than we profess. Saskatchewan
led in medicare; Quebec worked effectively on pensions; and
Ontario and New Brunswick were innovative in housing. But it was
the Government of Canada that gave national leadership to assure
that the creativity of our individual provinces was shared by all
Canadians.
Today the rate of seniors' poverty in Canada is less than
one-third of what it was only a generation ago. When the UN
names Canada as the best country in the world to live in, it is
partly because our seniors now live much longer lives, and are
more comfortable financially. And in this mandate my government
will assure seniors' security for the future. We will introduce
legislation this fall to sustain the Canada Pension Plan and the
Senior's Benefit, making Canada the first G-7 country to make its
public pension system affordable and sustainable for the
millennium.
[English]
As we responded to the challenge of seniors health and poverty a
generation ago, we must now face the challenge of a new
generation of Canadians. They are the generation which will
inherit Canada in the new millennium. They are our children and
our grandchildren, and they will judge our generation by how well
we have prepared theirs for the 21st century.
Election campaigns are exciting for me, as for all of us,
because we get a real chance to meet Canadians of every kind. My
wife tells me that my excitement is greatest when I am around
young people. The hopes and the dreams of the young are an
inspiration for me, but in recent campaigns I heard too many
fears mixed with their dreams.
Let me say frankly that we have lots of work to do. With the
fiscal crisis at an end, our government has more ability to act.
As the Minister of Finance said in his last budget, “a
government relieved of its deficit burden is not a government
relieved of its obligations. It is a government able to exercise
its obligations”.
We owe our greatest obligation to our young, the future of
Canada. As I think of the hopeful yet troubled eyes of the young
people I met this summer, I become even more determined that our
government will not evade its own responsibilities and
opportunities.
I know, as all of us do, that poverty is an enemy of a good
start whether in aboriginal communities or in the urban centres
of Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal and Halifax. Parental love,
family support and strong communities are antidotes to poverty's
sting but they are not enough. People also need our help.
By investing now in the well-being of today's children we are
improving the long term social and economic health of our
society. Together federal and provincial governments must
respond through the national child benefit system we are now
building.
1625
During the course of this Parliament we pledge to do more to
meet the needs of low income families with children. We will do
so by increasing the child tax benefit and we will work in
co-operation with the provinces as they invest in services for
children. Children must remain at the top of our national
agenda. We must make certain that wherever they live or whatever
their background they have a head start on a good future. A head
start helps but it is not a guarantee they will win the race or
even finish it.
We have the best educated young Canadians in history. Young
Canadians can go to the best schools in the world, but too many
drop out and too many do not find work. Youth unemployment is
simply too high.
The private sector has created almost a million new jobs over
the past four years, but as a society we need to do more to
create jobs for young people. We will discuss this and more at
the first ministers meeting this fall.
We will step up our efforts at offering first jobs through
internships and summer placements. We will challenge the private
sector to train young Canadians to take leadership roles in the
new knowledge based society of the future. We will challenge the
private sector to do more to meet the employment needs of young
people. We will develop with the provinces a mentorship program,
and we will partner with the provinces and communities to give
the young at risk a better chance at acquiring the skills and
experience they need.
The more education young people have, the better are their
chances to find a job. We will challenge parents, communities,
schools and provincial governments to encourage young people to
stay in school.
In my family every spare penny my parents could save went to
education. For my parents the grass was greener on the other
side of the fence and education was the way their children could
get into greener fields. Even though I was a bit of a trouble
maker at school—and I have kept a bit of it—my parents never
lost their dream for me and my better behaved brothers and
sisters. Their faith and devotion to our education put the
spring in our leap that carried us over to the other side of the
fence. Today, together, parents, communities and governments
must assure the barriers are not so high that young Canadians do
not make it to the other side of the fence.
The struggle against the deficit was not undertaken so that we
could celebrate our accounting accomplishments. We fought to
lessen the debt burden hanging over an entire generation. We
fought so that we could reduce payments to bankers and begin to
invest in the future of our young people. That is what we are
going to do.
We on this side of the House, plus two or three on the other
side, do not believe that the role of government should be that
of the 19th century laissez-faire state waiting to deal with
emergencies.
1630
Rather we believe government in the 21st century is an
efficient, effective partner to make wise and strategic
investments in areas that really count for the future prosperity
of our country. One of the most important of these areas is
knowledge and learning. It is the key to growth and jobs in years
ahead.
That is why, in the last budget, we announced the creation of a
Canadian Foundation for Innovation. With the dividends from
successful fiscal management, we made a one-time investment of
$800 million designed to rebuild the research infrastructure of
our universities and teaching hospitals.
While I do not want to scoop the fiscal update of the Minister
of Finance which will be delivered in mid-October, it is no
secret that because of the good work of the government and of the
Minister of Finance, we are doing a great deal better in 1997-98
than had originally been projected.
I expect, therefore, that in the weeks after the Minister of
Finance tables his fiscal update to be able to take advantage of
another dividend from our successful fiscal management, to
announce the deal of another one-time investment in learning and
knowledge similar to what we did last year when we created the
Canadian Foundation for Innovation but on a bigger scale.
This time the purpose of the investment in our future will be to
reduce barriers to access post-secondary education. There can be
no greater millennium project for Canada and no better role for
government than to help young Canadians prepare for the knowledge
based society of the next century.
As our most significant millennium project we will establish at
arm's length from government a Canada millennium scholarship
endowment fund. The income from the fund will reward academic
excellence and will provide thousands of scholarships each year,
beginning in the year 2000 for low and moderate income Canadians
to help them attend universities and colleges.
We will be working closely with appropriate partners to help in
the actual design of the fund. It will not be a monument made of
bricks and mortar but when future Canadians look around, they
will see its legacy everywhere.
I hope it can do in the 21st century for our economy and our
country what the investment after World War II in post-secondary
education did for our returning soldiers, for our economy and our
country in the last half of the 20th century.
On a very personal basis I hope it will be able to do in a
different area for many thousands of young Canadians what my
parents were able to do for me, my brothers and my sisters.
1635
[Translation]
In addition to this one-time endowment, the government will
make further changes to the Canada Student Loans Programme and
will increase assistance for students with dependents. With
these and other measures, to be developed over the next few months
in concert with the provinces, we will build on the progress
made in the last budget to address the increasing cost of
post-secondary education and the resulting debt burden on
students.
When I was young, pursuing my education meant that I had to
leave home for boarding school. Small communities lacked the
resources to support institutions of higher education. What is
wonderful about modern technology is the way the most remote
communities can be in thouch with our greatest institutions.
SchoolNet, developed by our Department of Industry, allows
schools to deliver the same information at the same time to
Whitehorse and Weyburn, Victoria and Victoriaville. Bill Gates
has said that SchoolNet is “the leading programme in the world
in terms of letting kids get out and use computers”. And we know
that we can, and must, do even more.
As I travelled through Canada during the last four years, I saw
how new technologies are strengthening rural Canada. We promised
in our election programme that we would help rural Canada share
new technologies and we will keep that promise. It is
tremendously important to know that our great country with its
millions of square kilometres will be the most connected country
in the world by the millennium. Distances will matter much less;
and we will see tha differrences need not divide. The promise
of technology is astonishing but technology must have a soul.
It was very troubled to read a survey this summer that suggested
that young Canadians knew too little about each other and what we
have done together. According to the survey, in every province
except Quebec, more Canadians thought Neil Armstrong was the
first Canadian in space rather than Marc Garneau. Only 28 per cent of
Quebec youth could name John A. Macdonald as our first prime
minister, although 78 per cent of them could name Wilfrid Laurier as the
first Francophone prime minister. Too often we forget, or do not
know, what we have achieved together. It is unacceptable that
our youth may know all about computers but so little about their
country.
