CONTENTS
Friday, January 21, 1994
Consideration resumed 137
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 140
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 144
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 146
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex) 147
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 149
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 150
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 150
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 150
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 150
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 151
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 151
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 151
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 152
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 152
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 152
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 152
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 152
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 152
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 153
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 153
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 153
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 153
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 154
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 154
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 155
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 155
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 159
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 160
Consideration resumed of debate on Address in Reply 161
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 167
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 174
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 177
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 182
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 186
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex) 188
137
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, January 21, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from January 20 consideration of the
motion for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in
reply to his Speech at the opening of the session; and the
amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: Before giving the floor to the President
of the Treasury Board, I would like to read a very brief
statement.
Members will be aware that Telesat Canada has encountered
major technical difficulties with the Anik E2 satellite. That is
the satellite that is used by the cable parliamentary channel, as
members will know, to distribute our proceedings across the
country. I would therefore advise hon. members that until
further notice there will be no national distribution of these
proceedings. Members will be advised when this is rectified
which hopefully will be soon.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker,
now I guess we can relax a little more.
I want to begin by congratulating the Speaker on his election.
May I also, in addition to congratulating him, congratulate you
and your colleagues who will assist him in that capacity.
I want to go beyond that. For my part I want to pledge that I
will do all I can to assist you, Mr. Speaker, in ensuring that this
House provides the forum for civilized and informative debate
that Canadians I think are really expecting from their elected
representatives.
[Translation]
Unfortunately, I cannot make my speech in French, because
my fluency in that language is far from adequate. However, I can
assure you one of my personal goals is to improve my French,
not only because it is the other official language but because it is
a beautiful language and the expression of a rich and important
culture, both in Canada and internationally.
[English]
This is my inaugural address to the House. Therefore while
preparing for today's debate I spent some time thinking about
the men and women who preceded me in this place. For new
members like myself there are many excellent role models to
choose from. In fact there are people who now serve and who
used to serve in this House whose compassion, persuasiveness
and original thinking I admire a great deal. One such person is
my predecessor the former member of Parliament for York
Centre and a former Solicitor General for Canada, the Hon. Bob
Kaplan. Bob Kaplan was an outstanding parliamentarian, a
respected community leader and a man who is still highly
regarded by his constituents. During the course of the election
campaign I was struck by the degree of attachment and devotion
people felt for him. Bob set a very high standard of service to his
constituents and one that I will try to emulate.
(1005)
While I am new to this House and to politics at the national
level, I arrive here with the perspective of 22 years experience in
municipal government, including 11 years as the mayor of
Toronto. It was an honour to be mayor of my city and now I have
the honour to use that experience for the benefit of the people of
York Centre and the people of Canada. It was also that
experience that persuaded me of the need for Canada's three
levels of government to address the need to enhance the quantity
and the quality of infrastructure in our cities, towns and villages.
I was a member of the board of directors of the umbrella
organization known as the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities during the period when it undertook a major
survey of the state of our municipal infrastructure, a survey
which demonstrated the extent of our need for new investment.
I was one of those who helped the federation shape its
proposal for a new three way program of co-operation between
the federal, provincial and municipal levels of government to
renew Canada's municipal infrastructure.
The work of the federation did not take place in a vacuum.
Throughout the industrialized world the last few years have seen
a very active, renewed interest in the role and the importance of
infrastructure, whether it is for economic competitiveness to
attract investment, environmental protection and improvement,
the quality of public amenities and the quality of life in general.
138
For these reasons and despite extremely difficult fiscal
constraints which we are well aware of, the Liberal Party chose
to undertake a major co-operative program of infrastructure
renewal as one of the central planks of its election platform.
In my riding many people earn their living in construction
related industries. During the recent election campaign our
leader and current Prime Minister travelled to York Centre to
outline our new program on infrastructure to an audience of
skilled trades people from our local unions. These union
officials report that their membership suffers greatly from high
unemployment. In fact, levels get as high as 50 per cent at times
in this industry in the Toronto area they told me. Our proposal,
therefore, struck a deep responsive chord with these workers and
with the Canadian public.
Given the importance which the Prime Minister attaches to
the infrastructure program I was honoured when he asked me to
become the Minister responsible for Infrastructure in the new
government. The Prime Minister underlined to me the
importance of moving quickly to develop agreements with the
provinces and to get the program up and operating. An early
start to this program will provide new hope to Canadians and
help to rebuild the confidence that is such an important part of
our healthy economy.
Some Canadians are asking why we have chosen
infrastructure as a major priority and why are we doing this now.
The answer is that the infrastructure program has become a
cornerstone of the government's programs because it will create
jobs while refurbishing at the same time Canada's infrastructure
and promoting our long term economic growth.
(1010 )
There is also strong evidence that much of our infrastructure
has deteriorated and deteriorating infrastructure, as they found
out in the country to the south of us, can be a serious detriment to
not only the quality of life but, of course, to attracting
investment dollars into their communities.
Beyond that, the current tough economic climate has brought
more competitive pricing and it provides, therefore, government
with a chance to stretch the construction dollars to the
maximum. This promises real value for the taxpayers.
The infrastructure program has not been designed as the
government's only job creation project, I hasten to add, but
rather as an important stimulus to the economy as a whole. The
exact number of jobs it will create depends on the construction
projects which will be approved. Some projects such as repairs
and renovations will be extremely labour-intensive while those
such as cultural facilities are also going to create long-term
jobs.
One thing, however, is clear: The program will have
substantial impact on unemployment. In fact, the Federation of
Canadian Municipalities has estimated that for every billion
dollars invested, some 20,000 jobs are created. The
infrastructure program is more than simply the building of
roads, the building of bridges or sewers. It is more than repairing
buildings, more than restoring water supply systems. The
infrastructure program is an integral part of the vision of the new
Liberal government to lay the foundation for economic
recovery, to kick-start a sluggish economy and provide a future
for Canadians, particularly for young Canadians who are
currently without hope or prospects.
We will give these young Canadians new hope and confidence
in the future. That is what we said we would do in the red book
and that is still our commitment now that we are here as the
government.
This is an ideal time for accelerated investment in public
infrastructure, as I have already said. Also, let me say that
national unemployment, which stands at an unacceptable level
of over 11 per cent and in the construction industry over 20 per
cent, and as I said a few moments ago over 50 per cent, are very
key reasons why we need to move into this program at this time.
There is a terrible waste of human talent and a tremendous
distress on the part of hundreds of thousands of people and their
families right across this country. I met many of these people in
the course of the election campaign. I understand their pain and I
understand their frustration at what has been called a jobless
recovery. That is why the speech from the throne earlier this
week stated: ``the government attaches the highest priority to
job creation and economic growth in the short and long term''.
I am pleased to say that in the brief few weeks since the new
government was sworn in we have made very tangible progress
to put this new infrastructure program into place. After
discussions between federal and provincial ministers and
various officials, the Prime Minister and the provincial premiers
endorsed the program when they came here to Ottawa for their
meeting on December 21. Last Friday, January 14, less than 10
weeks after the new government was formed, we signed our first
four federal-provincial framework agreements establishing the
Canada Infrastructure Works Program for the provinces of Nova
Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
My colleagues, the Minister responsible for Atlantic
Development and the Secretary of State for Veterans Affairs, are
signing an agreement today with Prince Edward Island and we
will continue this momentum on Monday when the Minister of
Industry and I will be in my city of Toronto to sign a similar
agreement with the province of Ontario. I expect to sign
agreements with the other four provinces and the territories in a
matter of days.
139
The conclusion of this number of federal-provincial
agreements in so short a time demonstrates that the federal
government is honouring its commitment to Canadians to create
jobs and to create jobs now.
Our success owes a good deal to the very co-operative
attitude taken by all of the provincial governments. They have
recognized the intrinsic merit of the program, they have
responded to the public's desire for early action, and have shown
a determination to demonstrate that federal and provincial
governments can work quickly and co-operatively. I wish to
express publicly my gratitude for the exceptional co-operation
of the provinces on this program.
I also wish to underline the importance of the support this
program has received from mayors and other elected
representatives at the local level across Canada. They have been
supportive, they have been enthusiastic, they are very much
equal partners. I am delighted that the federal government will
be able to contribute so significantly to a program that our local
governments have created and have advocated for a number of
years.
(1015 )
The federal contribution will be very tangible and very
significant. We are providing the provinces and municipalities
with a total of $2 billion over the next two years. For the most
part the federal contribution will be matched equally by the
provinces and municipalities. This will provide for a total joint
program of $6 billion.
In some projects however the provinces themselves will
provide two-thirds of the funding, while the federal government
will contribute its normal one-third share.
Similarly the program will have flexibility to accommodate
private financing. In fact the subject of my address in November
1993 to the Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships
opened the door for possible private financing of infrastructure
projects.
The focus of our program is on local infrastructure and we
believe that it should be the local and provincial governments
themselves which take the lead in proposing projects. There will
be, as is natural, differences in the precise form that the program
will take in each province. In some cases only municipal
projects will be considered; in others, other local government
institutions such as education boards may be eligible, or there
might be projects carried out by the province itself. Indian
reserves are also included in the program.
As well the emphasis on types of infrastructure may vary by
province. Some will put more emphasis on the traditional water
treatment or sewage. Others may be more inclined to support
roads or construction or repair of existing facilities. These
variations should reflect local needs and priorities. That is what
we clearly said in the election campaign and that is what we
want to see carried out.
We should also point out that this is a national program and we
expect some elements of consistency across the country. In all
provinces the federal government will review projects in
relation to broad program criteria such as long and short-term
job creation.
We will be looking at the environmental benefits, wanting to
ensure that environmental practices and environmental
assessments are adhered to. We will be looking at the
incremental or accelerated nature of the project. We are not
looking to just fund projects that were going to go ahead
anyway. We want to fund projects that create additional jobs.
We will be looking at the distribution of benefits within a
province. We want to make sure there is a wide distribution in
benefit across each province. We will be looking at the use of
advanced technology. The term as to what infrastructure
includes is changing because the economy of this country and of
this world is changing. Here is an opportunity in fact to develop
infrastructure, invest in infrastructure that has to do with the
future kinds of jobs that will be taken by our young people in this
country.
We will look at the use of innovative financing and the
contributions to skills development. As people learn new skills
the opportunities for them beyond this program expand. The
bringing of infrastructure up to community standards, up to
community codes will be considered. We will want cost-benefit
information about these projects. We are also going to want to
have cost control measures.
Our basic approach is to provide enough guidance to ensure
the high quality of the projects approved, but at the same time to
leave ample room for local or provincial priorities. We are
offering federal money for infrastructure programs as you know
at a time of very severe fiscal constraints. We all are very
conscious of the financial constraints upon all governments in
this country.
This government believes so much in the value of this
investment that it is prepared to take the tough decisions to find
the necessary funds through reallocations in the federal budget
and by cutting spending proposed by the previous government.
The federal government, I should add, may well recoup much
of its $2 billion investment from additional tax revenues which
will fall into the federal treasury as a result of increased
construction activity. For every dollar spent on the proposed
construction projects, federal government revenues in the form
of taxes, unemployment insurance premiums and Canada
pension plan contributions will increase. The federal
government of course will also benefit from reductions in
payments that it makes for the unemployed because they will be
getting back to work. They will be able to restore their dignity
and their desire to contribute to this nation.
140
We moved quickly to sign framework agreements with the
provinces and we shall move quickly to approve projects after
we have appropriately evaluated them. Already federal and
provincial officials in each province are working to refine the
criteria and the guidelines which apply in each province. Local
governments are being consulted. I expect to receive
recommendations for the first proposals in the coming weeks
and to see some projects approved in time for work to start in
the spring of this year.
(1020)
I know members of this House will take a close interest in the
projects in their constituencies. For this reason we shall invite
comments from each member of Parliament on projects
recommended for his or her riding so that we can ensure that any
information a member wishes to bring to our attention is
available before a decision is taken.
I look forward to members honouring the spirit of this
consultation which will need to be done quickly and with full
respect of our local and provincial partners if it is to be effective.
For my part I shall listen to the views of all members with great
interest. I look forward to the chance to discuss the program
with individual members as well.
The infrastructure program has received wide support across
Canada not only from local governments but also from
provincial governments, of very different political persuasions I
might add. I hope members of this House will be responsive to
this wide support and work as co-operatively as they can to
ensure the success of the program.
The Prime Minister in his remarks in the debate on the speech
from the throne emphasized that the long-term future of our
country lies in forming a new partnership, a partnership where
the municipalities and the provinces work in genuine
co-operation with a national government which has the vision of
what can be, not what used to be.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to start by congratulating the minister on his infrastructure
program which is to be launched very soon, witness the
announcement concerning construction of the convention centre
in Quebec City.
I represent the riding of Chicoutimi, which includes the
municipalities of Rivière-Éternité, Petit-Saguenay,
L'Anse-Saint-Jean, Saint-Félix-d'Otis, Ferland-et-Boileau,
Ville La Baie and Chicoutimi. The unemployment situation in
all these municipalities is very bad. In the
Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area, the unemployment rate is an
unacceptable 16 per cent, and there is nothing in the throne
speech to indicate that this percentage will go down.
This government's infrastructures program will certainly not
be enough to turn around the economy, either in the riding,
Quebec or Canada. We must break the vicious circle of
unemployment insurance which means that people work four
months a year on a government project and then are unemployed
for the rest of the year. If they are lucky, after using up their
unemployment insurance benefits they might qualify for
another government project, but that is it, and then they end up
on welfare, which makes it even harder to get back to work.
Economic recovery must be achieved through regional
development by giving the regions all the infrastructures they
need, not just the road networks covered by your program but
infrastructures for water and air transportation which provide
links between the regions and give them access to major urban
centres.
(1025)
Mr. Speaker, in addition to the infrastructures program, could
the minister confirm there have been cabinet-level discussions
on other programs aimed at a sustainable reduction of the
unemployment rate, which the government will be tabling very
shortly?
[English]
Mr. Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question and also for enlightening me with respect to the
conditions in his constituency of Chicoutimi and other
municipalities.
I hope this infrastructure program will be of benefit to them. I
hope certainly that the municipal leaders are encouraged by the
member to put forward projects that can be of benefit to the
communities and economy of the region.
As I indicated in my remarks, the government has put this
forward as one of its programs and projects that it wants to use to
help rebuild the economy and get Canadians back to work.
There are discussions going on on many other types of
programs. One has to only look in the red book to see the many
different things for young people, for people right across this
country, for small business.
We want to promote and help ensure that Canadians can get
back to work. What we need badly in this country is a more
balanced approach to economic planning. That is what the
Liberal government has committed itself to do. It committed
itself in the throne speech to give the highest priority to getting
Canadians back to work.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker,
clearly this infrastructure project has created tremendous
expectations and this was obvious from the general reaction of
the municipalities. In his speech, the minister outlined ten or so
conditions that will have to be met by all provinces in order for
the program to be successful. He spoke of the need for cost
141
control mechanisms, while allowing some room to manoeuvre.
Could the Minister explain what kind of national criteria he has
in mind for controlling costs while still allowing third parties
some room to manoeuvre?
[English]
Mr. Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, this program is a co-operative
program with three levels of government. Each project will
require each level of government to sign off on it.
Each level of government has a responsibility also to ensure
that the taxpayer's dollar is well spent. I do not think any level of
government wants to get into a situation of cost overruns. We
want to make sure that there are cost control mechanisms in
place. Each level of government has internal auditing
procedures and controllership procedures that help to ensure
that the best cost estimates are being put forward.
We will have a still further look at it even though the
provincial and municipal governments with their very
restrained budgets are going to want to make sure that those
costs are as accurate as they can be. We are going to want to
make sure as well because I want this program to be carried out
in an efficient and effective manner. I want it to produce good
results. I do not want people to have to face a situation where
there are going to be cost overruns.
We will look at cost controls and cost benefits, understanding
the benefits that come out at the end of the day. One of the things
we said in the red book was that we want to know what these
programs produce. What are the results? What are they really
going to do for Canadians in the short and long term? Those
kinds of evaluations are also part and parcel of what we will be
looking at.