[English]
At one level, this is why our future youth programs will
emphasize exchanges. I never knew Canada until I sat at kitchen
tables in Saskatchewan, skiied in the Rockies, walked on the
tundra in the Arctic, played pool on Fogo Island in Newfoundland,
and talked with aboriginal elders around fires.
Similarly, Canada touches my heart and affects my thoughts as I
discover the grandeur of our history. It moves me deeply to
learn that over 150 years ago, when religion and race caused wars
everywhere else in the world, here in Canada Robert Baldwin
resigned his seat in the Parliament of the United Canada's so
that his colleague, Louis Hippolyte Lafontaine, could run in a
seat in the heart of English Canada.
Lafontaine became the francophone Catholic member for a
thoroughly English and Protestant riding. Working together,
Baldwin and Lafontaine brought us responsible government.
1640
How many young Canadians know that just over a century ago as
religious quarrels engulfed the world, Canada, a country with a
large Protestant and British majority, elected its first
francophone Catholic Prime Minister? It had the good sense to
re-elect Laurier for three more terms, a reasonable goal for any
prime minister, it seems to me.
We must find ways for young Canadians to learn what they share,
to know what we have done and to gain pride in their nation's
accomplishments. The Government of Canada will work with our
great museums, other federal and provincial institutions and with
voluntary groups to develop ways to increase Canadians' knowledge
of what we have done together.
We Canadians have built together an astonishing country,
respected, even envied throughout the world. This fall more than
100 nations will come to Ottawa to sign a treaty banning forever
the use of anti-personnel landmines. I am proud that it was an
initiative taken by this government in 1994. I am very proud too
that my government, through the foreign minister, refused to
accept a second best treaty. The foreign minister deserves our
congratulations for a job well done.
We worked with others of like mind and showed that Canada can
make a real difference in the world. At one of the international
meetings I recently attended, a world leader told me that only
Canada could have been the leader in the campaign against
landmines. I most strongly agree with the recent comment of the
opposition member for Esquimalt—Saanich, a medical doctor who
has seen landmines tear apart human bodies and who has worked
with us to achieve the ban. He told reporters that the landmine
treaty marks the “the onset of a new era in Canadian foreign
policy using our moral force for humanitarian purposes. This
treaty,” he said, “will save tens of thousands of lives”.
That moral force comes from what we are, what we have done
together and what values we share in common. Canadians expressed
that spirit nationally during the Saguenay and Manitoba floods.
As we stood at the dikes and watched the raging waters we shared
the experience as Canadians.
My government feels the burden of that moral force in all that
we do. That is why we will take a very broad approach to
promoting and strengthening our unity. When we seek to realize
the highest aspiration of Canadians we help make Canada more
united.
[Translation]
I welcome the Calgary initiative of the premiers and territorial
leaders. It is a positive and constructive statement and
affirmation of important values about what Canada is, and what
makes us Canadian.
1645
It contains a key message. The French fact is a fundamental
part of our Canadian identity, and as such the unique character
of Quebec society with its French-speaking majority, its culture
and civil law tradition, is fundamental to the well-being of
Canada. The French fact is an essential part of my identity, one
that has nurtured me, one that has given me strength and
identity, one that has made me the Canadian I am.
I welcome the commitment of the Premiers and Territorial Leaders
to involve the people in their provinces and territories in
strengthening the unity of this country by joining in giving
voice to these values.
The message to Quebecers, to all French-speaking Canadians,
indeed to all Canadians, is one of openness and solidarity. It
is a message that should be heard.
I welcome the very constructive approach that the leaders of the
Reform Party, the New Democratic Party and the Conservative Party
are taking on this issue.
I urge Quebecers to hear the message coming from Calgary and to
join in building on it. The words form Calgary should be taken
form what they are, an inclusive and timely message for all to
hear. It is an important step in building understanding and
confidence. Nothing more should be read into it.
Since this is not a constitutional or legal text, I would urge
Canadians not to be drawn into a legalistic analysis of a statement of
values. The day may come—I hope it will, and it will if Quebec ever has a
government willing to work for those Quebecers who wish to remain a part
of Canada, and they are the majority—when there is a legal and
constitutional text to consider as such. The words from Calgary are an
attempt to express worthy Canadian values and that is how they should be
welcomed.
I pledge to all Canadians that we are open to all good ideas to
strengthen the unity of our country. We invite the ideas of all
opposition parties, and we will have an opportunity to discuss them
either in this House or in committee.
But we will never be hostage to demands that diminish or deny to each
and every Canadian the benefits of his or her citizenship and our
nationhood, our existence as an independent nation
recognized by the UN.
We will continue to be frank and open about the consequences of
what those who seek to partition Canada are proposing. Clarity
does not cause fear, it is the enemy of fear. Our adversary is
confusion. I am convinced that when things are clear, Quebecers
and other Canadians will choose to stay together because it is
the best choice for them and their children. As I have emphasized
today, we are committed to collaboration and partnership with all
those who, in good faith, will work with us to realize the
wonderful opportunities that await Canada and Canadians.
Our strength, our character and our recent successes have
positioned us to pursue those opportunities in new ways to meet
new challenges of a new century.
1650
[English]
We began this century as a small nation, without a flag, without
our own Canadian citizenship and even without Newfoundland.
Alberta and Saskatchewan were not yet provinces. The slums of
Montreal and Halifax had a high rate of infant mortality than do
the modern slums of Calcutta where Mother Teresa toiled.
Few Canadians even met others more than 50 miles away. On the
prairies new settlers lived in isolation throughout cold winters,
unaware of the petroleum riches beneath them. And yet we knew we
had a future.
At the beginning of the century Laurier dreamed of that future
when he said:
Three years ago when in England, I visited one of those models
of Gothic architecture—The cathedral was made of granite, oak
and marble. It is the image of the nation I wish to become. For
here, I want the granite to remain granite, the oak to remain
oak, the marble to remain marble. Out of these elements I would
build a nation great among the nations of the world.
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 be Canadian.
Today there is in Canada once again a wonderful sense of a
country moving, of a country that matters, of a country that
dreams again. For a long time for too many Canadians Canada has
seemed stuck. Now everywhere Canadians together are making
choices for a new millennium.
I pledge to Canadians that this Parliament and this government
will be worthy of their dreams and their aspirations. With every
ounce of energy we have, with the support of our colleagues and
our fellow Canadians, we will keep this wonderful country, this
Canada, our Canada, united. Together we will move into the next
millennium as a prosperous, tolerant, generous, caring and modern
country.
This country will be a model to the world. We are all very
privileged to be members of this Parliament. People see
Canada as the country to look at. When we travel around the
world we realize that we are the envy of the world. Millions and
millions of human beings around the world would give their last
penny to share this citizenship of ours. That is why we have the
collective duty to work together to make this country even
greater and to give the best country in the world to our children
and our grandchildren.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
1655
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
may I begin by congratulating you on your election as Speaker. I
wish to assure you that, in this House, the Bloc Quebecois will
always behave with the greatest respect for this institution, just
as we have in the past.
After the last election, we find ourselves in a fragmented
Parliament, a Parliament reflecting the true face of Canada. The
Bloc Quebecois finds itself as the principal Quebec party, the main
voice for Quebec in Ottawa. Forty-four members, constituting the
majority of the Quebec deputation, 60 percent of the deputation in
fact, that is what the Bloc Quebecois represents.
Indeed, speaking of the true face of Canada, we had an
eloquent example yesterday in the Speech from the Throne. Two main
conclusions can be drawn from the intentions of the Liberal
government.