Three orders of government will be working together, giving
consideration to the fiscal constraints we find ourselves in and
the very serious nature of how the taxpayer's dollar is used.
(1030)
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert): Mr. Speaker, as this is
my maiden speech, I would like to begin by saying a few words
about my riding of Louis-Hébert. It includes three lovely
suburban municipalities in the Quebec City area, namely
Cap-Rouge, Sainte-Foy and Sillery, located on the shores of the
St. Lawrence.
I listened closely to the remarks of the hon. member for York
Centre concerning the infrastructure program and I would like to
make a few comments. My first concerns the spirit of
co-operation to which the Minister referred. I am very happy
that the federal, provincial and municipal governments are
co-operating.
This is good to see, except that given the current situation, it
illustrates the weak position of the federal government, in view
of the size of the debt and runaway government expenses. When
the federal government wants to carry out a project, it must work
side by side with the municipalities-which in itself is a good
thing-and with the provinces. This only reflects the serious
state of the government's finances.
The hon. member for York Centre indicated-and I am happy
to hear it-that this is not the only job creation program. We
will, however, be paying close attention to concrete programs
announced later.
The Minister said that the infrastructure program will
kick-start the economy. Economic recovery will be difficult, if
not impossible, until such time as the government takes serious,
radical steps to slash government spending. And there is nothing
in the throne speech to indicate that the government intends to
take this kind of action.
[English]
Mr. Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
intervention. I would quickly point out that this is a great
example of bringing three levels of government to work
together. Is it not about time that we did that rather than have the
duplications? We may have three levels of government but we
have one taxpayer and that taxpayer wants to make sure we are
spending his or her money efficiently and effectively.
That taxpayer is also concerned about government
expenditure. Indeed, that is an issue that is also being addressed
by the Minister of Finance, by me and by my colleagues in the
cabinet and will of course be addressed in the federal budget
when it is brought forward.
However, at this point in time we are entering into a program
that is unprecedented in terms of the co-operation. It is also a
program that is based on local priorities and the need to keep our
communities safe and liveable, have the kind of infrastructure to
enjoy a quality of life that has been traditionally held dear and
which will attract additional investment to improve their
economic growth.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to start by taking this opportunity to congratulate all
my colleagues who were elected to the House of Commons on
October 25, in an election which must be seen as crucial for the
future of Quebec and that of Canada without Quebec.
I also take this opportunity to thank the constituents of the
great riding of Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, the Quebec agri-food
technocity, for the trust they have shown in me by giving me a
clear dual mandate: first, to fight most vigorously to protect
their interests and those of Quebec as a whole and, second, to
pave the way for Quebec to attain full sovereignty to put to rest
once and for all the constitutional issue.
142
Quebec sovereignty is no longer a mere matter of the heart
or patriotism. It has become a matter of practicality.
(1035)
Following the constitutional negotiations of recent years,
sovereignty has emerged as the only way to allow our two
nations to stop arguing endlessly about the Constitution and
start dealing with the real issues.
What are those real issues? First, to undo the harm done by
overly liberal budgeting in recent years, especially at the federal
level. Second, to promote economic development and
competitiveness. Third, to create lasting employment. And
fourth, to really tackle the problem of growing poverty in
Quebec and Canada.
Let us say, for the sake of argument, that a beneficial
restructuring of the relations between Quebec and Canada did
occur, such that we would end up with two sovereign countries.
Their relations would then be free of any constitutional dispute
and a common economic space would be maintained out of
mutual interest, not as a favour, as the other side usually says.
That is what the sovereignty plan is all about. It is directed
against no one, especially not our Canadians friends. Our plan
has a resolutely global reach. It is legitimate, progressive, open
and totally in tune with the times.
Until the people of Quebec decide democratically to take their
destiny into their own hands, the Bloc Quebecois has received
from them the mandate to protect their interests. And whether
you like it or not, the Canadian democratic process has given us
the role of official opposition in this chamber of Parliament.
As my leader has repeatedly said, the Bloc Quebecois will
assume the role of Official Opposition with all the fervour we
have come to expect from it, especially in the last four days,
because the fight against poverty and unemployment, for
example, is universal. Whether you are a federalist or a
sovereignist, you must fight these evils.
Equity also has a universal definition and the Bloc Quebecois
will act on the basis of this concern for fairness. For Quebec first
of all, because the inequity in federal spending is most flagrant
in its case, and elsewhere if required.
Mr. Speaker, you will understand that, as the Official
Opposition, we will often be working towards the Bloc
Quebecois's ultimate goal, which is to pave the way for
sovereignty for Quebec.
Where public finances are concerned, no one in Quebec or
Canada has any interest in seeing the already catastrophic state
of the federal government's finances deteriorate further. Canada
and a sovereign Quebec will have to assume their share of the
federal debt.
The same goes for international trade. It is definitely in
Quebec's interest, beginning with Quebec's duly elected
representatives in the Bloc Quebecois, to ensure that the
international agreements recently concluded in its name are
beneficial. Under the rule for successor states, a sovereign
Quebec would inherit the commitments already made by
Canada.
So in these two specific areas, public finances and
international trade, we have seen recently that both Quebecers
and Canadians really need a vigorous official opposition.
Quebecers and Canadians need a strong opposition because
the federal government, the present Liberal government, intends
to solve the Canadian government's financial problem using the
same approach that it criticized the previous government for,
namely putting the burden of fiscal reform on the poorest
members of our society. As my leader said, that is unacceptable.
Modernizing and restructuring the social security system as
suggested in the speech from the throne, knowing that this
reform comes from the same senior civil servants, these great
mandarins, one of whom has now become the new member for
Hull-Aylmer, these great mandarins praised to the skies by this
government, such a reform simply means cutting social
programs.
We see the same sinister intent in a publication on Canada's
economic challenges issued last week by the Minister of
Finance. What do we find in this new bible of the federal
mandarins? We read that Canada spends more on social
assistance than its major trading partners. It says that our
unemployment insurance system is more generous than average
and creates major disincentives to work. Major disincentives to
work-I find that downright odious.
(1040)
This is despicable because, as the Leader of the Official
Opposition said two days ago, nobody goes to the
unemployment office for the fun of it. Nobody in Quebec, as in
the rest of Canada, is proud to be unemployed or on welfare. And
everybody wants to enjoy the fundamental right to work. When I
read this document and the recent statements made by our
friends across the floor, I get the impression that I am reading
old stuff written a century ago by ultraconservative economists.
This document from the Department of Finance also mentions
that our public expenditures related to health care are higher
than others, without noticeable results. I was flabbergasted to
see this kind of statement in the Department of Finance's
document, because those are precisely the people who, not long
ago, were saying that our health care system was the best and the
cheapest in the world. Now they are contradicting themselves
and, because they want to please some ultraconservative
economists met recently at a seminar, they are prepared to make
cuts to health care programs.
143
We can now better understand the meaning of the comments
made last December by the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer,
who is himself a former mandarin, and who alluded to the
possibility of a 20 per cent cut in the health care budget. We
can also better understand the meaning of the throne speech.
I am absolutely flabbergasted to see that, in less than three
months, this government has violated the basic principles
underlying its electoral platform. This government was elected
on the basis of false premises regarding, among others things,
social programs. It has also reneged on its monetary policy. We
now know only too well what has become of the promises made
by the Liberals. Shortly before the Christmas holidays, the
Minister of Finance appointed Mr. John Crow's successor,
namely his assistant and advisor regarding monetary policy who
is also obsessed with fighting inflation.
It must be remembered that, among the G-7 countries,
Canada was the most adversely affected by the recession of the
early nineties. Canada was also the first one affected among the
industrialized nations of the world. Why is that? It is precisely
because of this obsession with fighting inflation regardless of
the consequences on employment and on jobs in general.
Today, even though inflation pressures are still weak, and
while Quebec has only gained back a quarter of the jobs it lost
and the economy has not reached its full potential, the Liberal
government is refocusing its monetary policy to fight inflation
instead of aiming for a fair balance between price stability in the
long run and employment growth in the short run. These same
people are now telling us that with their infrastructure program,
they will be able to create thousands and thousands of jobs.
Contradictory measures like this infrastructure program only go
to show the inconsistencies in the Liberals' policies.
Such policies are contrary to what the Liberals talked about
during the election campaign and even before that, when they
were the official opposition in this House.
Let me remind you that on November 26, 1992, both La
Presse and Le Devoir quoted the present prime minister as
saying: ``For several months now, we have clearly indicated that
we are proposing a growth policy based on low interest rates.
And if the Canadian dollar should weaken, we can live with
that''. That is what the present Prime Minister had to say only
two years ago. Today, he is doing exactly what he was blaming
the Conservatives for. The present prime minister also said:
``People are becoming obsessed with the anti-inflationary
policy''. Can you believe that. The Liberals themselves have
developed an obsession for the same monetary policies they
used to criticize.
Earlier this week, the Minister of Finance even said about the
throne speech: ``We will be worthy of the trust Canadians put in
us''. He mentioned that the speech from the throne would break
the vicious cycle of ``cynicism and deception Canadians felt
about politics''.
This kind of approach, this kind of backtracking will not do
anything to break the cynicism that exists towards the old
federalist parties; it is there to stay.
And there will still be cynicism about the tax equity issue
since nothing leads us to believe that the Liberals will do
something about that despite having complained loudly about
the unfairness of our tax system during all these years. The
government does not have the political will to eliminate all the
tax loopholes and all the tax breaks that some people benefit
from. We always point to the same problem, and with good
reason. Just as the Conservatives before them, the Liberals
probably have their hands tied by Canada's richest families who
contribute to their election fund.
(1045)
There are plenty of examples of unfairness and inequity in our
tax system, Mr. Speaker. Here are some of them. In 1987, the
most recent year for which this kind of data is available, 90,000
Canadian companies made profits totalling $27 billion and paid
no taxes at all. There is no in-depth study on this but in 1991,
according to the Auditor General, a minimum of $16.1 billion in
revenues found their way to various tax havens. Hundreds of
millions of dollars in federal tax revenues are lost through the
family trusts which we talked about earlier this week.
Here is another example of unfairness and inequity in our tax
system. In 1991, 368,000 taxpayers with a total declared income
of $60 billion, that is an average income of $163,000 each, paid
a federal income tax of only 18 per cent. That was their real tax
rate because of all the tax loopholes. But isn't the basic rate 29
per cent, Mr. Speaker? This is shameful.
On the other hand, a certain Ms. Pauline came to my riding
office last week. She is on welfare and her income is about half
the poverty threshold in Quebec as well as Canada, and she
received a letter from Revenue Canada asking her to pay her
income tax like any other taxpayer. Mr. Speaker, that is nothing
short of outrageous.
Two days ago, the Auditor General reported a number of cases
of profligate spending and misuse of public money. I noticed
two cases which are striking enough to demonstrate the urgent
need for tax reform to achieve greater equity instead of wasting
money.
Investment Canada spent $132,000 to set up a new office,
kitchen and bathroom for its new president, while her
predecessor had an office in the same building with the same
conveniences. Mr. Speaker, $132,000 is the equivalent of the
annual income of four households. It is utterly disgraceful. The
Auditor General also pointed out that because of a loophole in a
deduction concerning natural resources, the government lost
$1.2 billion in revenue, mainly in the oil and mining industries.
144
What is this government waiting for before they settle once and
for all these problem that plague Quebec and Canada alike?
That is where we can find money to get the public finances in
order. That is where we should go to reduce the revenue shortfall
of the federal government, which over the years has generated
an accumulated debt of over $500 billion. These are the persons
we should be after, not the less fortunate like Ms. Pauline in the
riding of Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot.
We should not cut transfer payments to the provinces either.
When will those opposite realize that, in the end, it falls on the
backs of the same taxpayers. I will give you just one example
taken from the Quebec public accounts. All the measures taken
since 1980 either to reduce or freeze transfer payments to the
provinces have cost the government of Quebec over two billion
dollars. Who had to provide for this shortfall in federal transfer
payments to Quebec? The women and men of Quebec, of course,
because they are the same taxpayers. All this to say that shifting
the burden onto the provinces is not a way to improve the fiscal
situation.
Given these shameful and odious fiscal inequities and the
disastrous state of federal public finances, the Bloc Quebecois
reaffirms the need to proceed with a public examination by
Parliament of all federal budgetary and tax expenditures. We do
not want a media circus of unending consultations which would
only postpone a necessary reform. We do not want piecemeal
reform. We do not want a little something here and a little
something there. We want an in-depth examination by
Parliamentarians of federal fiscal policies and expenditures.
One last point before I conclude. There is another thing barely
mentioned in the speech from the throne, and that is the GATT
agreement. Instead of wasting his time arguing about impossible
changes to the North American Free Trade Agreement, the way
he did after the House of Representatives passed the NAFTA, the
Prime Minister of Canada should have focused on the final
sprint toward a GATT agreement. The Bloc Quebecois
welcomes the conclusion of the eighth GATT round, and I say
this without reservations. The Bloc, like Quebecers generally,
takes a global perspective, an attitude that is entirely compatible
with nationalism and sovereignism, as I indicated at the
beginning of my speech.
(1050)
However, although we welcome the conclusion of the
Uruguay round, we are not satisfied with Canada's performance
in this area, especially in the negotiations on agriculture, in the
course of which article XI-2(c)(i) of the GATT rules, an article
that was vital to agriculture in Quebec and Canada, was dropped.
This article was vital because it ensured the survival and
effectiveness of the supply management system in Canada's
dairy and poultry sectors. The Canadian government gave up
this article without obtaining anything in return. That was the
worst part, like the government's financial situation. Nothing
was obtained in return, while countries like South Korea, Japan,
the United States, France and Belgium privately obtained
exemptions that were included in the eighth GATT Round.
Why did Canada not obtain an exemption? Because it failed to
take a firm stand and because the Prime Minister, unlike Mr.
Clinton in the United States, Mr. Mitterrand and the Japanese
and South Korean prime ministers, did not get involved in the
final sprint to protect article XI-2(c)(i) and the interests of
Quebec and Canada in this area.
The Bloc Quebecois does not blame the Canadian government
for losing. These negotiations involve more than 110 countries,
and it stands to reason that we cannot win on all fronts and might
have to give up some of the items on our list. However, the
Canadian government and the Prime Minister failed to do
everything they could have done, which makes matters worse.
It is public knowledge that the Government of Canada is about
to cave in once more and renege on its commitments in
negotiations on the GATT rules with the United States. For
instance, in negotiations with the United States on border tariffs
that will replace article XI, the government is poised to make
concessions on tariff levels that are supposed to protect the dairy
and poultry sectors.
Unfortunately, the Canadian government has also caved in to
unfounded rumours that U.S. borders would be closed to exports
of durum wheat from the Canadian prairies.
In concluding, the Official Opposition deplores the lack of
vigour shown by the government in defending the interests of
Quebec and Canada and the lack of any concern in this respect in
the throne speech at the opening of the 35th Parliament.
As the Official Opposition, the Bloc Quebecois intends to
keep a close watch on further developments.
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by
congratulating the member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot for his
maiden speech in the House of Commons. There were moments
as I listened to him speak when I was reminded of some of the
things that we said in opposition just a few months ago. I would
like to be very specific about that part of his speech that dealt
with the issue of tax reform.
145
I want to say to the hon. member that the Prime Minister
stated repeatedly before the campaign, during the campaign and
during the speech from the throne that this government is
dedicated to comprehensive tax reform. We are dedicated to
working with all members of this House in finding a more
simple, fair and efficient way of dealing with the tax issue in
this country. We agree that the current tax act has tax
preferences and privileges that need to be reviewed because the
current system is not working.
(1055)
He should not think that because we have come from one side
of the floor to the other we will run away from the issue. Many
members know I have a particular bias in that area called the
single tax, l'impôt unique, and I will be sending copies to him
and his colleagues for review.
The second point I want to make to the member has to do with
his statement where he said ``we want to have a situation in
Quebec where our financial condition does not deteriorate''. I
support the position the member has taken, but I think it is
important to point out to all Canadians and all Quebecers that we
have a system in this country, managed by the Government of
Canada, called the equalization entitlement program.