The first is no surprise: continuation of Plan B, the hard
line with Quebec. I will return to this point later.
A second conclusion must also be reached: after going after
the deficit at the expense of the unemployed and the most
disadvantaged members of society, by hacking savagely at transfer
payments to the provinces for health and education and at
unemployment insurance, now this government has the gall, the
indecency, to make use of the surpluses generated by its own
cutbacks to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction.
Clearly, the aim is political visibility rather than
efficiency for the public. With this objective, this second
conclusion falls in line with our first one.
The cuts to unemployment insurance, the cuts to social
assistance imposed on the provinces and the reductions in health
and education transfers occasioned by this government's deficit
reduction have wreaked havoc in the lives of thousands of
Canadians.
Rather than repair the damage it has done, the government is
concerned with only one thing. It wants to use the money it saved
to increase its profile for purely political purposes.
If I had to summarize the speech on government policy, I would
say that the word is federalism in capital letters.
In its speech, the government is inviting us to take part in
a great debate on the post zero deficit age.
The Liberals are proposing that half the surplus go to paying the
debt and to reducing taxes. The other half would go to misusing
its spending power in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
Having been the cause of many social ills, the government now
wants to set itself up as the saviour. It will have cut $42
billion from social programs, health care, education and social
assistance, thus forcing the closure of hospitals, driving
thousands of workers denied unemployment insurance toward welfare
and causing massive cuts in schools.
The surpluses that will be generated after the deficit is
eliminated should not be used for federalist propaganda, but should
go directly to reinstating the transfer payments made to the
provinces for social programs. Specifically, this would mean more
money for hospitals and CLSCs.
It would also mean more teachers and student services.
Secondly, surpluses should go to job creation through a
targeted reduction in payroll taxes. In its electoral platform,
the Bloc proposed that the employment insurance fund surplus be
used to lower employment insurance premiums by at least 35« and to
re-invest $2.5 billion in improving assistance to the unemployed,
including the seasonally unemployed.
1700
Not returning the annual surplus of approximately $7 billion in the
employment insurance fund, and not telling workers and the unemployed
about this surplus, is a clear misappropriation of funds. The
suggestions I am now making had the agreement of the premiers in St.
Andrews recently.
Next, the surpluses must be used in the fight against poverty. And
this includes improving the employment insurance system, given the deep
cuts made over the last five years, particularly in benefits to seasonal
workers.
Finally, there is the long overdue $2 billion in compensation paid
to the Maritimes but not to Quebec for harmonizing the GST, one of the
demands from Quebec that was also supported by all premiers at the St.
Andrews meeting. And only after it has fulfilled these obligations
should the federal government think about lowering taxes or reducing the
debt.
But instead of repairing the damage caused by its policies, the
government announces that it will now use this breathing room to
systematically interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction. The worst
interference ever seen in the history of Canada. Even Pierre Elliott
Trudeau never dared to go this far. And that's saying something.
The government is confirming its interference in the health field
by creating a pharmacare plan, when Quebec already has its own such
plan.
Moreover, after taking over 30 years to partially withdraw from the
manpower training sector, this same federal government is now seeking,
six months later, to maintain, confirm and increase its involvement in
youth training.
One the very few new things mentioned in this speech is that the
federal government will now get directly involved in education, in order
to, and I quote: “measure the readiness of Canadian children to
learn”,
through an innocuous leaflet sent to every home. And then are we going
to have national standards in the education sector? Are we going to have
national exams in that sector?
I say we will never let the federal government get involved in
Quebec's schools. Never.
However, these measures and policies are just part of a more global
strategy designed to achieve the first objective that we pointed out,
namely to pursue more aggressively than ever the government's plan B.
This is the logical consequence of the last election, when we witnessed
repeated attacks against Quebec, its politicians and its democratic
institutions.
The prevailing ideology in the rest of Canada is getting further
than ever from Quebec's traditional demands and aspirations. Such
hardening is being promoted in an irresponsible fashion by the comments
of the Reform Party, by the actions of the Liberal Party of Canada, and
by the collusive silence of the leader of the Conservative Party. As for
the NDP, it has always ignored the Quebec issue, and in fact this is why
Quebecers have always ignored the NDP.
Slowly but surely, through the use of psychological profiles,
changing democratic rules, hate-filled Internet sites and the promotion
of partition, public opinion in the rest of Canada is falling into
collective beliefs that still smack of colonialism as regards Quebec, in
that they view us merely as a quaint entity.
This attitude is obvious in the government's throne speech. Never
before, in a Speech from the Throne, has a government so directly
threatened Quebec's right to decide on its own future.
Moreover, the Liberal government is dropping the solemn commitment
made after the referendum to recognize Quebec as a distinct society,
after putting it in a motion passed by the House of Commons, and after
repeating it in the form of an election promise in its second red book.
1705
Further watering down recognition of the Quebec people, this
government has embraced the definition in the Calgary declaration,
referring to the “unique character of Quebec society”, as unique as B.C.
salmon, and without constitutional amendments.
If we carefully examine this agreement, it is easy to understand
why the Prime Minister and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
were so enthusiastic. This is the worst it has ever been for Quebec.
Several experts agree it is far less than Meech and even less than
Charlottetown.
The federalists were rather quick to applaud the results of a
recent survey on this agreement. They should not get carried away,
because as Quebecers become better acquainted with the contents of this
agreement, their support will be affected accordingly.
In the rest of Canada, we already hear people saying that Quebec has
been given too much. There is a very real possibility it will be
Charlottetown all over again.
The only message sent to Quebec in this throne speech is that we
should be satisfied with Canada as served up in Calgary, otherwise it
will be Plan B.
All in the defence of national unity, the government even has the
nerve to emphasize the bilingual character of this country, when the
facts tell a different story altogether. They show a shocking rate of
assimilation among francophones outside Quebec, a national Constitution
that since 1982 has never been translated into French, and a few weeks
ago, the closing, to all intents and purposes, of the only francophone
hospital in Ontario, the Montfort. That is Canada's bilingual character.
[English]
I have only a few words for the rest of Canada about the
premiers meeting which was held in Calgary. Forget the Calgary
deal, it will never pass Quebec.
[Translation]
The Bloc Quebecois has never deviated from its basic
principles. Now more than ever, we deem sovereignty to be
necessary. The constitutional impasse is still there, even more so
since the Calgary declaration. The main purpose of the Bloc
Quebecois is clear: to advance the sovereignist project while
staunchly defending Quebec's interests.
During this next mandate, defending Quebec's interests will
have to involve defending Quebec's democratic institutions. When
we came to Ottawa, we knew it would be hard, that harsh words would
be exchanged. Yet we would never have dreamed that we would have
to defend democracy, we would never have dreamed that the federal
government would stoop so low as to question the very foundations
of democracy.
This best country in the world is behaving like an imperial
power looking down its nose at its ignorant colony, which dared to
get just a little too uppity on the evening of October 30, 1995.
A colony which no doubt needs psychoanalysis, I suppose, as the
hon. member for Don Valley West so clearly demonstrated to us with
his pseudo-psychoanalysis of the Premier of Quebec. Some might
also add that the people who voted yes did not know what they were
doing, while everything was perfectly clear to those who voted no.
Yet the rules governing the last two referendums were accepted
by all parties, including the federal government. A federal
government which, let us recall, accepted Newfoundland into
Confederation with a close vote in a second referendum. Casting
doubt on those rules now indicates obvious bad faith and, in
particular, a profound disdain for the near-victory of the yes side
in the last referendum.
Let us look a little closer at the rules the Prime Minister is
trying to discredit with the help of his hatchet man, the Minister
of Intergovernmental Affairs.