As the member knows, the province of Quebec is at this
moment in time a have not province, as are many other
provinces. We do have three provinces that we define as have
provinces; British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario. Since 1969
the equalization entitlement, and I stress the word entitlement
here, by this federation, which is the total amount of that
transfer to the province of Quebec, has been approximately $52
billion. I support this approach and that is why I think it is
important to have a strong national government. I will make sure
that the member has time to respond.
What I am having a very difficult time understanding is how
one can maintain the same standards in education, health care
and all other national standards that all of us want to achieve
when one gives up a situation called equalization.
[Translation]
Mr. Loubier: Mr. Speaker, during the next few minutes, I will
try to reply to two statements that struck me in the speech of my
Liberal colleague. First, Mr. Speaker, he compared the Bloc
Quebecois, as the Official Opposition, to the Liberal Party when
they were the Official Opposition. Let me remind him that he
should not mix apples with oranges.
As the Official Opposition we have been saying right from the
beginning that in the area of public finances we were reaching
out to the government to make a democratic effort to launch a
thorough review of all Canadian finances, not only budgetary
expenditures, but also tax expenditures.
Instead, since the beginning of November, the Minister of
Finance has gone through an endless round of consultations with
economists and institutions here and there. In Quebec, we call
that an acute case of consultationitis. It looks like a strange
rerun of what we have known since the Meech failure with all
the other constitutional conferences, forums and discussions.
Remember the Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future, chaired by
Mr. Keith Spicer, and the Beaudoin-Dobbie and
Beaudoin-Edwards commissions. I feel the Minister of Finance
wants to repeat the same scenario with budgetary and tax
expenditures instead of implementing a real measure of-
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Brant would
also like to ask a question if the member agrees.
Mr. Loubier: Very well.
The Deputy Speaker: As we have but 90 seconds left, I would
ask the hon. member for Brant to be very brief, please.
[English]
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant): Mr. Speaker, I felt compelled to
respond to a couple of things that the hon. member mentioned in
his speech.
First, I believe he said that we as Liberals talked about our
health care system as being the best and the least costly. Yes, we
did talk about it as being the best but certainly not the least
costly. Our position was that we spend a tremendous amount of
money on our health care system and our challenge is to make
sure that we spend it effectively and wisely.
(1100 )
Second, I would like to ask both the member and his leader a
question. They have identified or they seem to believe that just
because we wish to change, improve and make more relevant the
social safety net we have here in Canada that we will necessarily
make it more difficult for those less advantaged. I ask the hon.
member why he assumes that is in fact so.
[Translation]
Mr. Loubier: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois is not opposed
to improvements to the health system. That is not the point. The
point is that every time fiscal restraint is being considered,
health care and social services are prime targets. That is
absolutely disgusting, totally unacceptable. The Canadian
system is among the least expensive in the world. Just remember
how it stood the comparison with the American system. You too
made that comparison, Mr. Speaker. The Liberals did it also in
the past, comparing it to the health coverage provided by the
private system in the States where there is no public health care.
I do not remember the exact numbers but it was very clear that
the Canadian system was among the most efficient and the least
expensive in the world.
146
Every time there is talk of fiscal reform, of tackling the debt
or the annual deficit, the main targets, the first ones to be
singled out are health care and social services. Let us not forget
that since 1990, the most vulnerable members of society have
grown in number. Unemployment is on the rise. Job creation
is not picking up; unemployed workers are losing hope and
joining the ranks of the non-working population on welfare;
their number is increasing in Quebec and throughout Canada.
Let us not forget that. There is a way to get the public finances
in order-
[English]
The Speaker: Order. It being eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to statements
by members, pursuant to Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
146
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton): Mr.
Speaker, Canada's national debt surpassed one-half trillion
dollars earlier this week. This milestone will be a millstone
around our necks if we do not change our attitude now. Our
children's quality of life depends on it. How can any of us, with
clear conscience, expect future generations to pay for the
mistakes of the past?
This new government fully intends to slay the beast of debt.
Only then can our children make up their own minds as to where
their money will be spent.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, in
the report he tabled on Wednesday, the Auditor General regrets
that the government denies access to information on ministers'
travel expenses. Because of this, the public accounts committee
is not adequately assured that such information is accurately
disclosed to Parliament. And we are not talking about small
amounts. For fiscal year 1990-91, the Auditor General
estimates the cost of using the administrative flight service to
$54 million, including some $25 million for ministers' travel
expenses.
And as the Auditor General puts it, and I quote: ``The
government should conduct a review of the economy, efficiency
and effectiveness of providing government aircraft to transport
such users.''
This is a clear example of the need to create a parliamentary
committee to examine spending programs, item by item.
Thus, I demand that the Liberal government stop dithering
and show openness and put such a program in place.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Mr. Speaker, the
Reform caucus wishes to acknowledge the help it has received in
its preparation for the very necessary and welcome debate on
peacekeeping next Tuesday in this Chamber.
The hon. ministers of foreign affairs and defence and their
departmental personnel were very forthcoming with briefing
assistance, as was the Library of Parliament.
Yesterday we were briefed by Major General Lewis
MacKenzie, retired, through his own generosity. While General
MacKenzie does not have any magic solutions to this very
convoluted problem in the troubled area of the former
Yugoslavia, he nevertheless provided us with many helpful
insights.
(1105)
We would like to go on record as saying that Canada is
fortunate to have peacekeepers of General MacKenzie's stature.
* * *
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport): Mr. Speaker, on page 70
of the red book you will find: ``A Liberal government will work
with provincial and urban governments to improve energy
efficiency and increase the use of renewable energies with the
aim of cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent from
1988 levels by the year 2005''.
We made this firm commitment in the last election. If we are
to reduce carbon dioxide emissions we will have to marshall all
available technology, the goodwill of all levels of government
and the co-operation of industry, business and Canadians at
large.
Canada has to pull its weight in the international community.
The reduction of carbon dioxide is a concern of the international
community. The Government of Canada has a big task to
perform. Time is of the essence.
147
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker, the
annual Georgina ice fishing derby opened last week in the town
of Georgina. I invite everyone in the House to visit the fishing
huts on Lake Simcoe.
The Georgina ice fishing derby is a wonderful example of how
community groups, local businesses and town council can all
work together for the benefit of their community. Last year
people from all over Ontario, Canada, the United States and as
far away as Europe participated in this annual event, generating
valuable tourist dollars.
This event increases awareness and appreciation of the
environmental and commercial value of this beautiful lake.
Lake Simcoe is worth more than $500 million annually to the
economy. This translates into thousands of jobs that could be at
risk if we fail to save this lake.
I urge all levels of government to work together to ensure the
health and future viability of Lake Simcoe.
* * *
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker,
Canadian farmers have reluctantly accepted that it was
impossible for the government to save article XI at the recent
GATT negotiations. They are aware that Canada stood virtually
alone on this issue. Also they realize that we inherited an
untenable position from the previous government and they know
that we fought as hard as we possibly could to save article XI.
Given that reality, they now expect this new government will
be firm on tariff levels and that it will not cave in to bullying
tactics by the United States or any other country. They look to us
to champion their cause and not to cave in to these countries.
As the member of Parliament for London-Middlesex I
intend to fight for my constituents today and every day. I am
confident that this government will not let Canadian farmers
down.
* * *
[
Translation]
M. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to express my astonishment at the
persisting inaction of the government with regard to cigarette
smuggling. Obviously the adverse effects of this situation are
serious.
First of all, the government is losing hundreds of billions of
dollars in taxes.
Second, Canadians feel more and more that a segment of the
population is above the law. Respect for public authority is
being threatened.
Third, tobacco smoking is not being curtailed since smokers
can easily get cigarettes at a lower price than if they were
reasonably taxed.
Fourth, business people are getting outraged by this. In fact,
we are facing a tax revolt.
The demonstration planned for next Monday by the
MATRAQUE movement in Saint-Eustache in my riding could
be repeated if Ottawa does not take any action.
The premier of Quebec has already made it clear that he
intended to lower taxes on cigarettes and asked the federal
government and the government of Ontario to do the same.
Ontario has indicated an openness to that proposal.
Reduction of taxes on cigarettes is the most effective way of
rapidly eliminating this problem.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma): Mr. Speaker, I ask my
colleagues in this place to imagine life without the ability to
read. Books, magazines and newspapers become mysterious
puzzles rather than open doors to the world. Try to imagine the
frustration and sense of hopelessness.
In the speech from the throne our government made a
commitment to improving the literacy skills of Canadians by
restoring funding to the national literacy program. I applaud this
decision.
Inadequate literacy skills can have devastating effects.
Thousands of Canadians find themselves unable to fully
participate in society and Canada's ability to train its work force
to compete internationally is compromised.
(1110)
An effort must be made to adapt all of the workforce to the
changing workplace. This includes those who have been left
behind.
In my riding of Algoma, literacy offices have been
successfully established in Blind River, Espanola and Elliot
Lake. The staff and volunteers who work in these communities
understand the frustration felt by our fellow citizens who cannot
read and I commend their efforts.
During my life I have had an opportunity to work in adult
education. It is too easy to forget that thousands of adult
Canadians cannot take full advantage of basic retraining and
upgrading because they cannot read.
148
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
draw to the attention of the House four Canadians: Rudy
Wierckx, James Giesbrecht, Trevor Maguire and Rick Kuffel.
These four graduates of the University of Manitoba have
successfully designed, built and now commercialized a 10
gigaflop supercomputer that is being sold in Japan, Korea,
India, China and the U.K.
What is remarkable is that this supercomputer is being built
not in the Silicon Valley, not in Tokyo, nor in Seoul, but at 1619
Pembina Highway in the heart of my constituency of Winnipeg
South.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, the vast
majority of native people are peaceful citizens who are willing
to negotiate in a spirit of respect for the law and have always
been respectful of law and order.
Cigarette smuggling is often wrongfully attributed to native
peoples while we know that it is controlled by a bunch of
criminals who base their power on armed threats.
The main difficulty then is the undeniable fact that the
government is cowering before a few armed individuals and
abandoning its major role of ensuring the protection of all
Canadians.
Cigarette smuggling exists because taxes are so high that the
black market is flourishing. We believe that raising fines and
imposing more controls will not solve the problem.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, the Auditor
General's report reminded us that successive federal
governments' tax policy has resulted in a tax regime that is now
recognized by all to be unfair, unjust, biased, distorted,
confusing, convoluted and discriminatory.
Having completely lost faith in the tax system, Canadians'
responses include tens of thousands of businesses collecting the
GST and simply keeping the money, hundreds of thousands of
Canadians purchasing contraband cigarettes and illegal liquor,
and perhaps most Canadians participating in the growing
underground economy where business transactions are
conducted in cash or through barter to avoid paying tax.
This system has created a nation where millions of Canadians
now consciously and regularly break the law. This has led to a
serious erosion of our value system.
There are many reasons to clean up our tax system and to
restore Canadians' faith in it. But surely what it is doing to our
nation's value system ought to make reform of our tax system a
major priority in the upcoming federal budget.
* * *
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's): Mr. Speaker,
1.5 million Canadians are unemployed, including 400,000
young people. They are not too lazy to go to work; there is just
no work to go to. That is why the Liberal Party during the
election proposed the infrastructure program, both as a job
generator and as a way of upgrading transportation and local
services.
I am pleased that the government is moving so quickly to keep
that promise. There is an agreement to be signed today. Some
agreements have been signed and others are in the works. That is
good news for municipalities, but it is great news for the jobless.
The infrastructure program will not by itself solve all our
economic woes, but it is a great start.
* * *
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, first I am
proud and honoured at the opportunity to represent the
constituents of Huron-Bruce in the 35th Parliament of Canada.
I want to congratulate the Prime Minister on his first throne
speech where the priority is on putting Canadians back to work
from east to west and north to south and not on the Constitution.
The Prime Minister has shown Canadians his commitment to
the promises he made during the election. I was pleased to see
included in the throne speech a statement on our continued
commitment to work with financial institutions to improve
access to capital for such businesses.
I am sure all will agree with me that capital is the lifeblood of
all small and medium sized businesses. Canada has an
abundance of entrepreneurial talent and innovation. Therefore it
must be our role as a government to ensure that businesses can
unleash this talent by providing them with access to capital.
Without this access Canadian small and medium sized
businesses will not be able to compete globally, and therefore
will not be able to create jobs for skilled, hard-working
Canadians.
149
(1115)
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean): I wish to extend my thanks to
the people of Nepean for again placing their trust and confidence
in me.
Many of the major issues presented to me during the
campaign have already been implemented by my government.
Employment and job creation was the number one issue. Where
would people find jobs? How would they be created? What does
the future hold for secondary and post-secondary graduates?
There was also job security for public servants and women and
pay equity.
I heard about over-taxation and that deficit reduction must be
achieved through a means other than tax increases. I heard from
mothers at home who believe they are unfairly treated in
Canada's taxation policies compared to mothers who work. I
heard from the business community and the high cost of doing
business due to overtaxation, a crippling GST and unresponsive
and uncaring banks.
The government of Jean Chrétien places honesty and integrity
as one of its highest priorities and it is a privilege for me to serve
in this government. Again, my thanks to the people of Nepean.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Léonard): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to say a few words about the efficient work done by
members of the Pro-Est Group from Montreal, namely Mr.
Jean-Guy Chaput and Mrs. Line Beauchamps.
Pro-Est is a socioeconomic promotion and consultation group
in the east end of Montreal. It is formed of representatives of the
main socioeconomic sectors of activity. Its mandate is to
promote the control by locals of socio-economic development
in the east end of Montreal. For that purpose, the group
encourages dialogue between the various decision-makers in
order to create the optimal conditions for permitting local
interests to take charge of their socioeconomic development.
Pro-Est is in its fifth year of activity. I wish the organization a
prosperous future and I congratulate it for its efficient work with
citizens of the east end of Montreal.
* * *
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, first of all,
I want to extend my congratulations to you and assure you of my
full co-operation. I take this opportunity to congratulate also all
the women who were elected as members of the House of
Commons on October 25. As female members we must join
ranks in matters concerning the status of women.
We know among other things that a lot of women are
experiencing housing problems, whether they be single, heads
of household, single mothers or retired. At the end of each
month, some needy households must cut down on food and
clothing in order to pay the rent. What are we waiting for? In a
society like ours, it is completely unacceptable to delay helping
women in need.
_____________________________________________
149
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, on
Wednesday in this House, the Minister of Finance said that
lower cigarette taxes could be considered if the Government of
Quebec and other governments, a majority of the governments
concerned, agreed to it. Yesterday, the Government of Ontario
said that it was open to such a possibility.
My question is for the Prime Minister. In light of the Quebec
Premier's urgent request and of the openness shown by the
Government of Ontario, can the Prime Minister tell us if he is
prepared to review his government's position on this subject?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
said that we were discussing it with the provinces at this time.
The Minister of Finance has met his provincial counterparts. I
am glad to see that the Government of Ontario has taken a
position.
Basically some details remain to be discussed and I hope there
will be some movement but some provincial finance ministers
said that they did not agree. The Minister of Finance is
discussing this problem now and, as I said, we want to take the
necessary action to end cigarette smuggling which is costing
Canadians a tremendous amount of money and giving the
impression that people can live in Canada without obeying the
law of the land. We will act to enforce this country's laws.
(1120)
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, does the
Prime Minister realize that his hesitation is the main reason for
the growing revolt among Quebec convenience store owners?
The Speaker: Order. It is not allowed to show anything in the
House. It is a small matter, but I know that you want to respect
tradition.
150
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, yes, I respect
tradition and I will repeat my question so that everyone
understands it clearly.
Does the Prime Minister of Canada realize that his hesitation
on this issue is the main reason for the revolt of convenience
store owners in Quebec which is growing considerably and
assuming disturbing proportions?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, it
is a little surprising that I should have to rise in this House and
say that I respect the different jurisdictions in Canada, that there
is a federal government and provincial governments and that I
do not want to act unilaterally. I am being criticized for not
being firm enough and not imposing decisions on the provincial
governments. If the member for Roberval is suggesting to the
Prime Minister and the federalist that I am that the federal
government should act unilaterally, that is very welcome from
the member for Roberval. I will take note of it and use it on
occasion.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister's interpretation is very revealing and as a third
question I will ask him this: Does the Prime Minister have such a
short memory that he does not remember that this week the
Premier of Quebec was urging him to act by lowering taxes and
that yesterday the treasurer of Ontario followed suit and asked
the Prime Minister to act to solve a problem which is creating a
serious social crisis in Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member should know that last night the Minister of
Finance was discussing this problem with the provincial finance
ministers so it is fresh in our minds. We were talking about it
yesterday. I spoke about it in this House. We are developing a
solution with the provincial governments and co-operation is
required not only on taxation but also on policing; the Solicitor
General has already met his colleagues or discussed this issue
with them. This is an example of the federalism which this party
advocates.
It may take a few days more but it is better to do it in harmony
with everyone. If at some point the federal government must use
all its powers and impose a solution on the provinces and if the
Bloc Quebecois asks the federal government to assert itself and
ignore any objections from the provinces, well, perhaps we will
do that.
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu): Mr. Speaker, the
minister of Indian affairs made a rather surprising comment
yesterday for a minister of a government that claims not to want
to talk about the Constitution. Indeed, he said yesterday that his
government was prepared to institute a system of native
self-government.
My question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. Does the
government not realize that to bring about native
self-government, the Constitution would need to be amended?
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
in fact the commission that has reported is working on this
problem at this time.
An interim report earlier in the year said that it was possible to
implement self-government for the native population in Canada
without changing the Constitution and I agree with that.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu): My second question, Mr.
Speaker, is for my good friend and leading spokesperson for
federalists in Quebec, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and
Minister responsible for Quebec.
(1125)
Are we to understand that constitutional amendments are
possible in so far as they concern the inherent right of native
self-government, but that when it comes to overlap, the
distribution of powers and constitutional issues affecting
Quebec, amendments are out of the question? Do two of the
founding peoples have different rights?
The Speaker: Do you wish to respond?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
am not certain if the question was directed to the secretary-
The Speaker: I believe the question was for the Minister of
Foreign Affairs.
Mr. Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, the question was for the
minister responsible for Quebec and Minister of Foreign
Affairs.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Plamondon: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, the
question was directed to the Quebec lieutenant and Minister of
Foreign Affairs.
The Speaker: Of course, if the Prime Minister wishes to
respond, by all means he can.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): I know the Minister of
Foreign Affairs would have been happy to answer the question,
but unfortunately this matter does not fall within the jurisdiction
of his department.
The hon. minister will surely be happy to answer questions
during the course of a debate. This being said, I have nothing
further to add to what I said earlier. Our goal is to treat every
person in Canada equally because we believe everyone is equal
in this country and that no one should have a special status.
151
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Reform MPs in this House and the voters we represent are
disgusted by the abusive use of taxpayers' dollars for the MPs'
pension plan. In December our leader, the hon. member for
Calgary Southwest, wrote to the Prime Minister asking him to
change the plan so that Reform Party MPs or any member of this
House could opt out. The Prime Minister's reply refers to yet
another study which will not be complete until mid-July.
My question for the Prime Minister is this. Has the
government not realized that Canadians want action not more
studies on this matter?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
do not think that we are about to have an election. The next
election will be probably four or five years from now, so none of
us is about to benefit from this pension until we have completed
this term.
Therefore I do not see the urgency in that. We said in our red
book that we would review the pension plan and work on it. We
have four years to settle this before anyone can qualify for this
plan. It is a problem that we will deal with and we will have
legislation before the House.
Even if we were to pass the bill today it would not have effect
until four and a half years from now. Perhaps the hon. member
can wait a bit and we will have a bill in the House of Commons.
If he does not want to have a pension plan applying to him I hope
he will vote in a way that he will not benefit from it. I do not
want members of Parliament to be in a position where they vote
against a bill and after that collect.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, a supplementary. Canadians want action on this
immediately and so do members of Parliament who are making
contributions to this pension plan today.
We would like to know if the government intends to continue
to force MPs to participate in the MPs' pension plan.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): If the hon.
member does not want to contribute we can make administrative
arrangements to make sure he is not contributing and we will
save-
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): But do not come and ask to
have the portion of the money paid by the federal government
put somewhere for utilization later on. If you are out, you are
out.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, I sense some uncertainty in the government's position
on the MPs' pension plan.
For the benefit of members' personal financial planning,
could the Prime Minister tell this House if he will make a
decision on the MPs' pension plan before or after the
government moves to limit RRSP contributions?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): The member
should not be worried at all if he does not contribute. We will
pay him back the few dollars he would have contributed in the
first few months. We will not try to make money off of him.
(1130)
I would like to make this statement. When we talk about
compensation for members, we should realize that every elected
member of this House makes less than half the salary of the
worst hockey player in the NHL. Members of Parliament also
make less than most police chiefs, directors of schools and
directors of hospitals in Alberta who sometimes make more than
$120,000 a year.
I do not think that members are overpaid. However, if some
members think they are not worth what they are making we will
be happy to reduce their salaries.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. The Prime Minister
told the House yesterday that he wanted the action brought
against the Government of Canada by his Minister of National
Revenue to be withdrawn fully.
However, following Question Period yesterday, the Minister
of National Revenue noted, as reported on page B11 of The
Gazette today, that he was not the one who could terminate the
Federal Court appeal division's procedure.
That comment made outside the Commons clearly infers that
he wishes the Crown to drop its case so that he can receive the
proceeds initially awarded to him.
Here is my question: Does the Prime Minister who is himself
a lawyer recognize that the legal dispute between his Minister of
National Revenue and the Government of Canada which is
presently before the Federal Court appeal division is of the exact
same nature as the case which was discontinued in the first
instance?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
what I have been told is that the Minister had instructed his
lawyer to drop the case immediately and that he will not be
getting any settlement from the government.
152
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse): Mr. Speaker, am I to
understand from this incomplete answer that the Prime Minister
will ask his Minister for National Revenue to discontinue his
appeal of the lower court's decision or else he will ask him to
leave the cabinet?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): I have nothing
to add to my answer, Mr. Speaker. The minister has asked that all
and any proceedings against the crown be discontinued and is
not expecting any settlement from the government. It could not
be clearer.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, I would
also like to put my question to the Prime Minister.
Yesterday during debate the government member for
Davenport suggested that the government should consider
further limiting RRSP contributions. When asked about the
possible repeal of the clawback of old age security, a measure
which his party opposed in opposition, he suggested that
everyone who pays into seniors' programs like OAS should
benefit from them.
Is this the policy position of the government or are those
options that the government would be considering?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Finance is preparing his budget. Any member of
this House who wants to make a contribution and express his
views on any part of the budget is free to do so.
The Minister of Finance will look at the member's speech of
yesterday and make his own decision before the budget comes
out. That is why we have the House of Commons and why
members are welcome to express their views. I am happy when
they express their views because that is democracy. However, it
is up to the Minister of Finance to decide what will be part of the
budget. We will know this some time in February.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): I have a
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
We appreciate the opportunity to express our views and hope
that the Prime Minister will use this opportunity to express his
own views on this subject.
Is it the government's policy to go in the direction that we
increase the dependency of Canadians on the underfunded and
overburdened old age security system while undercutting their
ability to provide for their own retirement?
(1135 )
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
have nothing to add. Everybody in society has to contribute to
the financing of this government. This party wants to reduce the
deficit and the debt and we are looking at all the options.
This is money earned by a lot of people on which they do not
pay any tax. That is a way to accumulate money and I have
nothing against it, but there is no tax paid on the money
invested. We want to ensure that the system is fair between the
poor and the rich in our society in relation to the tax system.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval-Est): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Upon returning from its
visit to Chiapas, the Canadian delegation set up by Development
and Peace met yesterday with the Secretary of State responsible
for Latin America and informed her of its great concern
regarding the violation of human rights in that conflict. The
Secretary of State has evidently downplayed the issue.
My first question is: Does the Minister of Foreign Affairs
share the attitude of his colleague who seems to make light of
the fact that human rights are being violated in this conflict,
thereby leading us to believe that Canada is ignoring these
violations?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I was very disappointed when I read the article in the
Journal de Montréal of this morning which refers to comments
made by Mrs. Marthe Lapierre and which probably prompted
this question. I believe on the contrary that the secretary of state
paid great attention to the representations made by the
delegation returning from Mexico.
Moreover I must point out that that the secretary of state has
made public statements which were reported in several
newspapers-and I am surprised that the hon. member did not
read those-and which confirm my colleague's great concern
regarding the respect of human rights. The article published in
the Journal de Montréal is absolutely unfair to the secretary of
State.
I can assure the hon. member that we on the government side
are all listening to those who are willing to make suggestions
concerning this issue. I myself met this morning with the head of
another delegation, Mr. Ovide Mercredi, and in the next few
days, we will state on behalf of the government our position
regarding this issue.
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval-Est): Mr. Speaker, I ask the
minister apart from listening, what specific steps does he intend
to take to stress to Mexican authorities who, let us not forget, are
Canada's partners under NAFTA, the vital importance of
respecting human rights in Mexico?
153
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I already said to the House in response to a question
that we had expressed our views and our concerns to Mexican
authorities in this regard. Our ambassador has made
representations on behalf of the government. I myself have had
discussions with the Mexican ambassador in Ottawa and I also
intend to meet her next week. Following those discussions with
Mexican authorities we believe that they themselves will be
able to make a decision regarding this issue.
I mentioned the fact that for the first time a human rights
commission was established through the Mexican legislation
and that President Salinas was adamant that every Mexican
citizen must receive equal treatment before the law.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of National Revenue. The day after the throne
speech the Auditor General informed Canadians that some $1.8
billion of GST was overdue and not collected. He also informed
Canadians that some 576 Canadians had not paid their GST.
(1140)
Could the minister indicate whether those overdue payments
will be paid or whether they disappear along with the GST?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue): Mr.
Speaker, may I congratulate a very experienced parliamentarian
on his first presentation in this House. May I assure him that I
was very pleased to see the Auditor General made clear that
many of the criticisms from this side of the House when we were
in opposition of the GST were in fact supported by his report.
I would also like to point out that measures have been taken,
and I refer particularly to a press release I issued three weeks
after assuming my position as minister to the effect that we
would enhance enforcement, carry out more audits and have
more prosecutions. We will continue to do that and I again am
very happy to find that the Auditor General has supported the
approach I took back in late November.
I can also assure the member that the amount of money
involved is approximately 4 per cent of the total GST amount
which is almost comparable to other jurisdictions that have a
value added tax of this type. I can assure him that while 31 per
cent of the firms and individuals who should be reporting have
not done so, many of those individuals are in fact owed money
by us and on others there is no question of owing anything at all.
This would explain for the member the discrepancy between a
4 per cent figure and a 31 per cent figure in terms of total
numbers.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary question for the minister. I thank him for the very
comprehensive and objective answer; it is much appreciated.
The minister knows that often when tax levels are too high
consumers resist paying. Possibly that is one circumstance with
regard to the GST and taxation in Canada.
Could the minister indicate when there is a review of the GST
and a change of tax whether consideration will be given with all
sincerity for a reduction of taxation and possibly a remedy to the
problems Canadians face?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue): Mr.
Speaker, once again I am in the position of essentially agreeing
with much that has been said by my hon. friend.
The fact is that this side of the House-and indeed I am sure
both sides of the House-as I mentioned two days ago believes
tax levels are high and are onerous. We wish to reduce them
wherever possible.
In the examination of the replacement for the GST, which as
the Prime Minister has indicated will go to a committee of the
House, I am quite sure the issue of the level of taxation and its
affect upon the willingness of Canadians to pay and willingness
to abide by a fair tax system will be discussed by members.
I would suggest to the hon. member that the committee of the
House dealing with the replacement for the GST will probably
be one of the most important committees of the House. I suggest
he put his name forward before he is trampled by his fellow
members in the Reform Party.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, the
speech from the throne as well as various statements by
Ministers seem to indicate that a reform of unemployment
insurance will be presented with a view to reducing cost which
will mean a reduction in accessibility and in payments to the
unemployed.
My question is to the Minister of Human Resources
Development since he said yesterday that this was his first
target. Will the government assure us today that they will not
raise again unemployment insurance premiums in 1994?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that
through the speech from the throne I indicated that a number of
issues needed to be examined such as the important matter of
restruc-
154
turing our social security net. This includes unemployment
insurance. Indeed, I announced before Christmas a freeze on
unemployment insurance premiums, an initiative which should
go a long way toward ensuring stability for small businesses.
(1145)
So, between now and 1995 when another UI premium
structure will come in effect we will have a two-year period of
stability. I hope the hon. member will support that.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): I have a
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Should we understand
that the Liberal Party deliberately duped and misled the Quebec
people when a few short months ago in opposition they
vehemently denounced Bill C-113 proposed by the
Conservative government of the day because it was aimed at
reducing accessibility and the amount of money paid to
unemployed workers?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I would suggest the hon. member
may want to take a look at his remarks when they appear in
Hansard, because I think he was in breach of the rules of the
House by suggesting that we deliberately mislead anybody. That
has certainly never been the intention of this party or this
government.
Clearly what we were faced with when we took office was a
decision by the past government to raise the level of premiums.
That was already in the statutes; it had already been decided. We
in fact reduced that to its bare minimum so that the actual raise
was only 2.3 per cent for this year. To live up to the commitment
we had made and that we undertook we froze the premiums for
the entire year of 1995 so small businesses will have the
two-year stability of a constant premium rate. That will give
them the kind of incentive and stimulation they need to go out
and create jobs.
In the meantime, if he and his colleagues were prepared to
work with us and collaborate with us on a broad review of our
social programs we would be able to take a look at the issue of
payroll tax and give a real sense of hope not only to the
unemployed but to the business people who would give them
jobs.
* * *
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice.
January 15 marked the deadline for submissions from all
Canadians recommending changes to the Young Offenders Act.
Will the minister provide a detailed report of his findings from
these submissions to all members of Parliament?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has quite
properly pointed out that the submissions have been received by
the Department of Justice. They are now under review. As the
hon. member might appreciate it will take us some time to
evaluate them and to draw conclusions.
I can assure my hon. friend, though, that the entire question of
the youth justice system is under active review. As we made
clear in the speech from the throne our commitment is to
enhance community safety and the justice system in general,
including youth justice, so the entire statute is very much a
matter of priority for the department.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): I have a supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker.
As we all well know the Young Offenders Act has been under
question for quite some time. Could the minister give us an
indication of when we could expect action that would change the
Young Offenders Act, something that Canadians everywhere
want done immediately?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will recall
that during the course of the election campaign the Liberal Party
made clear in its platform that it proposed specific changes to
the Young Offenders Act. Those changes included longer
sentences for violent crime, creating the category of dangerous
youth offender, releasing information when it was in the
interests of the community to do so, and changes of that kind.
I can assure my hon. friend, and I take this opportunity to
assure the House, that when I speak next week in the debate on
the speech from the throne I will be elaborating upon our plans
with respect to the Young Offenders Act and the criminal justice
system in general. I can also assure him that included in our
plans at present are measures in the short term to implement the
undertakings we made during the campaign.
* * *
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
Canadian taxpayers subsidize the movement of grain in
Canada by approximately $720 million a year. This subsidy is
paid directly to the railways and I might say that the subsidy is
abused. As an example, to qualify by regulation for the subsidy
grain destined for the U.S. market must first go to Thunder Bay.
Then from Thunder Bay it is shipped somewhere out west and
eventually gets to the market to which it is destined. This is an
abuse of the system. It distorts the cost of shipping grain in this
country.
155
(1150)
Would the Minister of Agriculture consult with the Minister
of Transport to stop the flagrant abuse of taxpayers' money
through this subsidy immediately? Would he then consider
removing the subsidy paid directly to the railways? If there is to
be a subsidy on grain in this country perhaps it could be paid to
the farmers to whom it rightfully belongs.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question. Obviously the issue of grain transportation, and in
particular the Western Grain Transportation Act, is a subject
that is under active consideration by this government.