In Quebec, all of the province's political leaders agree on
the rules governing Quebec's move to sovereignty. There is clearly
a consensus in Quebec on this, which the federal government is
refusing to recognize.
This consensus is grounded on three basic principles: first,
the existence of the people of Quebec; next, respect for
fundamental democratic principles; finally, the integrity of Quebec
territory. All of Quebec's premiers, be they federalist or
sovereignist, from Daniel Johnson senior to Robert Bourassa, have
defended these three principles.
1710
The federalists, in their post-referendum panic and without an
argument to stand on, are going after the process, trying to
discredit it by all possible means. By doing so, however, they are
the ones discrediting democracy in Canada by deriding the rules
underlying it. Partition, a reference to the Supreme Court, doubt
cast on the rule of the simple majority, a country wide referendum,
all threats and fears are fair game.
Under the tutelage of the Reform Party, the Liberal Party of
Canada has chosen not to face the issue.
Everything is being questioned with the almost acknowledged aim of
frightening Quebecers and with the obvious aim of saying, “You will
never do it”. The bidding is escalating at the expense of
Quebecers.
Although they are not acceptable, these attacks against
Quebec's democratic institutions are not the real problem.
Although they are irresponsible and dangerous, the threats of the
partition and hacking-up of Quebec are not the real problem.
Although it is both absurd and disgusting, the reference to the
Supreme Court aimed at depriving Quebecers of their right to decide
their future democratically is not the real problem.
The real problem is this stubborn denial of the very existence of
the people of Quebec. This is the real problem, which in turn leads to
all sorts of undemocratic excesses cloaked in legality and clarity. Such
hypocrisy. This is the root cause of the deadlock. The Liberal Party of
Canada's approach has failed, because it denies the existence of the
people of Quebec people, a people different from the people of Canada.
By so doing, the big guns in the federalist camp are endorsing the
position of the leader of the official opposition, who stubbornly denies
the existence of the people of Quebec as one of the two founding nations
of Canada in 1867.
Canadians are a people. The aboriginal peoples are made up of
several peoples. People all over the world are divided into various
peoples. If it is good for everybody else, why would it be bad for
Quebecers?
I appeal specifically to members from Quebec in this House who,
over and above their mandate, are citizens who must believe in
respecting democracy and above all in the existence of the people of
Quebec.
We urge you not to be part of the government's blind denial of the
facts when it refuses to recognize that the people of Quebec people
exists and is free to decide its own future.
To conclude, let me say a word or two about Canada's future. In its
Speech from the Throne, the government is predicting a brilliant future
for Canada during the third millennium. It even invites us to celebrate
this future success ahead of time. We see things differently.
We believe that Canada is at a crossroad. It has a choice. The
federal government can remain true to its traditions of tolerance,
openmindedness and democracy, traditions upheld by Lester B. Pearson,
among others.
Then, the government will give Quebec the right to decide its own future
in accordance with the democratic rules which are part of the common
heritage of the peoples of Canada and Quebec.
Thus, it will become once again a model at the international level, with
which a sovereign Quebec will be able to build a real partnership. Not
a pseudo-partnership where Quebec would simply carry out orders from
Ottawa, but a fruitful partnership between two sovereign countries.
This is simply reasonable, this is plain common sense.
Or the government can let itself go and drift away from
democracy, this has already started, driven mostly by the anti-sovereignist
phobia of the Prime Minister and his Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs. And this is the open door to all excesses, a slide towards anger and
intolerance, towards totally anti-democratic behaviour. This is a dead
end street.
Unfortunately, it is this second alternative which seems to prevail
at the present time, because of a Prime Minister who is blinded and
intoxicated by the arabesques and arrogance of his Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs. This is regrettable, but I am deeply
convinced that in the end the Canadian people, whom I sincerely trust,
will not allow it.
The government will have to pay a heavy price for having defiled its own
institutions.
1715
Members of the Bloc Quebecois will continue to stand by the
democratic traditions of Lester B. Pearson's Canada. We will continue to
respect this House despite the fact that many members on the government
side try to defile it and use it for their own anti-sovereignist
obsessions, as they are presently trying to do with the Supreme Court.
Even if they continue to move down this dead end street, they will not
prevent Quebec from progressing toward sovereignty. I do hope that
Quebecers will have their own country by the year 2000.
In concluding, I move:
“that denies the existence of the Québécois people and their culture,
which once
again reflects the government's centralizing vision by confirming and
increasing
its presence in areas of provincial jurisdiction such as social programs,
health
and especially education, and”.
The Speaker: The amendment is in order. We now have a few minutes
for questions and comments. If there are questions and comments, I will
allow them; if not, we will move on.
As there are no questions or comments, I give the floor to the
leader of the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Halifax.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as I
rise in my place in this Chamber for the very first time I wish
to congratulate you, Sir, on your re-election to continue serving
as Speaker among your 300 peers. It is an honour for sure but
also a daunting task.
[Translation]
I also want to congratulate and thank the other candidates to the
Chair.
[English]
I know, Mr. Speaker, that it is your job to create a respectful
political climate and at the same time favourable working
conditions for all members who are elected to serve the public
interest in this great Parliament of Canada. I also know that it
is the responsibility of the Speaker to attend to the working
conditions for all of the employees who serve Parliament here on
Parliament Hill and in the precincts in the surrounding area.
I must say that over the last year and a half as I have served
as leader of the New Democratic Party without a seat in
Parliament I have looked on with some frustration and some horror
as I have watched the deteriorating conditions for some of the
people who are serving us here on Parliament Hill. In particular,
I have felt a great deal of consternation at the spectacle of
hundreds of locked out security guards.
1720
Mr. Speaker, I know that it is not because you failed to exercise
your duties but rather the government has been willing to not
only tolerate but actually sponsor first the training and then
the hiring of replacement workers who have replaced workers
earning barely above minimum wage and who are coming up to a one
year anniversary of the time when they were locked out from their
jobs here on Parliament Hill.
I hope it is a sign of better times to come that there is some
indication those security guards are now looking at a tentative
agreement. I hope that as we come up to the one year anniversary
of that lockout we will instead be celebrating a just settlement
on behalf of those workers and their families.
I am delighted today to finally be taking my seat in the House
of Commons and I am delighted to be surrounded by some 20 New
Democrat colleagues. It is certainly true that three quarters of
the NDP caucus are rookies, I among them, at least newcomers to
this Chamber. Mr. Speaker, for that reason we will be looking to
you frequently for guidance and counsel. I hope we can expect a
little patience as we learn the rules and the procedures of the
House.
As I look across the floor this afternoon I am very aware that
someone very dear and very special is missing. He was someone
special not only to New Democrats but to all parliamentarians
present and past. I am sad that Stanley Knowles did not live to
see this day, that he did not live to see the official return to
the House of Commons of the party which he helped to found. It
is a bittersweet celebration for us today.
Many of us learned of Stanley's death as we were arriving in
Ottawa for our first caucus meeting in June. We will all miss
Stanley Knowles greatly, his warmth, his humour, his fierce
unyielding dedication to justice and equality and his
unparalleled expertise in the rules and procedures that govern
Parliament.
We all remember Stanley's lifelong battle for decent pensions
for working people. Stanley would never have been fooled by
euphemisms like seniors benefits into believing that a massive
reduction in pension benefits was an improvement. We pledge
today to honour Stanley's memory by fighting any further erosion
of pension protection for our seniors. On this occasion I give
thanks for the tremendous contribution that Stanley Knowles made
to the House of Commons, to my party and to the people of Canada.
On the day of Stanley Knowles' funeral, a close long time friend
of his arrived at my office. He brought me two publications that
were co-authored by Stanley and by my father who came to work in
Ottawa as the first researcher for the CCF caucus in the early
1940s. Those publications talked about a more democratic Canada.
For me it is a humbling experience and I admit an emotional
occasion to take my place in the House of Commons, to continue
that struggle for a more democratic and a more social democratic
Canada. I was born in Ottawa because of my parents' decision to
come here and be part of that social democratic movement. But of
course Halifax is where I have spent most of my life and Halifax
is the riding I have the privilege to represent here in the
Parliament of Canada.
Let me take a moment or two to tell the House a bit about my
riding of Halifax.
1725
Halifax is often said to be something of a bell-wether riding.
I must say I never really quite believed that until the June 2
election. But when all four Halifax area federal ridings elected
New Democrats to represent them in this session of Parliament, I
knew that Halifax was a bell-wether riding.
Halifax is a growing modern metropolis and yet it is still
characterized by the generosity and the openness of a small
farming town or a fishing outport. Our maritime traditions are
well known; the courage of our military men and women serving
overseas, the resourcefulness of our current armed forces and
civilian personnel rising to new challenges.
Less well known perhaps is our rich cultural ethnic diversity in
Halifax and Nova Scotia generally. We are rediscovering and
reclaiming the history of Nova Scotia's aboriginal people, the
Micmac, our black population, the proud community that was
Africville, our Acadian communities and their valiant struggle to
maintain their language and their culture, the many other peoples
who have entered Canada through the port of Halifax, many of them
through pier 21, some settling in Halifax and many others moving
on, all of them choosing Canada as their home.
That diversity I am pleased to say is very much reflected in the
caucus that I have the privilege to lead in this Parliament.
[Translation]
It includes, for instance, the first Acadians in a New Democratic
caucus as well as an aboriginal member from the Prairies.
[English]
We have the first Afro-Canadian member of Parliament elected
from Atlantic Canada, several members from recent immigrant
families and, I would add, the most women ever elected to the New
Democrat caucus. My predecessor, the member for Yukon, served in
the House with dignity and devotion under much more difficult
circumstances, outnumbered by her caucus colleagues eight to one.
I guess it can be said that the only caucus that has ever come
close to being gender balanced in Parliament is the past
Conservative caucus. I do not know anybody who is recommending
that formula for gender balance.
In recent years Canadians have watched my province of Nova
Scotia spawn an explosion of cultural expression and cultural
achievement, Acadian and Celtic music, Scottish dance, Atlantic
humour—who among us does not both love and fear “This Hour has
22 Minutes”—our vibrant visual arts, award winning film making,
dynamic theatre and outstanding playwrights like my colleague,
the member for Dartmouth, and amazing authors like Anne-Marie
Macdonald, one of Cape Breton's finest, author of the epic novel
Fall on Your Knees. Permit me to quote briefly a favourite
passage: “There is nothing so congenial to lucid thought as a
clear view of the sea. It airs the mind, tunes the nerves and
scours the soul”. Maybe the inspiration of the ocean explains
the eruption of self-discovery in Atlantic Canada these days.
Now this quiet Atlantic revolution is sending shock waves through
the world of politics.
1730
My colleagues and I are well aware that we have an enormous
responsibility, a mandate born out of suffering and out of hope.
I want to say to my constituents and to all Canadians, Atlantic
Canadians, today that we will not let them down in the coming
Parliament.
Canadians understand what this throne speech has so callously
ignored, that something has gone desperately wrong for far too
many Canadians with jobs being wiped out, the quality of life
being eroded, medicare and education crumbling, national
institutions like the CBC under siege, tax subsidies for business
luncheons but new tax burdens for family necessities, and new
threats to our national sovereignty from the multilateral
agreement on investment.
It is gratifying to see provincial and territorial leaders
commit to the unity initiative announced earlier this month in
Calgary, but let me also say that Canada is bigger than any
constitution. Far more crucial than any notion of equality among
the provinces is the fundamental equality of Canadians, Canadians
as citizens, equality before the law, equality of services,
equality of opportunity. Worsening our inequalities can only
gladden the hearts of those who seek to divide us.
[Translation]
In order to capture the hearts and minds of the people of Quebec,
we must prove that Canada can work well once again, that Canada can once
again become a country where economic security, sound communities,
interesting opportunities and real human charity prevail.
This Parliament must focus on rebuilding that kind of Canada.
Otherwise, the next Parliament may very well represent a much smaller
and a much sadder Canada.
[English]
If this government is willing to tackle the whole question of
unity instead of focusing on the narrow agenda of those who would
divide us then we will work with it for the shared goals of
compassion, community and unity; but that requires that this
government do some serious rethinking and requires a new
commitment to the real priorities of Canadians.
We promised in the election campaign that not a week would go by
in the House of Commons without New Democrat MPs fighting for
Canadians pressing priority, especially for jobs. I only wish
that the prime minister would devote as much attention to the
creation of jobs as he devotes to the creation of senators.
Let us examine the facts: 82 consecutive months with
unemployment above 9 per cent, 82 consecutive months with 1.4 million
children living in poverty, unemployment insurance protection
dropping below the level of the state of Alabama creating immense
hardship while the unemployment insurance fund runs a huge and
growing surplus, and those with jobs dogged by constant
insecurity in an increasingly part time, low wage, no benefit
economy.
1735
Women are the most vulnerable. It is no surprise that this
government has abandoned women. The first 1993 red book promise
broken was that of a national child care program. Canadian
families and Canada's children are still waiting.
Let us look at how this government treats its own women
employees. The government is still refusing to honour the $2
billion pay equity debt owing to 80,000 women in this country.
Aboriginal communities across the country are desperate for
economic development and jobs while this government stalls on the
royal commission recommendations.
Twenty-five per cent real youth unemployment is eating away at
our country's future. Canadians have heard lots of lofty Liberal
promises, but the fact is that there are 20,000 more youth
unemployed today than this time last year.
The program reannounced in yesterday's throne speech will not
make a dent for the 410,000 unemployed youth.
[Translation]
A whole generation of our young people finish their studies without
being rewarded with a decent job offer and find themselves strapped with
a huge debt, $25,000 on average.
[English]
What is really happening with medicare? The good news is that
two tier health care is no longer a threat in this country, and
the bad news is that two tier is already a reality brought to us
by the finance minister's massive cuts, cuts in no way reversed
by yesterday's hollow pronouncements.
Who bears the brunt? Families struggling with illness and, most
of all, once again women: the backbone of the health care
workforce reduced to casual workers with homemakers and
volunteers forced to take up the slack as services are slashed.
With people suffering, with families struggling, with patients'
lives on the line, why is there any debate over what to do with
the fiscal dividend?
New Democrats will be relentless in fighting for a real
commitment to move medicare forward, not vague platitudes but a
solid commitment to comprehensive home care, a prescription drug
program and the unequivocal rejection of two tier American style
health care.
Where is this government on the environment? The short answer
judging by yesterday's throne speech is nowhere. Canada's most
endangered species is a federal Liberal politician willing to
take any responsibility to protect our natural environment.
I want to be fair. There is one solid government achievement
that we all celebrate. I want to give credit where it is due.
Canada has played a pivotal role in the resolve to eliminate
global stocks of landmines.
I trust the government will have the humility to acknowledge the
work of so many Canadians whose pressure on our own government
and others laid the foundation for this important success. I
know all parliamentarians will join me in underlining the
singular contribution made to Canada's effort by the late Diana,
Princess of Wales.
The treaty to be signed here in Ottawa will serve as a fitting
tribute to her legacy and her memory. Every Canadian can be
proud of this achievement. I pledge today my party's support to
further the goals of that treaty and rid the world of all
inhumane weapons of war.