The previous government had established a number of
processes that will result in a series of reports we expect to
receive during the early part of this year, specifically on grain
transportation efficiencies.
In the member's question he has pointed out a fairly glaring
example of an inefficiency in the system. We await that report
on grain transportation efficiencies. We also await a report on
the method of payment under the Western Grain Transportation
Act conducted by a producer payment panel.
While we as a new government are by no means bound by
processes started by a previous government, we are anxious to
receive this input. We will be making our decisions in due
course.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. On
September 7, 1970, a tanker, the
Irving Whale, sank off the
Magdalen Islands. Over time, corrosion by salt water caused the
ship to leak its cargo.
Is the Minister aware that the Magdalen Islands and Prince
Edward Island are facing a major environmental disaster? Does
the Minister of the Environment have a specific plan to avert
this disaster?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environnement): First I would like to thank my
colleague for his excellent question. I am familiar with the
standing orders, but I thought I would make the point that ``la
chrétienté'' is found on both sides of the House.
That being said, Mr. Speaker, after the election the hon.
member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine advised me of
his concern about reports of a suspected leak from the tanker
when geese were found on the shores of the Magdalen Islands.
I personally visited the Magdalen Islands during the election
campaign, and I am aware that this particular area is a favourite
destination for tourists. Since I have a particular interest in the
tourism industry on Prince Edward Island, I am working very
closely with my colleague, the Minister of Transport, to find a
financial solution to a problem that, of course, predates current
federal standards in this respect.
[English]
The member will know that this problem actually predated
federal legislation governing the difficulties that we face when
ships sink. In that regard I am working very closely with my
colleague, the Minister of Transport, to try to find a financial
solution to a problem that we both recognize.
I thank very particularly the member from
Îles-de-la-Madeleine and the adjacent member from Prince
Edward Island who brought this matter to my earliest attention
the moment they were elected.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): The Minister of the
Environment is aware that in 1992 the coast guard asked a
private company to examine the wreck. The company's report
was submitted to the government in December and has yet to be
released.
Is the Minister of the Environment prepared to release this
report as soon as possible? The people of the Magdalen Islands
and Prince Edward Island are concerned and they have a right to
know.
(1155)
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environnement): Mr. Speaker, since two departments
are working very closely to come up with a solution I am
prepared to have my department and the government discuss
particular aspects of the report with the hon. member who is the
environment critic for this party and with the critic for the
Reform Party.
A government response to the report is not yet available but I
will try to have it ready as soon as possible. As soon as it is
available we will share it with you and we will try to do that as
soon as possible.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The failure of the Charlottetown accord even among
aboriginal communities indicated that among other things the
people of Canada could not support undefined aboriginal
self-government. Although most people understand and
identify with the aspirations of aboriginals to control their own
affairs there is a deep concern that self-government might
threaten the sovereignty of Canada.
156
Will the minister assure Canadians that his government will
promote and protect the sovereignty of Canada at all times
when negotiating aboriginal self-government?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, not only would I give that
commitment, I think that should be the commitment of every
one who comes to this House.
Sovereignty is not in question. What is in question is how we
take inherent right and develop it into something that is
workable. I think the process of discussion over the next six
months with the territories, the provinces, the leaders and the
national aboriginal leaders will define just that.
As I said yesterday we must have one Canada but within this
Canada many families.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, will the minister
affirm that the individual rights of aboriginal people as
guaranteed to all Canadians under the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms will be protected and preserved under any form of
negotiated self-government?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, the charter of rights is very
important to me personally, having sat in this House when it was
developed. It is very important to the aboriginal people and very
important to Canadians. It will be protected at all costs.
* * *
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo): Mr. Speaker, let me take
this opportunity to congratulate you on your election to the
office of Speaker. I am confident you will serve the House and
Canada well.
My question is for the Minister of National Defence and
Veterans Affairs and involves household moves by the
government which cost over $100 million a year. The moves are
managed by an interdepartmental committee chaired by
National Defence.
I understand that the previous government authorized the
conduct of pilot projects with two private sector companies to
see if savings could be made.
Would the government seriously examine the proposals to
privatize its move management services to see if they are
feasible and if any further savings can be made on behalf of the
taxpayers of Canada?
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the hon. member on asking his first question.
The issue he raises with us has been raised by a number of
members from other parties as well. The House should be
informed that earlier last year the former government did solicit
proposals for privatization of move management services.
Of the six bids received only one was compliant with the
government's requirements. Independent accountants have
found that the compliant bidder's costs were several million
dollars greater than the government's costs.
I should inform the House that only 10 days before the
election former ministers in the Conservative government
directed the conduct of two pilot projects without authorization,
one with a firm whose costs were millions more than the
government's and the other one with a company whose bid was
found to be non-compliant. As soon as we took office we
cancelled this authority to conduct the pilot project. That is the
way business was done under the Tories. That is not the way we
are going to do business.
(1200)
I should say that in the context of cuts to the defence budget as
promised by the Liberal Party in the red book that we are trying
to examine every single way that we as a department can save
money, to rationalize expenditures so that we can have a lean
effective military.
I will work with the hon. member to make this come about.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Yesterday, the minister skirted around the fact that there is no
Quebecer on Hockey Team Canada. He gave us some incomplete
and sketchy statistics regarding the make-up of the Canadian
National Olympic Team.
Since hockey is the national sport of both Canada and Quebec
and since it would seem normal for Team Canada to reflect the
Canadian reality, and given the fact that the minister had a
chance to sleep on it, is he now willing to reconsider his position
and have a word with the people in charge of Team Canada to
rectify this unfair and unacceptable situation?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, I thought I was very clear yesterday. The hockey team
is still in the process of being recruited. Recruiting is still going
on. Therefore, as I said yesterday, I cannot blame those in charge
as long as I do not have the results of their efforts.
I should probably mention to my colleague, to put his mind at
rest, that the vast majority of athletes of Olympic calibre are
bound by contract to professional teams. Therefore, Hockey
157
Canada must negotiate their release with their employers. It is
for Hockey Canada to do so, not the Minister of Canadian
Heritage. I am keeping an eye on the situation and reserving my
judgement until we see the results of the process.
[English]
The Speaker: Hon. members, that will conclude the question
period.
The hon. member for Burin-St. George's has a tribute to
Ches Carter.
* * *
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's): Mr. Speaker,
it was the fall of 1973 and I was for the very first time seeking
public political office. I went to a community, an island called
Pass Island off the south coast of Newfoundland, an island that
has since been resettled. In those days it had a couple of hundred
people.
Pass Island produced a very famous man by the name of Major
Ches Carter. Ches Carter distinguished himself in many ways,
first by serving overseas with the Royal Newfoundland
Regiment during the first world war during which he was
gassed, placed among the terminally ill in a hospital in England
and left to die. He did not. He came back and had a distinguished
career in education in Newfoundland. Come the second world
war we found Ches Carter back on the battlefields of Europe.
This time it was with the Canadian army, a full 10 years before
Newfoundland and Canada had become one country.
He came back from there and picked up his education career.
In 1949 Ches Carter was one of the original seven men who came
here as the first members of Parliament from Newfoundland
after Confederation. He was elected again and again, a total of
seven times, the last time having been in the 1965 election and
then in 1966 he was appointed to the Senate.
Ches Carter died last week at the age of 91 in Nova Scotia. He
leaves us a great legacy. I am pleased to stand as the successor
member for Burin-Burgeo, as it was then called, and now
Burin-St. George's, but essentially the same piece of
geography with a little bit tacked on from time to time.
(1205)
There have only been four members for Burin-St. George's
or Burin-Burgeo. They are the late Ches Carter, my late friend
the Hon. Don Jamieson, Joe Price who sat here from 1984 to
1988 and of course myself.
I realize that there is only one member sitting in this House
today who was here during the time of Ches Carter, but that is of
course entirely beside the point. If we come here and serve our
people well then it is not necessary for all the people we serve
with to be around forever to remember our deeds and Ches
Carter is proof of that. If one does well while one is here and if
one is true to those who sent one here then the legacy one leaves
will be the memory one leaves.
Ches's legacy is a very important one. I looked through the
Hansard index for 1960 and 1961. Yes, he was fighting about
foreign draggers inside the three-mile limit. I am still fighting
that one. He was talking about atomic radiation hazards and
trade with Cuba. I could go on. There was page after page of
intervention by an obviously active member.
Time does not permit me to even capsule the impact he had
here, but let me give one clear example with which many will be
able to very quickly identify. Having been a veteran with the
Royal Newfoundland Regiment in the first world war and in the
Canadian army in the second world war, he had a particular
interest in and knowledge of military matters and the legacy the
war had left for those people who sometimes came back maimed
and often without appropriate training to plug back into civilian
life.
Ches Carter's battle was non-stop. His battle was non-stop in
the interest of veterans in general and in particular the foresters
who went out in the thousands from Newfoundland and eastern
Canada to do their bit not in a military uniform but on behalf of
the war effort. For many years after the war they were left
without benefits because technically they were not military
although they had gone overseas and had been exposed in many
ways to some of the same dangers, certainly the deprivation and
isolation of being away from home and so on.
It was Ches Carter who led the battle on that one. It was Ches
Carter who after a long time won the battle. He saw to it that the
battle was won on behalf of the foresters in the context of having
them recognized for benefits under the veterans program.
In concluding let me on behalf of all Canadians, this
Parliament and the Parliaments before it, salute a very great
man, a very great Newfoundlander and a very great Canadian.
Let me also say, on behalf of the House, our condolences, yes,
but also our thanks for a life well served to his wife Elsie, to
Alan his son and to his two daughters.
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to add a few words to that of my
colleague about Ches Carter. He and I sat together here in the
back two rows when I first came here. Ches Carter was a very
humble man. He had been in both world wars as my colleague
has stated. He was a great champion of veterans. He went to bat
for them and was responsible I am sure for some of the
amendments to the veterans legislation in Canada.
158
Ches Carter also exemplified a man who had been a citizen
of Newfoundland prior to it becoming part of Canada. He then
got into the federal scene and came here as a member from
Newfoundland and was highly respected in this House.
I want to extend our sincere appreciation to him for the work
that he did on behalf of veterans across Canada and for his
service in two world wars. He exemplifies very responsible
Canadian citizenship and will be long remembered by those of
us who knew him and should be long remembered by those
Canadians for whom he made such a contribution.
I want to extend my condolences to his family. I thank them
for allowing him to be part of this place and of the Canadian
nation, to come forward to display his strength through humility
for the improvement of veterans in Canada and to make his mark
for the military forces in this country. He is an example for many
to follow and we appreciate that.
(1210)
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Mr. Speaker, may
I join this tribute to Mr. Carter. While I did not know him
personally, we all of course want to pay our respects to anyone
who served Canada in such a forceful, wonderful way. We
applaud the eloquence of the two previous speakers in this
tribute to Mr. Carter and extend our condolences, sympathy and
best wishes to his family.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of
the Bloc Quebecois, I would like to join the three previous
members to also say a few words about Mr. Carter.
Of course, none of the Bloc Quebecois members who are
sitting in this House knew Mr. Carter, even though the member
for Longueuil and I have been here for nine years. However,
when visiting veterans in our respective ridings and throughout
Quebec, we have heard how that man led a remarkable battle
defending veterans' rights and trying to give them some security
after their efforts during the world wars.
On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, and in joining the three
previous members who spoke so eloquently, I would like to
extend to Mr. Carter's family our most sincere condolences.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan on
a point of order.
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry if I was out of order in
rising before the Bloc Quebecois members. I do not know, but I
think they have the right to speak before I.
Mr. Plamondon: I have been very honoured to rise after the
member from the Reform Party today. There was no precedence.
I think he was just anxious to pay tribute to Mr. Carter. We
understand that full well.
[English]
The Speaker: It was very generous of the hon. member for
Nanaimo-Cowichan to point that out. However, in the case of
tributes we more or less leave it quite open and you are able to
speak at any time, sir.
_____________________________________________
158
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, if there is one overriding
objective of the new government it is to put our country back to
work. Canadians want jobs. They want business opportunities.
They want government to support their initiatives and they want
their voices to be heard in the drafting of public policy.
Canadians also know something that politicians have been
slow to recognize: that our environmental and economic goals
can and must support each other.
Nowhere is that more evident than in our country's
environmental industry. This is one of the fastest growing
economic sectors, with some 4,500 firms employing 150,000
people. Its annual sales are now approximately $11 billion and
this figure is expected to double by the year 2000. By that year
the global market for environmental technology, products and
services will reach over $500 billion. Canada wants to be on the
cutting edge of that green market.
[Translation]
What we have here is a Canadian success story and we must
build on it. Mr. Speaker, this government is wasting no time in
doing that. With my colleague, the Minister of Industry, I am
pleased to announce that next Monday, January 24, we will
begin the first of a series of public consultations with the aim of
developing a Canadian Environmental Industry Strategy.
The consultations in Montreal, Halifax, Winnipeg, Toronto,
Vancouver and Edmonton are being organized in close
co-operation with the provincial chapters of the Canadian
Environmental Industry Association. We hope that they will
give us an opportunity to meet and share views with
representatives of all groups who can help to shape a winning
strategy for Canada.
(1215)
As a focus for the discussions, we have prepared a paper
entitled ``Environmental Industry Strategy for Canada''. This
contains initial proposals for a partnership between the public
and private sectors, a joint venture that will substantially
increase Canada's share of the domestic and international
markets for environmental industry.
159
We already know what must be the key elements of such a
strategy: increased funding for research and development,
increased support for business, especially small and
medium-sized enterprises, and better environmental standards,
policies and programs. These are all priorities of the Canadian
government and they received mention in Tuesday's speech
from the throne.
[English]
We also have another priority. That is to ensure that every
member of this House has a hand in helping to shape these
strategies. We would welcome the participation of the
representatives of the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois in
participating in these meetings next week which are the very
beginning of a new strategy to help Canada take advantage of
our world market for environmental technologies.
We face the challenge of acting on those priorities to advance
the environmental industry sector in Canada. We intend to listen
carefully to all consultations. I can say that on the government
side of the House we have a number of members who are
specifically interested in this issue. We will use the input we
receive to forge an effective strategy that promotes our
country's economy and our environment.
The Minister of Industry and I are very happy to be working in
close co-operation with the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of the Environment, the hon. member for
Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, and with the Secretary of State for
Science, Research and Development, the hon. member for
Portage-Interlake who is taking a special interest in industrial
and environmental technologies.
Our departments' and our government's twin goals are
sustained job growth and a clean healthy environment. Green
industries will play a growing part in helping us reach those
goals.
An environmental industry strategy can help us act on
pollution prevention. It can help us build green infrastructure in
industries and it can and must help create the high-tech jobs we
desperately need in those areas. That is the best way of
guaranteeing a prosperous country, a healthy environment, and a
realistic and brighter future for the Canadian economy and for
Canada as a whole.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, it is
indeed essential that all intervenors in this area be consulted
prior to developing a comprehensive government strategy. The
environment as such transcends partisan concerns and it is in
fact incumbent on all nations to work together to find solutions
to the pressing problems confronting us today.
I applaud this initiative by the government and the Minister of
the Environment to include the industry and environment
ministers in these consultations. It is indeed vital to examine
these particular aspects of the issues we are being asked to
consider. Instead of wishful thinking that is out of touch with our
present day lives, the environment needs realistic and effective
policies that will ensure sustainable development.
The environmental industry is one of the sectors that are
crucial to our future economic development and the government
must do everything in its power to promote the growth of this
industry. The consultations with the provincial chapters of the
Canadian Environmental Industry Association are essential in
this respect. In the past, Quebecers and Canadians have too often
been exposed to government strategies that were unrealistic and
far removed from local needs.
(1220)
The government should listen to the various groups, draw up a
strategy and then provide the necessary resources to meet the
objectives set forth in the course of the consultation process.
Ministers should listen to what the people have to say and not
view these consultations as a media event.
The minister mentioned the importance of developing this
industry, and I agree. However, this commitment should be
followed by proposals that provide an effective framework for
this enterprise.