The Speaker: I know the hon. leader of the New Democratic
Party is just wrapping up.
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, I might ask
unanimous consent to make my concluding comments. I appreciate
and respect the time limits.
These are the values of my party and they are the values that we
will fight for in the coming Parliament, giving our children the
best possible start in life, education and job opportunities for
our young, decent pensions for our seniors, medicare for all and
poverty for none, a healthy environment for future generations
and strong safe thriving communities.
1740
Anyone who doubts the strength of the community spirit in Canada
has only to remember the floods which took such a terrible toll
in the Saguenay last summer and in southern Manitoba this spring,
to remember the sense of common purpose within these communities
and the sense of solidarity which swept our nation in an
outpouring of compassion and co-operation.
My caucus invites this government to honour that spirit, to
learn from it and to unleash it to build the country we all know
Canada can be.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, this
reminds me of my first day of return to the House. I sat here
and said to myself “I am surrounded, surrounded by Progressive
Conservatives”. What a contrast with the last legislature.
We are very happy to be back in this legislature and in this
Parliament and to find the voice we had lost in the last few
years.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like offer you my heartiest
congratulations, not only on my behalf but also on behalf of my caucus,
the Progressive-Conservative Party. I also want to assure you once
again of our co-operation in the performance of your duties, which hold
such importance for the operation of the House.
I would also like to congratulate the leaders of the other parties
who were re-elected in their ridings and who will have the opportunity
to cross swords with all the members in this Parliament.
I would also like to congratulate all those who were elected or re-elected,
especially the new members who are here for the first time and
who are about to experience something extraordinary.
I would be remiss if I did not seize this opportunity to thank,
from the bottom of my heart, the constituents of Sherbrooke, Fleurimont
and Lennoxville who have re-elected me for the fourth time. I must tell
you I owe these people a great deal. They are remarkable. I have had
the privilege of representing them for many years now. I am trying—with
some success, I believe—to give a true picture of what they are;
they in turn illustrate quite well what I represent.
To those people I want to reiterate my sincerest thanks and I want
to confirm that I intend to serve them with the utmost dedication and
energy.
[English]
An election campaign is a moment for the country to stop, to
reflect, to look back and hopefully to look forward. The last
election campaign was an opportunity to do that. For me and for
my party the last three and a half or four years have been very
much about learning more about Canada, about exploring our
possibilities and about going forward.
In the last two years and during the election campaign a number
of things struck me about our country that are worth repeating
today. Beyond the walls of this Parliament, beyond partisanship,
beyond the rhetoric, there are a lot of good things to speak
about in this country. There always was, by the way.
I want to take a second—and it may sound unusual to some
members—to speak about our successes as a country in dealing
with our deficits and debts.
A very powerful consensus exists in Canada for governments to
balance their books and get their priorities right. There is so
much consensus that we find New Democrats in Saskatchewan,
Liberals in the Atlantic provinces, the Parti québècois in Quebec
City and even, who would have thought, the federal Liberal Party
of Canada have come around to the idea that we have to actually
balance our books.
1745
No matter how much they would like to redo history and say that
everything was the fault of the previous government, that they
had nothing to do with it, little do they mention, because their
memory is selective, that they left behind when we came to
government in 1984 a debt that had increased 1,000 per cent fold under
the leadership of the Liberal government, including this Prime
Minister. Their memory is so selective.
This is also a country that has done very well in the area of
trade. Thank God we had trade agreements. Thank God we fought
and won the election of 1988 and had the free trade agreement
that allowed this country to increase merchandise export trade to
the United States by 100 per cent.
We fought and signed the North American free trade agreement. Do
they remember that the same people who now sit on the government
benches fought us tooth and nail on the free trade agreement?
What do we have today? We have a Prime Minister bent on
travelling outside the country to increase trade with new
countries.
He is now bragging about his new amigos in Chile. He wants to
sign deals with Argentina. He wants to sign deals with Israel.
He cannot get enough of it. Yet they fought us every inch of the
way.
The good news is that had it not been for these trade agreements
that we signed, that we fought for, Canada would have had no
growth in its economy. Our domestic economy has been on its back
for the last four years. Canada's domestic economy under the
leadership of this Prime Minister has been on its back. We would
have been in a recession had it not been for the trade agreements
which we signed and fought for in 1988 and 1993.
You have to appreciate the spectacle of the Prime Minister and
the Liberal benches rising during question period to applaud the
government on its brilliant record. Here is a government whose
record will say that it has governed over the longest period of
high unemployment in Canada, the 82nd month in a row of
unemployment above 9 per cent, since the depression of the thirties.
That is the record they were applauding this afternoon.
What is the record they are applauding? There are more poor
children today in Canada than there were when this government was
elected. What is the record of the Liberal government that its
members all applauded? It is the record of a government that has
left Canadians poorer today than they were in 1993.
The income of Canadians has gone down 1.3 per cent. Yet if we follow
the reaction from the government benches, if we watch them as
they get up and speak, if we listen to the Minister of Finance or
even the Prime Minister, they will quote the numbers from the
OECD “We are doing better than this country and that country”.
Maybe they should travel to Atlantic Canada. Maybe they should
stay out of the OECD a little more, move away from Paris and
Sweden or the Norwegian countries.
If they spent a little more time in Atlantic Canada and in
western Canada they might find out why so few Canadians rise to
applaud them when they speak of their record.
This is also a country that saw its health care and social
spending slashed unilaterally, without consultation. This was
unprecedented: a 40 per cent cut in funding. Was there any consultation?
By the way, where was all the talk of partnership back then,
this great notion of rediscovered partnership?
During the election campaign the Liberals had to back down on
health care because the health care system in this country is
broken. The health care system in this country is suffering.
The health care system in this country is threatened. It is
threatened because of the actions of this government and this
Prime Minister and failed leadership. They are going to be held
accountable in this Parliament for having done that.
1750
The Speech from the Throne was the opportunity for the
government to say to Canadians what it is about this new century,
this new era that it cares about, that it wants to focus on. In
fact, you will remember, Mr. Speaker, that we have had an
election campaign—it was a first, a precedent, as far as I
know—to allow the Prime Minister to write the Speech from the
Throne. “I need the whole summer”, he said. Why did the Prime
Minister go to the polls three years into the mandate? Because
he needed to write a Speech from the Throne. I do not know who
wrote the Speech from the Throne, but I hope he was paid by the
word and not the idea.
We could have expected a Canadian agenda. What did we get
instead? The usual expressions of goodwill. How many times can
we rediscover youth unemployment? Guess what, there are young
Canadians out of work. Gee, why did we not think of that before?
Speech after speech, and budget after budget gives us these
useless, meaningless words, backed up by absolutely nothing,
except a measure announced a few days ago, $90 million for an
internship program for 3,000 young Canadians.
About half a million young Canadians are out of work. I think
it is more than 400,000. If a person has a young boy or girl out
of work today, that person can tell them there is hope. At this
rate in 136 years the Liberal government will actually help them
find an internship. That is the great initiative of this Liberal
government.
We expected the government to at least heed the message of the
election campaign, to say “We have got it. We understand. We
heard.” There were many messages sent in the campaign. One of
them at least the Prime Minister and I would agree on. He
certainly did not return with the majority that he was hoping
for. He certainly did not return with the vast support from all
of the regions of the country.
[Translation]
If there is one thing the Prime Minister and the Liberal government
must have understood, it is that they definitely did not get the mandate
that they were hoping for and that they talked so much about at the
beginning of the election campaign. So a message was sent to them.
We wonder however if that message was understood. Is there any
indication in the throne speech that this government accepted and heeded
the message sent by the Canadian people? I looked in the Speech from the
Throne and I can only conclude that the answer is no.
The government did not get it at all. We were expecting a national
action plan, a plan that would set priorities and tell us how we would
enter the new millennium.
What did we get instead? We heard from a government that wants to
repent, a government that tells us it will reinvest money in certain
programs. In which programs will the government reinvest? Can you
believe that it will reinvest in health, after cutting spending in that
sector by 35 per cent? It will reinvest in summer employment programs for
students, after slashing them. It will reinvest in culture, after making
cuts in that sector. And it will reinvest in post-secondary education,
after reducing its support.
A few minutes ago, we witnessed something extraordinary. I was here
in 1995. When the 1995 budget was tabled, the finance minister rose to
announce that he would cut the scholarship program designed to encourage
student excellence. This was in 1995. And do you know what happened, Mr.
Speaker?
I see the member for Rimouski, who was there as well, and the leader of
the Bloc Quebecois. They all rose as they did this afternoon and
applauded the Minister of Finance. This afternoon, the Prime Minister
announced a new scholarship program. Guess what? They all rose together
and applauded again.
That is what they did. But we did not applaud, because we were
extremely sad to see such a good program being cancelled. What has
changed in the meantime? Thousands of students have lost the financial
support they needed to pursue their studies. Why? Because the government
was shortsighted and unable to sort out its own priorities.
What has not changed is the docility of the Liberal backbenchers,
who rise and applaud their Minister of Finance and their Prime Minister
day after day.
1755
This explains why there were 31 out of 32 from the Maritimes
in the last Parliament. The people of the Atlantic provinces have
said, “We've had enough of hearing the same old tune over and over,
now we'd like to have people who will speak up for us, including
the Progressive Conservative members in the Progressive
Conservative caucus”. They will speak up for the people of the
Atlantic provinces, since silence has reigned in recent years.
This same government is now talking about reinvestments and
partnerships. But if this government understands what true
partnership means, what is it waiting for to form a partnership in
the area of health, to co-manage our federation?
[English]
This government had an opportunity with health care to
demonstrate that it really believed in partnership instead of
acting unilaterally. There is still an opportunity. The
government could still sit down with the provinces and agree to
national standards in health care. Nowhere is it written in the
Constitution that it has to be decided by Ottawa and enforced by
Ottawa.
Let me share a secret with the Prime Minister. His position on
health care is untenable. He cannot cut the provinces by 35 per
cent and
then sit at the same table and say to them “I will run the
show”. It is not going to work. The worst news is that it is
not the Prime Minister's government or the provincial governments
that will suffer. It is Canadians in waiting rooms, Canadians on
waiting lists who are suffering from the Prime Minister's lack of
leadership on this issue. They are paying the price.
We await the Prime Minister's partnership. We hope this time
the words will be worth more than they were the last time they
were spoken. The same is true for child poverty or youth policy.
This Prime Minister invited us to give him some ideas on what we
would do for young Canadians. I want to invite the Prime
Minister today to look at the program, the platform we put
forward in the last campaign.
We spoke of a youth policy with a clear objective where every
young person should either be in school, in training, at work or
doing community service. The national government can do something
useful in that regard. You, sir, have the power to change the
employment insurance system as it applies to young people. You
do not have to ask anyone's permission. All you have to do is
work with the provinces—
The Deputy Speaker: Order. I know the hon. member is an
experienced member. I know he intends to address his remarks to
the Chair and I invite him to do so and to continue to do so.
Hon. Jean J. Charest: I would be more than happy to
address my remarks to the Chair, Mr. Speaker.
As I was saying, the Prime Minister has an opportunity to do so.
We hope he is sincere in his extending a hand for some advice. He
can change the employment insurance system and pursue this
policy. He does not need to get involved in areas of provincial
jurisdiction. We should all recognize outright that education
and training are provincial jurisdictions but the Prime Minister
happens to have some control. In this Parliament control of EI
is an important lever that has an impact on the decisions young
people make in the area of education and training. The
employment insurance system must be put at the service of the
objectives we pursue in this area.
The same is true in regard to the issues as they affect
aboriginal Canadians. I was happy to see at least in the Speech
from the Throne an acknowledgement of the royal commission's
report. I am far from agreeing with everything that is in that
report but we cannot as a country remain in denial in dealing
with what is going to be one of the most important issues of the
next century, an issue that will test our values.
The most disappointing part is on jobs and on taxes. The
government had an opportunity. This is a government that could
have sent the signal that it has learned something about the last
30 years. But what has this Liberal government been saying to us
now that we are facing the prospect of a surplus? It is saying
that there is new money, that the promised land has arrived, that
happy days are back again. The Prime Minister and his government
say that they are going to spend that money because they have
learned nothing from the last 30 years.
This government works on a few assumptions. The first
assumption is that if there is a problem then the answer must be
that government has to intervene. The second assumption is that
if a government must intervene it has to be the federal
government. “We're the ones who have to intervene, no one
else”. The third assumption is that if there is a problem we
have to spend money. That is the Liberal philosophy. It is
written nicely. I assume that it is written over the Prime
Minister's door “If you send it we will spend it”. That is the
way it goes.
1800
Let us talk to the real record of this government, the record
the government was applauding this afternoon. The real country
with which we compare is to the south of us. It is a quite
imperfect comparison, but maybe the prime minister could explain
to us why the unemployment rate in the United States
is half what it is in Canada. Why is it that in the United
States real disposable income has gone up 11 per cent in the last two
years when it has gone down 1.6 per cent while the Liberals have been in
power? Will they blame the Conservatives? Of course they will.
If something goes wrong during the term of this government it is
the fault of the past government.
However, if there is job creation, if the books are being
balanced, if there are low interest rates and if there is low
inflation it is all due to the Liberals, assuming that Canadians
are dumb enough to buy all of that. I believe they will find
that all of that wears very thin.
The government could have offered a different course to the
country. With respect to taxes this government should not put up
with the shameless rip off of employed Canadians, of the working
poor in this country, who are being gouged because the government
is using the employment insurance fund to pay down the deficit.
I asked the question in the House today yes or no, is the
employment insurance fund of the government being used to reduce
the deficit. I cannot get a straight answer. We know what the
answer is. The government is paying down the deficit on the
backs of workers, small businesses and on the backs of the
unemployed, especially young unemployed Canadians. If the
government wanted to do something today it could reduce premiums
25 per cent.
Are they listening? No, they are heckling. Maybe I am not
convincing. Maybe I am too partisan. But do members think that
the Canadian Chambers of Commerce is too partisan? Do members
think that le Conseil du patronat is too partisan? I do not
think so. I hope the government will learn.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask that the
hon. leader of the Conservative Party be afforded the same
privilege which was afforded the leader of the New Democratic
Party, that he be, by the unanimous consent of the House,
permitted to finish his remarks.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the
hon. member to complete his remarks?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, the government speaks
of taxes. It speaks of trade. There is all this talk of
rebalancing the federation.
[Translation]
A new balance of responsibilities will be established in the
federation. And no need to say that the leader of the official
opposition wants a massive decentralization. However, there are areas
where the powers of the national government must be strengthened because
it is not by stripping the federal government of all its
responsibilities that we will keep the country united.
[English]
If this government believes in the real rebalancing of the
federation it would also speak to the areas where the national
government should reinforce its powers. Believe it or not, this
party of mine, the party which founded the country, the party of
Sir John A. Macdonald, the party which was here through good and
bad times, also knows that a strong central government in the
areas in which it should be strong is the best bet in keeping
this country together.
Again I will offer some advice to my colleague. If the
government really believed in the strength of leadership it would
offer some leadership on interprovincial trade. How is it that
there is more freedom to trade between Canada and the United
States and Canada and Mexico than there is between Manitoba and
Nova Scotia? There is more freedom to trade between Ontario and
Ohio than there is between Canadian provinces.