Promoting the environmental industry is all very well, but it
should not be seen as merely a way to silence criticism from
environmental groups in Quebec and Canada.
We also want to warn the federal government and the
environment minister that public consultations are useless
unless recommendations are acted upon.
The environment minister knows that I will monitor these
consultations very closely and ensure that any useful proposals
that may result are implemented by the government as soon as
possible.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, I stand today
in response to the statement by the Minister of the Environment.
Before commenting on her presentation I would like to
express my sincere congratulations on your election, Mr.
Speaker. The process with which you were elected provided an
indication of the new, more innovative atmosphere of this
House. Certainly the first days of this sitting have shown your
fresh approach.
The Reform Party intends to approach all issues raised in this
Chamber with a three-step process. First we express support for
the positive, then concern about potential areas for
improvement, and finally constructive alternatives.
160
It has been instructive in reviewing the Reform Party blue
sheet of principles, policies and election platform that there is
in fact a strong parallel to the direction and intent expressed
by the Liberals in their red book.
Of course we support public consultations in that we believe
concerned Canadians are very intelligent and have already
thought out many of the issues of concern with respect to the
environment.
We also wish to commend the government on the speed with
which it is initiating this process. It is unfortunate that with the
arrangements which have been made, we received official notice
of this yesterday. I received the details at about 9.30 this
morning. Unfortunately therefore, the Reform Party will be
unable to respond to the very kind invitation of the minister to
take part in this process.
We do have some areas of concern when the minister uses the
terms such as increased funding and increased support.
Where the Reform Party differs significantly from the
policies outlined in the Liberal red book is that we note on pages
67 and 68 of their red book they speak of funding research and
development for green technologies, commitment of new
government funding and consultation of incentive and support
programs.
We have learned from history with boondoggles like the
scientific research tax credit program introduced by a prior
Liberal government and ongoing regional development grants
and special tax incentives that there is frequently abuse, pork
barrelling and outright waste of resources that Canada no longer
has.
The Reform Party will therefore be watching very carefully
what impact this initiative will have on the government's out of
control overspending. We will also be interested to see what
economies it will put into effect even on its country-wide tour
next week. What new thrift style will the government bring to
the actual public consultation process? For example, will its
members be travelling by regularly scheduled airlines?
We put the government on notice. We will be looking for a
statement of expenses incurred for this process and would
expect a cost benefit analysis on the expenditure.
(1225)
In summary, the Reform Party stands committed to ensuring
that all Canadians and their descendants dwell in a clean and
healthy environment and supports the federal government
taking leadership in developing a new discipline integrating
economics and the environment.
We also commend the minister on the speedy implementation
of this process early in this government's life.
Mr. Riis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate
the standing orders do not permit me to respond to the minister,
but I simply want to say that we appreciate this statement being
made in the House announcing this new government initiative.
Coming on the tails of what the House leader was saying the
other day, that there would be a number of debates on important
policy issues in the House of Commons to which members can
contribute, I simply want to say-
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for not getting into
debate or answering.
* * *
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
36, I am pleased to present this petition on behalf of the people
of Woodrow, Saskatchewan, requesting that Canada Post be
restrained from the further closing of rural post offices
including their own.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Péloquin (Brome-Missisquoi): Mr. Speaker,
on behalf of my constituents, I would like to present a petition
denouncing rent increases in social housing in Bromont.
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Léonard): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present a
petition which has been certified.
The previous government made cuts in social housing and
today people in my riding and in neighbouring ones are turning
to the House of Commons because the federal government froze
the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation budget for the
next five years while asking it to save money to help young
couples.
The petitioners are asking Parliament to forego any rent
increase in social housing and to lift the freeze on the Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation budget in order to build new
social and co-op housing, especially in east Montreal.
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 the attached petition is
certified correct. It is signed by many people from the greater
Toronto area.
The undersigned residents of Canada humbly ask and draw the
attention of the House to the following. As a consequence of the
death, separation or divorce of their children, grandparents are
often denied access to their grandchildren by their guardians.
The relationship that exists between grandparents and
grandchildren is a natural, fundamental one. Denial of access
could constitute elder abuse and could have a serious
detrimental emotional impact on both the grandparents and the
grandchildren. Several provincial jurisdictions, including the
Quebec
161
civil code, contain a provision to ensure the right of access of
grandparents to their grandchildren.
Therefore the petitioners request that the Parliament amend
the Divorce Act to include a provision similar to article 6(11) of
the Quebec civil code which states: ``In no case may a father or
mother without serious cause place obstacles between a child
and grandparents and failing agreement between the parties the
modalities of the relations are settled by the court''.
Further, an amendment to the Divorce Act would give a
grandparent who is granted access to a child the right to make
inquiries and to be given information as to the health, education
and welfare of the child.
_____________________________________________
161
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1230)
[Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion for an
address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his
Speech at the opening of the session; and of the amendment.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I
want to congratulate you on your election as Speaker of this
House.
[English]
Some members will know that it was the Speaker who as much
as anyone played a role in my coming to this place and I am so
pleased to be here under his direction as Speaker. I have every
confidence that you, Sir, will perform your task in a way which
is going to bring great honour to this place and to the role that
you hold.
[Translation]
I would also want to thank my constituents of Ottawa South
for re-electing me on October 25. It is a great honour for me to
represent them here, in the House of Commons. It is also an
honour to have been appointed minister. But the greatest honour
of all is to have this opportunity to serve the people of Ottawa
South.
[English]
I think for all of us the greatest honour is to be able to
represent our peers in the House of Commons. This is a place
rich in history and tradition. The role that we play here I believe
is very important. I believe it to be a great honour and a great
privilege to be servants of the people.
Politicians have been given a bad name and we are all
conscious of that and Mr. Speaker in his opening comments to us
upon his election alluded to it.
I think what we need to reinforce is that after all is said the
role of politician is not something of which we should be
ashamed. The role of a politician is to be a servant. To be a
politician is to wear a badge of honour because after all we are
here as servants of the people who sent us. That to me is a very
great badge of honour.
I would also like to express my appreciation to the Prime
Minister for the confidence he has placed in me in asking me to
serve as his Minister of Industry. What I hope to do in these few
moments is to outline some of the ideas I take with me into this
portfolio as I undertake the work which was given to me. Much
of my mandate has been made clear I believe.
[Translation]
The red book stressed the importance of job creation and
economic growth, and in the throne speech we again emphasized
the importance of economic growth.
[English]
The people who sent me here talked to me about a lot of
things. What I heard repeatedly was the concern they have for
jobs, if not jobs for themselves personally then very often jobs
for their children or their neighbours. How many times I have
heard people say: ``I have adult children who are trained,
qualified and skilled but they cannot find work''.
(1235)
I believe the heavy weight of despair the recession of 1990
brought to bear on our people is one of the things that all of us
were elected to address in a very direct and positive way. What
we have to do is very clear. We need strategies to follow. We
need strategies to create jobs. We need strategies to encourage
growth in the economy.
Part of that strategy obviously has to be the tackling of
obstacles because there are obstacles to overcome as we launch
this new phase of economic growth. I know no one on this side is
unaware of the unhappy circumstance when this week we passed
$500 billion in federal indebtedness. The burden of debt we are
carrying as a country, not just at the federal level but also at the
provincial and municipal levels, is something which no
government regardless of its political stripe or ideology can fail
to consider.
I have encountered questions about whether worry about the
deficit did not indicate a certain political bent to one side of the
spectrum. I cannot agree with that. Our colleagues from the New
Democratic party who govern in three provinces in Canada are
frequently engaged in discussions about how to deal with the
serious problems of provincial indebtedness. Our colleagues
from Conservative governments in some of the provinces are
likewise faced with tackling those problems.
162
We are also faced with a slow economic recovery this time.
[Translation]
The fact that the recession that started in 1990 dragged on for
so long is an indication that our economy is undergoing
fundamental changes.
[English]
This is not just like the last recession. What we have
encountered is a fundamental change in our economy. There is a
restructuring whereby many companies are rebuilding on the
basis of downsizing. We have seen a significant reduction in
employment even while economic growth is beginning again.
That in turn has caused what can only be described as a crisis of
confidence, particularly among consumers.
If we look at the tracking of graphs as we grow out of the past
recession and compare them to the tracking after the recession
of the early 1980s what can be seen indicates the lack of
consumer confidence which has been prolonging this recession.
There are very low numbers in residential housing for example
and in consumption of durable goods.
Consumers do not have confidence. Why? It is because not
only do we have a high rate of unemployment of 11 plus per cent
but we are also faced with the fact that virtually 40 per cent of
the people who have jobs are concerned they are going to lose
them. Where can we inspire confidence to begin to build again?
Internal trade barriers. I am talking again about obstacles that
we have to overcome. Can it be explained to me why in Canada
our regime of international trade is roughly equivalent to what
the GATT provided internationally back in the late 1940s? What
makes it so hard to us to break down the barriers of trade among
our own Canadian provinces? We do not have a big market in the
world. Our domestic market based on population is roughly the
size of the state of California. Yet we have created these
obstacles among us to take that already small market and make it
even smaller. We like 10 little markets instead of putting
together one medium sized market which would enable us to
compete in the world.
(1240)
[Translation]
I have to say we have made headway in that area during the
meeting held this week in Ottawa by the Minister of Industry
and the Minister of Economic Development. There is a great
common will among the ministers to find effective means of
removing trade barriers between Canadian provinces.
[English]
We now have a fixed schedule. We will have a preliminary
draft agreement of an internal trade agreement by February 14,
Valentine's day. We hope that will be further transformed by
provincial negotiators into a draft agreement for consideration
by ministers by the end of March. We are working on a strict and
tight timetable on this file and we have enormous good will
among all provincial governments and the federal government
to tackle this obstacle.
It can create jobs, not just because of the encouragement of
trade within Canada, but the fact that we have these internal
barriers is a deterrent to foreign investment. Why? It is because
under our international treaties it is just as easy to trade into
Canada from the United States, in fact it is easier, than it is to
trade within Canada across provincial boundaries. Why are we
penalizing ourselves in this way? It simply does not make sense.
I am hopeful that this process toward progress on this file will
continue very rapidly.
In addition to attacking obstacles we have to build on our
strengths. It is reflected clearly in the red book and also in the
speech from the throne that one of the strengths in this country
we have to build on is the small business sector. There are
900,000 small and medium sized enterprises in this country. If
we could enable them each to hire one Canadian then our
unemployment problem would no longer be upon us.
For that reason I think the efforts the Canadian Chamber of
Commerce has under way to identify how to create one million
jobs in Canada is something we in government ought to
encourage and support. It is the kinds of partnerships we can
build with the private sector, business organizations, labour
organizations and others that are going to enable us to overcome
obstacles and build on some of our strengths.
Small business has told us pretty clearly what problems they
face. They are the masters or the creators of 80 per cent of the
new jobs in Canada. Yet they tell us repeatedly-my colleague
from Broadview-Greenwood has borne eloquent testimony to
this-they cannot get adequate capital or financing to do what
they want to do to create jobs.
We must find a way to bring our financial institutions to bear
all of their resources on how to solve this problem of inadequate
capital in small and medium sized business. I am not so sure we
do it by passing laws and making rules but we are working very
directly with financial institutions and trying to see what it is
that makes it so hard to provide adequate capital for small
business, in particular small businesses that are engaged in the
process of developing and marketing new technologies. I will
say a little more about the innovative economy in a few minutes.
I can understand why it is difficult. How does one secure debt
against knowledge? A knowledge based enterprise finds it
difficult, however, to get the capital resources it needs in order
to build foreign markets, to do research and development, to get
the kinds of sales it needs and to finance those sales over
development periods. These are problems we are going to have
to tackle.
163
Small and medium sized business needs technology.
Technology diffusion has to be the key to building a more active
and more aggressive small and medium sized business sector.
It is clear in the studies that have been done that growing small
business means adequate capital, adequate access to new and
existing technologies, good marketing and management skills.
Those are the keys. There are no secrets here.
(1245)
The question is: How do we help small business in achieving
the things that it knows?
[Translation]
It is clear to us that the small and medium-sized businesses
are the key to the economic recovery that, I believe, we are all
waiting for.
[English]
We also need to concentrate our efforts on building a new and
innovative economy. Canada is a very blessed country. We enjoy
enormous prosperity and have over many years. Why? It is
largely because we find ourselves in a country that is rich in
natural resources. We built our prosperity on resources we were
able to access easily and that the world wanted to buy from us for
very good prices.
During the war my predecessor, whose desk I am proud to sit
at in my ministry, C. D. Howe, built the Canadian manufacturing
economy to meet the needs of the war. After the war, he was able
to transform it to peaceful purposes behind tariff barriers.
At a time when Europe was flattened and when the new
competition we now face in Asia was virtually non-existent,
Canada was able to build a strong manufacturing based
economy. There we were as we came through the 1950s and
1960s. With strong sales of natural resources, high prices and a
good manufacturing base, things were going well for us. It
looked like it would never end.
Today the problems that we face in some ways reflect upon the
very strengths that we had in those decades. It was easy for us to
be prosperous at that time relative to many other countries that
had to build their war-torn economies up from the ground.
Now we find that our cheapest natural resources have been
sold off. It becomes more expensive for us to acquire them
whether they are from the forests or the mines. The fish are
gone. Agriculture is becoming tough and competitive. Our
manufacturing economy that was built up during and after the
war is finding that change is overtaking it.
The rebirth of Europe in the 1960s and 1970s was tough
competition. Now we have the emergence in Asia of strong
manufacturing based economies. These are the problems we
face. What do we do now?
We need to find the innovation and the change that will enable
us to compete against these companies in places around the
world. If I can put it in a phrase, my objective as Minister of
Industry is to make the Canadian business sector synonymous
with quality and innovation. It is by emphasizing these two
characteristics that we are going to regain our place in the world.
That will be the key to our economic growth.
Some people think governments do not play a role in these
things. They think one just stands back and lets the world unfold
as it is going to. That is wrong. Government plays a very
important role in this. Government has to play a role solving
some of the problems we talked about earlier. Government also
has to play a role itself in not being an obstacle.
We are prepared to work with provincial governments to
ensure that whatever burdens are being placed on business can
be reduced. As an initiative of this government we want to work
with the provinces to reduce duplication and overlap.
[Translation]
As the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said, overlap is
indeed a concern for the government.
[English]
We are prepared through strategic investments, through the
Canada Investment Fund, through the creation of technology
networks and by giving leadership on issues like the electronic
highway to help the Canadian business sector to move forward
into the 21st century.
(1250)
The information highway is a good example of the fact that
government has a role to play. We saw Vice President Gore in the
last weeks make a major statement on what the information
highway can mean and look like in the United States. We have to
play a leadership role in defining what this highway is to look
like, how it is to help Canadian business move forward into the
future.
We have some advantages here as a country which is so huge
geographically and so sparsely populated. We have built
strengths in telecommunications and in satellite
communications, despite what may have happened to Anik.
Those who want to watch it on Newsworld will have to miss it
for today.
However, there are strengths that our Canadian industrial base
has within it that will tie perfectly to the rapid explosion of the
information technologies. One of the roles of government is to
provide the necessary leadership. We want to help find ways in
which the regulatory regime should be structured to encourage
the right level of competition of Canadian ownership. Those are
two of our goals. We will see to it that we are in the right place to
164
encourage pilot projects to see how this new technology
infrastructure is going to work.
We are playing a role, for example, in the Canary project
which is tying research facilities across Canada together. We
recently had the pleasure of announcing in Ottawa-Carleton
the establishment of the OCI net which is a measure to provide
what will ultimately be a node on the information highway
which is to come.
These are exciting possibilities. There are many more to
come. We have a role to play. We need to remove the obstacles
that impede economic development. We need to build on our
strengths. Canada is a marvellous country. We believe in it. We
can overcome the obstacles as we have in the past and we can
build on our strengths.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger) Before proceeding to the
10 minutes of questions and comments, I wish to inform the
House that pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(b) because of the
ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by
13 minutes.