The prime minister is going to do another Team Canada trip in
January. Can I make a humble suggestion to him. When he returns
to Canada, why does he not get the premiers together and organize
a Team Canada trip in Canada?
1805
This government has the power to say to the provinces “we will
give you a year to sit down with us and conclude an agreement for
interprovincial trade with a dispute settlement mechanism”. Who
would object to that? Surely not the government of the province
of Quebec which in the 1995 referendum argued under the word
partnership the value of the economic union of Canada. Surely not
those who have signed on to trade agreements with dispute
settlement mechanisms with the United States and Mexico. Why can
we not have this for Canada and create jobs as we do it? That is
also one of the compelling reasons why such leadership should be
exercised. So here are a few of the ideas of things that we
believe in.
In the area of health care we think this government needs to
move very rapidly. We hope it will use the opportunity of the
first ministers conference to propose a covenant in health care,
to recognize that the agenda on health care in this country will
not be a national agenda until the national government plays its
role. It is fine to go out there and accuse the provinces of
doing this or that. But they will be out there and Canadians
will be in a period of uncertainty on health care until the
national government offers real leadership, not denial. This
includes recognition of national standards, a covenant in the
area of health care, an agreement by the provinces to enforce
those standards and also a dispute settlement mechanisms in the
area of health care.
In education and training this government could lead the way by
offering some leadership on testing in the sciences and math,
wiring schools, doing everything in its power to offer access to
post-secondary education which it seemed to say today. Frankly,
excuse us if we are a little jaundiced, but we have heard the
same words in the past and seen exactly the contrary.
Pension reform will also be very important. The prime minister
will know that Canadians are very concerned, and they should be.
The government has a hidden agenda. To put it very directly, it
is proposing pension reform that is going to overwhelmingly
affect middle class Canadians. Middle class Canadians are going
to get whacked by the government. They are going to be affected.
The people who saved for their retirements are now going to find
out that these Liberal members are going to take that away from
them.
We want the government to come clean. We are ready to debate it
and prepare pension reform. But we want to know the truth. How
will this affect single women? How will this affect married
women who are in relationships where their income will be judged
on family income, not their individual income? How will this
affect decisions that Canadians are going to make in the future
with regard to how they save? Will we have a system that will
offer them incentives not to save but rather not plan at all
because if they do the government will take their money away?
In the area of CPP we continue to support increases in premiums
reluctantly. This is a payroll tax. But we equally believe that
if there is going to be an increase in the premiums they must be
offset by tax reductions. Otherwise we will end up with an $11
billion or $12 billion bite out of the economy.
[Translation]
Finally—but do not raise your hopes too high when I say finally,
and it would go faster if I was not constantly interrupted, but I have
plenty of time—I come to the unity issue. The Prime Minister probably
read the letter I sent to the provincial premiers to explain the
position of my party on the Canadian unity issue. It must be said that
the Prime Minister knows that, for us, the national unity issue is not
partisan. I think that we proved it in the 1995 referendum and after.
But what I would like most to share with the Prime Minister today
is the need, the importance of leadership at the national level because
it is one thing to ask provincial premiers to carry the ball, in the
end, there is only one Prime Minister, only one national government and
only one national Parliament.
They cannot be replaced. We cannot expect the provincial premiers
to act on behalf of a national government.
1810
I would have hoped that we could turn the page on the post-Meech
period and finally start building a national, a Canadian
action plan. Until we agree at least on a common action plan, we
will be at the mercy of a government in Quebec whose avowed
intention is to break up Canada. And we only react to what it does.
The hope I place in this Parliament and in this government is
that they come up with an action plan. Nobody expects that
solutions will be found overnight. Nor does anyone expect any
constitutional amendments.
But what we want to see is the Prime Minister at least agreeing with the
provincial premiers on a common plan of action.
I would caution, however, against a plan too heavily focused on
Quebec, as it currently is following the Calgary declaration, and doomed
to failure because demagogues elsewhere in the country are going to
seize on this and once again say that Quebec is running the country,
when in fact Quebecers do not wake up every morning wondering whether
they are a distinct society. They do not have to ask themselves the
question—they are a distinct society, period.
And while I am on the topic, they do not need anyone's permission
to be distinct. Except that the redistribution of powers, the federal
power to spend, and the new mechanisms for co-operation affect not only
Quebecers and westerners but also people in the Atlantic provinces and
in Ontario.
We will move forward if we can do so together. That is one of the
lessons. There is no need to move heaven and earth. All that is
necessary is an action plan with three or four priorities. The only
person who can come up with that is the Prime Minister of the country.
But our Prime Minister, unfortunately, seems disinclined to act.
[English]
The prime minister will know that in the cabinet room in which
he convenes his cabinet, as he sits down there is something
written on the wall in front of him. The next time there is a
cabinet meeting I hope he and his colleagues will take a second
to read what is written there. It is from the book of proverbs:
“Where there is no vision, the people perish”. Fear of failure
in this area of unity for Canada is not an excuse.
Plan Bs are nice but let me share with the prime minister that
as far as this party is concerned they can pursue all the plan Bs
they want, compete with the opposition leader in trying to be
Canada's undertaker, but as far as this party is concerned and as
far as Canada is concerned, failure is not an option and will
never be an option.
We are happy and honoured to be in the House to offer our
contribution to the national debate. We look forward to
building, continuing to build what is a great country and
offering our children even more than what our own parents left to
us. That is the true test and will be the true test of this
Parliament.
Of all the things a government can effect and decide on, one
important symbol is a passport. If one stops a second to think
about what we have accomplished together as Canadians through the
last 130 years, from Sir John A. Macdonald to Laurier to yes,
Diefenbaker, Mr. Trudeau, Mr. Mulroney, every government, the
single accomplishment that symbolizes what we have done together
is the value of the Canadian passport that we will pass on to our
children.
Who would have thought 130 years ago when this country was
founded that as a consequence of the work of these generations of
men and women that we would pass on to our children today what is
viewed as the most valuable passport in the world, in a world
that is globalized, in a world where more than ever people
travel—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. whip of the Reform Party on
a point of order.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, when the leaders speak of
course we do not want to be tight on time. We understand that
the leader of the New Democrats went over by two or three minutes
to conclude her remarks.
1815
When the leader of the Conservative Party asked if he would have
a couple or three minutes to do the same, we are now into
doubling the time allotted for his speech. I think it is time to
wrap it up. This has gone on now almost 15 or 20 minutes over
the allotted period. I ask you to ask him to bring his remarks
to a close.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member has not raised a
point of order. He is simply making a representation. The House
extended the time and did not place a limit on the hon. member's
time. I think the hon. member has expressed his view about what
the extension should have been but in the circumstances, I
recognize the hon. member for Sherbrooke.
Hon. Jean J. Charest: Following the hon. member, Mr.
Speaker, he could just leave if he wanted to. He does not have
to sit and put up with this. I understand how difficult it must
be for him to listen to all of this, but that is fine. I do not
want to dwell on that. If he does not want to listen, he can
just leave.
As I was saying, one of the great accomplishments of this
country in this era of globalization, in this era where we as
Canadians are more than ever present everywhere in the world, we
are passing on to our kids this passport that is of great value.
This is something that we, as a Parliament, have a very direct
effect upon. I hope that everyone of us here will make a
commitment, will inherit that passport and be able to benefit
from what is one of the greatest citizenships in the world, being
a Canadian.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Tuesday,
September 23, 1997, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
10 o'clock.
(The House adjourned at 6.17 p.m.)