[Translation]
We will open questions and comments with the hon. member
for Québec-Est.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est): Mr. Speaker,
thank you very much. I am very pleased to be able to speak for
the first time in this hon. Chamber, the symbol of democracy in
Canada.
I believe that I am the last Bloc member to speak for the first
time, but that does not take anything away from the importance I
attach to my maiden speech or from the pleasure it gives me.
I am also especially honoured to be the member for
Québec-Est and to represent that riding. I take the opportunity,
as many of us have already done, to thank my constituents who
had the good judgment to elect me as their member. I have the
honour to represent a very beautiful riding in Quebec City and to
have won by 21,000 votes. This is an impressive victory, all the
more so since I ran against a very well-known personality in
Quebec whose name I will not mention in this House.
I am a new member who intends to be a good MP and to
represent his riding well. I come back to what the Minister of
Industry said. I appreciated it as an opening. He said that we
have an important responsibility to be honourable, to be sincere,
to work hard because we have heavy responsibilities, and that is
what I intend to do. I intend to do that for my constituents,
especially since most of them voted for the Bloc knowing full
well that we are a sovereignist party. I believe firmly in this
option and I think that I will therefore defend it with great zeal
and gusto.
(1255)
I would also like to take the opportunity to raise a point which
has not yet been raised and that surprises me a lot. We have had
many discussions to date on the relative merits of Canada versus
Quebec, as they relate to the question of sovereignty, and no one
has yet spoken about the rights of francophones outside Quebec.
I would have liked the Speaker to be here today, not only to
congratulate him on his election, and I take the opportunity, Mr.
Deputy Speaker, to congratulate you on your appointment.
Nevertheless, I would have liked him to be here because he is a
Franco-Ontarian. I have had a chance to discuss the issue of
francophones outside Quebec with the Speaker, because he
comes from Ontario, as I do. I am a native of Ontario myself.
[English]
I was born in Ontario.
[Translation]
That is why I am a sovereignist today: I was a francophone
outside Quebec and I know the situation they are in.
If there is one thing that I will mention and emphasize in this
House, it is the abuses and injustices which francophones
outside Quebec have suffered. Many people talked about the
virtues of Canada, like the Minister of Foreign Affairs and
others yesterday and the day before, but I did not have a chance
to answer. Now I will give my reply.
[English]
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): I rise on a point of
order, Mr. Speaker. I just need some clarification. We had the
Minister of Industry here. I thought I heard you say questions
and comments. We asked the minister to stay here thinking there
might be a question. I wondered if in fact there would be a
question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I thank the hon. member
for his comment. Recognizing the member for Quebec-Est in
his first intervention here in this House of this 35th Parliament I
think seized the occasion. I understand and have witnessed all
members making reference to their constituents, thanking them
and so on. Certainly I want to give the floor back to the member
for Quebec-Est and give him the opportunity to complete his
comment and would hope that in the end it would allow time also
for the Minister of Industry to reply to his comment.
[Translation]
Mr. Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I did not want to be too long in
my introduction; I simply wanted to comment on the very
interesting statements made by the Minister of Industry.
As was mentioned, the minister referred to several issues. He
said, among other things, that one of the most important
objectives stated in the Liberal Party's red book is the creation
of jobs. It just so happens that I am the official critic for the Bloc
on agricultural issues and these days the minister of agriculture
165
is negotiating with the Americans a substantial loss of jobs in
the field of agriculture, in fact a potential loss of 10,000 jobs in
that sector for Quebec and Ontario.
It is rather puzzling that one of the first agreements signed
with the Americans by a government which claims to be in
favour of job creation could in fact lead to the loss of several
thousand jobs in the agricultural sector.
I agree with the hon. member when he says that our society is
undergoing radical changes. He emphasizes of course that those
changes have strictly an economic dimension, and I agree with
him that the world is indeed in a state of flux which affects
Quebec and Canada, and which triggers a real problem of
confidence. This brings me back to his comments on the role of
members of Parliament: we must inspire confidence. We must
inspire confidence, but I am under the impression that we are not
doing very well in that regard.
(1300)
Take, for example, the GATT agreement which the minister
alluded to. I assume that the hon. minister is among those who
believe that GATT is a very good agreement. It is obvious that
we derive some benefits from it, but we have also suffered
substantial losses.
Personally, I am not among those who believe that GATT is
such a marvellous thing. On the contrary, I am under the
impression that the opening of new markets, in the context of
that agreement, adversely affects levels of production. It
favours major American industries at the expense of Canadian
ones.
In the agricultural sector, we have suffered considerable
losses through GATT.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In fairness, I will allow
one brief question as I have to give the minister time to respond.
Therefore, a very brief question from the hon. member for
Québec-Est.
Mr. Marchand: My question will be very brief, Mr. Speaker.
Among other things, the Minister of Industry said that efforts
had to be focussed on creating and strengthening small and
medium size business. Are the nearly 50,000 farmers in Canada
who have invested in excess of $1 million in their operations the
kind of small and medium size businesses that he would like to
promote?
Mr. Manley: First of all, I would like to congratulate the hon.
member for Québec-Est on his maiden speech in the House. It is
never easy to speak in this Chamber for the first time. He will
find that things get easier after a few years.
I find the hon. member's comments rather odd. Canada
accounts for approximately 3 per cent of world trade. Therefore,
when we negotiate within an international forum such as the
GATT, a forum that is of truly great importance to Canada and to
Quebec as well since our economy is greatly dependent on trade,
it is important to find a way to achieve a consensus with
everyone.
Now the hon. member has said that he favours sovereignty for
Quebec. Judging from his remarks, he seems to think that a
sovereign Quebec would not be a part of international
organizations such as the GATT. How then does a sovereign
Quebec intend to become a player on the world trade scene?
International trade agreements are always a source of
problems. There are always winners and losers. It is a difficult
situation. Adjustments have to be made. That is always the case.
After all, there is a role to play on the world scene. If Quebec
can negotiate a better agreement for the farmers to which the
hon. member alluded with the world's trading partners, then I
wish it good luck. As the minister of agriculture stated, the
government is deeply concerned about the future of Canadian
farmers. We also believe very strongly that Canada and Quebec
must be members the international trade community.
(1305 )
[English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam): I welcome
the opportunity to take part in this throne speech debate. At the
outset I would like to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, upon your
appointment. I would also like to congratulate our Speaker of
the House of Commons upon his election as Speaker of this 35th
Parliament.
As someone who is vitally concerned with parliamentary
reform I feel we owe a debt of gratitude to those who served on
the special committee on reform of the House of Commons in
1984-85 and who recommended the method of election of the
Speaker. A Speaker elected by his or her peers in a free vote is
ideally placed to serve the needs of this Chamber and its
members.
I would also like to congratulate all those who have been
elected to serve in this 35th Parliament.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the electors of
Mission-Coquitlam, a riding in the heart of the Fraser Valley in
British Columbia, for seeing fit to send me to Ottawa to serve as
their elected representative.
For those of you not familiar with this most beautiful part of
our country I can only attempt to describe it.
Mission-Coquitlam has a population of approximately
115,000. Its population has grown more than 25 per cent
between 1986 and now and
166
therefore has associated with it all the problems of a growing
rural area located close to a thriving metropolis, Vancouver.
Employment in this area is spread among the primary
industries of dairy farming, lumber and fishing as well as
manufacturing, construction and the wholesale and retail trade
required to serve the population.
At this time I would like to just take a few moments to address
this House on two government initiatives that, depending on
how they are implemented, may or may not be beneficial for my
constituents. I understand the government is proceeding with its
shared cost, two year, multimillion dollar infrastructure
program to upgrade transportation and local services. I trust the
moneys to be used for this plan are not new moneys but are
already designated as government expenditures and we are
dealing here with a simple reallocation of funds and priorities.
I also want to say that such a program would be of great
benefit to my riding. Improved transportation and
communication links are of vital importance to the industries of
Mission-Coquitlam and to our residents, many of whom
commute daily to Vancouver in a frustrating two hour, one way
trip.
I am concerned that the outcome of the recent GATT
discussions may have a detrimental effect on our nation's
farming community and in Fraser Valley dairy farming in
particular. The recently signed GATT agreement calls for the
removal of border restrictions in article XI. This will, we hope,
be replaced by a set of import tariffs which will be removed on a
graduated scale until eventually completely phased out in
approximately 15 years. I trust the government realizes that
these tariffs and the long phase out period will be necessary to
ease the transition of our supply managed farmers.
This being my first address to this House I would like to take a
few moments to reflect upon why I believe so many of us from
the Reform Party of Canada were elected on October 25, 1993.
During the past 10 to 15 years a feeling has developed among
Canadians that government, the party in power, the opposition
parties and the bureaucracy is not serving the needs of the
people who are to be served and whose tax dollars pay for this
government. The separation between government and the people
grew in the last few years because the views of Canadians seem
to be ignored by government or, alternatively, there was no
means by which Canadians could see that their views were being
expressed, especially in this House. This led, I believe, to an
unprecedented feeling of frustration in Canadians.
I believe the electorate chose on October 25 a higher standard
in political accountability and by their votes requested a role in
the policy making process. The people of Canada want their
views to be considered and they want to see how their views and
interests are reconciled when policy is formed.
I believe the people of Canada are willing to give their trust
once again to those of us who are willing to take up this
challenge. They want to see politicians who are willing to
exercise the courage necessary to state their views publicly,
even though they may be contrary to party line. At the same time
the public wants to see courage exercised by our leaders so that
dissent may be publicly expressed without fear of retribution.
I am privileged to have been chosen as the chairperson of our
caucus committee on parliamentary reform. In the short time I
have been here I have had the opportunity to study this subject at
some length.
(1310)
I have come to the conclusion that the first fundamental
change we must make in this place does not involve rule changes
but lies in an attitudinal change that must be made by the party
leadership of this House both on the government and opposition
sides.
This change in attitude relates to allowing private members,
back bench MPs, to exercise some measure of independence
from the party line when voting on measures in this House.
Freer voting among members requires only attitudinal
change. However such a change in attitude would send a signal
to the people of Canada that we as politicians are listening and
are reflecting their views in our decision making.
I want to make it clear at this point that I am speaking about
freer voting which means a relaxation of the established
informal rule that private members vote the party line on all
legislative matters.
This is to be distinguished from free votes when the party
leadership actually tells members that on a particular piece of
legislation they are free to vote either for or against it.
The declaration of free votes by the leadership of this House
does not solve the problem of exercising independence by the
members. It is my understanding that in our Canadian political
system the leadership of political parties have taken the
confidence convention to extremes. It has been linked to a view
whereby virtually all votes both in committee and in the House
of Commons are matters of confidence so that any member who
votes against the wishes of the leadership, whether that member
is in government or opposition, is being disloyal and is subject
to reprimand.
A simple review of the voting practices in Great Britain
illustrates that this does not have to be the case. In recent times
backbench independence has been asserted with members
voting against the party line. In some cases this defeats
government legislation. Once this independence was exercised
it could not be stopped and has successfully resulted in allowing
members to influence the public policy agenda. It is important to
note that punishment by the party leadership did not materialize.
A participatory attitude prevailed.
167
What I am saying today is not new. Attitudinal change in
relation to the confidence convention and freer voting was one
of the major recommendations of the special committee on
reform of the House of Commons in 1985. This committee even
went so far as to categorize the types of confidence votes so
that on all other matters private members, at least on the
government side, would feel free to vote against the
government position without fear of bringing down the
government.
It is appropriate to recognize that today's Minister of Foreign
Affairs represented the Liberal Party and the hon. member for
Winnipeg Transcona represented the NDP on that committee.
While in opposition the government participated in other
committees and advanced a policy paper on January 19, 1993 on
reform of the House of Commons. This also formed part of the
red book giving more freedom to members to voice their
concerns in the House.
Leadership on this issue must come from the government. A
clear statement should be made by the Prime Minister that
dissent will be allowed and only certain legislative matters will
be looked upon as confidence matters requiring strict party
discipline.
It must also be made clear that anyone exercising
independence will not be punished. Opposition parties must
agree to this so that their members are free to voice their own
views. It is also important that opposition parties not treat
government members voting against the government line as
special or as lightning rods of dissent within the government
caucus.
Opposition parties should not call on the government to resign
if a few of its members break with party discipline or if the
government loses the occasional vote in the House or in
committee.
Finally, I would like to emphasize that this change of attitude
will require political courage on the part of all concerned. For
the first few times that members break with party discipline the
media will pounce on the situation as a sign of weak leadership.
Political parties must resist the temptation to capitalize on this.
In fact they should stress that allowing dissent is a sign of
strength.
While we listened with interest to the speech from the throne
and the promise of the government to create a greater
opportunity for members to contribute to the level of public
policy and legislation, I was disappointed that no specifics of
how this was to be done were presented.
If members are to become a vital part of the policy making
process in committee and in the House then dissent must be
allowed to be articulated and occur without retribution.
If this occurs the House of Commons may become a more
accurate reflection of Canadian public opinion and the policies
of government may become more attuned to the needs of
Canadians.
It is unfortunate that the Bloc in its amendment had not dealt
with the major issue of parliamentary reform, that is free votes
and relaxation of the confidence convention. Then I would have
moved a subamendment in this House as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should permit members of
the House of Commons to fully represent their constituents' views on the
government's legislative program and spending plans, or, by adopting the
position that the defeat of any government measure including a spending
measure, shall not automatically mean the defeat of the government unless
followed by the adoption of a formal motion.
(1315 )
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing me today. I thank the
voters of Mission-Coquitlam for placing their trust in me.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by
congratulating the member on her maiden address in the
Parliament of Canada. She touched on the very important issue
of the freedom of members of Parliament to express the views of
their constituents and not be reprimanded.
I rise as a member of the government party to clarify a
position of our party. It would be unfair to leave the impression
with the viewing audience or Canadians in general that we on the
government side do not have the ability to be creative, to debate
our views, or even to have the ultimate option of dissenting or
not supporting a particular government measure. I want to try to
explain the fine line.
In our party we have always been encouraged to work at new
ideas and develop policy initiatives. We debate them in our
caucus committees and at our policy conventions. From those
experiences we ultimately develop a consensus and a party
position. Once a party position is taken we have to decide
whether or not we want to continue as members of that party.
In our particular case we as members of the Liberal Party
signed on to campaign under the red book. It would be
inappropriate for us not to support the measures in the red book,
seeing as that is in fact what got us elected. However that does
not preclude us from participating in debate in committee or in
the House.
Having been a member of the past Parliament I just want to
say to the member that there was more than one occasion when
we constructively debated publicly in the House. Some of us had
168
different opinions than the party thrust but ultimately when the
time came and some of us differed we were not punished. The
member mentioned that members could be punished or used as
lightning rods. That is mythology. That really does not happen.
The Liberal Party is very vibrant and encourages creativity
and debate but ultimately, seeing as we have campaigned on a
certain position, it is incumbent upon us to stick with the
position that our electorate supported us on.
Mrs. Jennings: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
comments regarding my speech. I was very pleased to hear that
in fact Liberal members of the House are encouraged to speak
freely and to use their own thoughts and ideas in the process of
deliberations. I am very encouraged by that.
I want to point out that while I recognize the red book has been
used in the campaign and the red book has alluded to certain
ideas which I think correspond with many of the Reform ideas, I
still feel strongly that there has been much reprimand in the past.
We have seen the results of it.
I honestly would like to say here today that allowing MPs to
do their jobs in the House and freeing them up to represent their
constituents properly can only improve the legislative process.
Differences of opinion are healthy. As long as members are
constructive in their criticisms of all members' proposals, all
members of the House will witness the parliamentary process as
it was meant to be, as it actually has been in the earlier part of
this century. The relaxation of the confidence convention will
strengthen the proceedings in the House, not weaken them.
(1320)
I look forward to working with all members of the House, and
particularly with the hon. member opposite, in both a
co-operative and a constructive way.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, let me offer my sincere congratulations on your
appointment to the chair. I also thank your colleagues who are
willing to share in the responsibilities of overseeing the
proceedings in this Chamber. I take this opportunity to
congratulate members on both sides of the House on their
election. I look forward to getting to know all of them. I trust we
can be friends even if we agree to disagree from time to time.
I also thank my wife, Gail, and our three children, Ehren,
Byron and Marlyn, for their love, support and encouragement.
They are a big reason why I am here in this Chamber.
Indeed it is a pleasure and a privilege to address the House on
behalf of the voters of the federal riding of
Kindersley-Lloydminster in west central Saskatchewan who
have sent me here to be an agent for constructive change. I thank
the residents of Kindersley-Lloydminster who put trust in me
by placing an x beside my name. I pledge to work on behalf of
all residents of my riding regardless of how they voted.
Last October 25 Canadians from coast to coast sent an
unmistakable message to politicians saying: ``You had better
begin to listen to us like you have never listened before and you
had better act on our behalf more responsibly than you have
acted in the past, or we will remove you from office''.
The results of the last election decimated an old, proud federal
political party, sending it the way of the dodo bird. Another
party has been delegated to the equivalent of whooping crane
status.
[Translation]
Every member in this House, whether Reform, Liberal, Bloc
or independent, has thought about the very clear message sent by
his constituents. Compared to our predecessors, we have
improved our performance. Canadians will accept no less.
[English]
I commend the government for many of the reforms it has
listed in its speech from the throne. Some reforms it now
proposes are the same ones for which Reformers have been
working so hard for three, four, five and even six years. I trust
our efforts are not in vain now that the government is talking
about reform. Talk is a good start but mere talk without
substantive action becomes rhetoric, and rhetoric is not what
Canadians want from us.
I also join my colleagues who have expressed grave concern
that no mention of agriculture or energy was made in the speech
from the throne. I hope this is not an indication of the
importance the government places on industries vital to
Kindersley-Lloydminster.
I was disappointed the government's parliamentary reform
measures outlined in the red book and in the speech from the
throne overlook one of the most embarrassing institutions of
Parliament. Canadians have rightfully called the other place, the
Senate of Canada, a disgrace to the nation. Over one-quarter of
the legislators in Parliament are not accountable to the people
they are supposed to serve. With regard to Parliament and its
occupants, second only to the bloated MPs' pensions, my
constituents expressed their absolute disgust with the Senate
and demanded that something be done about it.
Many Canadians disillusioned with the inability of previous
governments to fix this problem are calling for the abolition of
the Senate. Just because our political leaders of the past have
been unable to find the constitutional key to unlock the gate
barring us from Senate reform it in no way precludes us from
taking giant steps toward fixing the other place.
169
Before we look at ways to begin to address the
embarrassment of a Senate that does not work, we would be
wise to review reasons why the Senate cannot only be useful
but invaluable.
Canadians are demanding more balance and fairness in
national decision making. Having only a lower House where
members are elected by the people has left the most sparsely
populated regions of the country like my province of
Saskatchewan feeling handicapped when important legislation
is debated and passed in Parliament, because no accountable
federal institution by its very nature is designed to protect us
from the overwhelming political clout of the more heavily
populated regions of Canada. For instance, the people of
Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta had no effective tools to
prevent the infamous and unfair national energy program from
being foisted upon them by a Liberal government dominated by
Ontario and Quebec.
(1325)
The current infrastructure program which has the economic
stimulative capabilities of a one legged kick-boxing sparrow is
based on population and unemployment levels and this concerns
the residents of Saskatchewan. Our province has suffered severe
economic depression for a decade resulting in lost jobs and
depreciating infrastructure such as roads.
Saskatchewan people have left the province looking for work
rather than going on unemployment insurance or social
assistance. With a declining population, low employment rates,
high taxes, and deteriorating infrastructure one would think
Saskatchewan would be a prime target for the benefits of the
government's infrastructure program but in fact the criteria for
the program penalizes. I am certain the criteria would be much
better if Canada had an elected Senate with equal seats from
every province.
The government has the opportunity to take a great leap
forward in the cause of Senate reform. We know it can be done
because it has been done. One province, Alberta, enacted
legislation allowing the people, not the Prime Minister, to
indicate their choice in filling a vacant Senate seat. By
democratic election at less cost than the cost of political
patronage the people of Alberta said they wanted Stan Waters to
be their senator to represent their interests in Ottawa.
The Prime Minister of the day was playing a game with dice
and one of his moves in the game was to appoint the people's
choice to the vacancy in the upper House. He later undid this
good by stacking the Senate with friends who lacked
commitment to represent people over parties in the GST debate.
The current membership in the Senate is dominated by
Conservatives, a party rejected by Canadians right across
Canada. Rather than the Prime Minister replacing them with his
friends, it is only right that the government give Canadians an
opportunity to select women and men to sit in the upper House.
If the Prime Minister and his government really want to move
Canada out of the 19th century and into the 21st century, they
could take a first step to Senate reform by asking the provinces
such as my province of Saskatchewan to pass legislation similar
to bill 11 in Alberta. They could then assure that every province
with such a measure would see the democratically chosen
candidate for the Senate appointed by the Prime Minister to the
upper House. This does not require an amendment to our
Constitution. What a step forward this would be in the evolution
of an elected, equal and effective Senate.
In closing I wish to assure members opposite that Reformers
are prepared to support measures the government introduces
that will help fix this place. If the government will not fix it then
we will wait until the next election and fix it ourselves.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to comment on what was said by the previous speaker, who,
I am glad to say, is a member of the Reform Party, because I have
the impression that if we consider the causes behind the
emergence of the Reform Party in western Canada and the Bloc
Quebecois in Quebec, there are a number of similarities.
There is of course the aspect of voter dissatisfaction in the
west and in Quebec. That explains why these parties suddenly
emerged. It is also the very obvious difference between the
aspirations of Canadian and Quebec voters, and an apparent
inability on the part of the government or governments, and I
was going to say the big national parties, to meet people's
expectations. I think Canada's very nature makes this
inevitable, considering the size of the territory, different needs
and the fact that the Conservative and Liberal parties have
always insisted on proposing the same solutions from coast to
coast.
Where the Bloc and the Reform Party differ is on how to deal
with the situation. The Reform Party seems to think it is possible
to change the system. Quebecers, after 30 years of attempts at
constitutional reform, have concluded, and there is a broad
consensus to that effect, that reform is impossible.
(1330)
Finally, I want to put a question to the previous speaker. He
mentioned the Senate, and my question will deal with this
institution. At the present time, Senate reform would require the
unanimous consent of the provinces. Last summer, in a
nationwide survey, more than 60 per cent of Canadians said we
should get rid of the Senate.
Considering that the member of the Reform Party seems to be
saying his party is concerned with the needs of the people, and
considering that the premier of Newfoundland, an old friend of
the Prime Minister of Canada, says he will never agree to
abolish the Senate, how can the members of the Reform Party of
Canada still believe the Canadian system is open to reform?
170
[English]
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his question. What I suggested in my speech, had the hon.
member listened, was not a constitutional change to make the
Senate more effective but to actually have it elected. We have
already had one elected senator in the upper House. He was
elected by the citizens of Alberta and appointed by the Prime
Minister.
The purpose of my speech was to challenge the government
and to challenge our current Prime Minister to follow that
precedent and encourage the provinces to pass similar
legislation across Canada so we could bring some respect and
legitimacy to the Senate. This is so that people who live in the
more scarcely populated provinces such as mine would feel that
they have somewhere in Parliament to appeal their case and have
regional interests heard.
Just to expand a little further yes, with the observations of the
hon. member from the Bloc, we are both unhappy with some of
the current situations in the country and we are both working to
improve them.
However, coming from western Canada, when we have a
problem we usually roll up our sleeves and try to fix it. That has
been the approach of the Reform Party. If you see a problem, fix
it. That is why we are called Reform which means constructive
change. We think that Canada is a wonderful country which
should contain ten equal provinces, each represented equally in
the Senate. We recognize that in some ways Quebec is unique
and should have its own cultural and linguistic needs
represented at a provincial level.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Prior to resuming debate,
this is our first week in this 35th Parliament and we are all
learning our new responsibilities. It has come to my attention
and I want to share with all members in the House that there is a
tradition that we do not refer to the Senate. We refer to it as the
other place.
[Translation]
Traditionally, in the House we never refer to the Senate as
such. For instance, you could say ``the other place''. This is just
for your information.
[English]
It is only for the information of all members that I share this
new information I have just discovered, even though this is my
second term here.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma): Mr. Speaker, it is truly a
pleasure and an honour for me to participate in the throne speech
debate. We heard earlier today that one of the Telesat Anik
satellites is out of commission. I will ask you to decide in 15 or
20 minutes whether it is good or bad that this is not on live
television across the country.
I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate you
and your colleagues on your appointment to the Chair. It is my
firm belief that you will be presiding over one of the best
Parliaments that this country has seen in a long, long time.
I do not agree with the media pundits who refer to this as a
potentially fractious Parliament. I do not agree with those who
think we are going to be faced with problems day in and day out.
I am not naive but from what I have seen so far and in talking to
colleagues in my own party and colleagues from other parties
everyone I have spoken to has agreed that we have the potential
to have a truly great and productive Parliament. No doubt that
will be partly due to the great contribution you and your
colleagues in the Chair will make.
(1335)
I would also like to pay tribute to my colleagues, the member
for Victoria-Madawaska and the member for Bruce-Grey
who moved and seconded this debate. Like the speakers we have
heard from our ministry and from other private members, they
have given me great confidence that this place will truly reflect
the views of Canadians in a way we have not seen in at least 10
years. I dare say that we will be very proud of that in the years to
come.
We have this honoured section to your left that at times has
been disparagingly referred to as the rump. I would like to
disabuse members of this House of that name. I am pleased and
proud to take my turn over here. When the others have their turn
here I am sure they will be pleased with the view and the chance
to see what is going on. They will have a chance to speak directly
to our fellow members in the government. Maybe we can come
up with a more creative description for this area. Take note that
three of the Speaker's team are part of this area.
We should look at this section of the House as evidence that
Canadians have put great trust in our party. It is impossible to
reflect that confidence any other way except to have some of us
over here because of our great numbers. If things work out there
will be government members over here for a long time to come.
Therefore we may as well look at this area as an honoured place
to be. I feel very proud to be here, for now.
I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to
the voters of Algoma riding. I will talk a little about my riding in
a moment before getting to the thrust of my comments on the
throne speech.
The confidence my constituents placed in me has made me
very proud. I have assured them at every opportunity and do so
again now that I will work very hard for them. We talk about
serving the country and individual Canadians. There is no
greater honour than to have a chance to serve our fellow
Canadians in this place. There are many callings in life where
service is the thrust of an individual's activities. I cannot
imagine a better way to serve our fellow man than as a parlia-
171
mentarian. I am sure we all feel that way regardless of the
ideological differences we might have.
I truly look forward to getting to know better all the members
of this House in all parties. Whenever I am in this place I want it
to encourage me in the work I do. I want it to strengthen me in
my work here and in the riding.
For a while we are going to feel a little bit schizophrenic. It
seems that the work here is different from the work in the riding.
The nature of the day is obviously very different. Over time we
will find that these two different lives will come closer and
closer together. I would certainly defer to the opinion of those
who have served in this place for a long time to confirm that.
However it is my belief that our work here and our work in the
riding is really one. It is only a matter of time before we actually
feel that in our experiences. I look forward to that.
I would like to thank my family, particularly Julie. Those of
us with families know the great sacrifices they have had to
endure to allow us to serve in this way. It goes unnoticed by
Canadians in general and it is important that we say in this
public place that our families also serve the country. I am truly
grateful to mine and to all our families who in some ways are
forced to contribute. We appreciate that.
(1340 )
We all had many volunteers working for us in our campaigns
and we would not be here without them. The whole exercise of
democracy is built on the building blocks of volunteers. The
volunteers that work in the political process are as valuable as
any volunteer raising funds for heart research or the kidney
foundation. All those activities are important and the volunteers
that work in the political realm are equally important. They
make this country run. They are the lifeblood of democracy, in
my view.
Of course we all depend on staff and I can assure you that the
staff I have working for me are among the best.
I have the honour of representing the riding of Algoma which
for the last 25 years was represented by a colleague of many of
the returning members, Dr. Maurice Foster. I had the pleasure of
working closely with him as his parliamentary assistant for a
number of years. It was an experience I will never forget. He will
be my adviser, at $1 a year shall we say, for quite some time
whether he likes it or not. He distinguished himself as a
committee chair, as chairman of Ontario caucus for a number of
years, as a parliamentary secretary, and as a representative of
this country in several international delegations. He was the
kind of parliamentarian who was truly Canadian and truly
motivated by service. There is not an ounce of self-serving in
Maurice Foster's attitude toward service and I could not let this
chance go by without paying tribute to him and his work on
behalf of Canada and Algoma.
Dr. Foster followed in the footsteps of Lester Pearson who
represented Algoma East. I dare say I feel humbled to follow in
the footsteps of such great Canadians as Lester Pearson and
Maurice Foster.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to invite you as well as the other
members of this House to visit Algoma riding. We all claim to
have the greatest riding in the country and if there is such a thing
as the greatest among equals then I will claim that title for
Algoma.
Algoma riding is situated in the northern area of Lake Huron.
It includes Manitoulin Island and the north shore of Lake Huron
approximately from Georgian Bay to the eastern shore of Lake
Superior. Like some other ridings it is very large. It takes over
seven hours to drive from one end to the other. It is a
spectacularly beautiful riding with many unique features, but
like many ridings it is suffering difficult economic times.
We have a mining sector in Elliot Lake that has suffered
tremendous downsizing. In the months ahead you will hear me
make numerous interventions on behalf of Elliot Lake where
thousands of jobs in the mining industry have been lost, but
where tremendous effort is being made to revitalize the
economy.
We have a substantial tourism industry. Our proximity to
Michigan is helpful but the tourism industry needs revitalization
too.
Forestry is a major industry for us but the constant badgering
by the U.S. of our softwood lumber industry has had an impact.
I certainly appreciate the attitude of our government, of our
leader and Prime Minister that he will take a firm businesslike
stand with the Americans. We can no longer tolerate being
pushed around. The Americans are our friends on a personal
basis but I believe when it comes to country to country relations
those have to be conducted in a businesslike manner. In fact
during the campaign I asked the then leader if he would commit
not ever to go fishing with the U.S. President. His response was
that he did not think he would but it certainly seemed to me that
the relationship between our previous Prime Minister and the
U.S. President was too cosy.
We also have some farming. Believe it or not in northern
Ontario there is a substantial farming sector. We have dairy
farmers. Like many members who have dairy farmers or other
supply managed sectors in their ridings, the GATT has been a
tremendous exercise in frustration. I believe though that our
government took up the challenge after October 25 and has
produced for us a result that was the very best that could be
obtained under the circumstances.
172
(1345)
In Algoma riding we are blessed with over 40 small
communities including over a dozen First Nation communities.
I will not dare start listing them for fear of forgetting or leaving
one out. One has to visit.
I would like to come to the point of this exercise. I hope I did
not leave myself too short on time. I am thinking back to the
campaign where one was required to speak longer than one
should too many times. I would like to make reference to a
comment made by the member for Broadview-Greenwood
yesterday. He made an intervention in response to the speech by
a member from the Reform Party. That member from the Reform
Party talked about the bottom line and generally the need to run
Canada like a business.
I was very proud to hear the member for
Broadview-Greenwood say that this country is not just a
bottom line, this country is people. After all if there is any vision
of this country that we should have front and foremost it is that
of its people. When I look at the commitments made in the
throne speech, the comments made by the member for
Broadview-Greenwood and our famous red book, line after
line after line, it is people first.
We cannot have a vision about a technological revolution or a
vision about being a major trading country without first having a
vision about the people who make up this country. I dare say, and
with all due respect, the agenda of the Reform and Bloc parties
really misses the mark. The deficit is important. The issues that
the Bloc bring forward on behalf of their particular constituency
are important, but they really ignore the fact that above all it is
people and people want to have dignity. People want to have
jobs. People want to be able to put food on the table using money
that they have earned, not money that was given to them because
they could not find a job.
The whole thing goes back to mobilizing and energizing the
creativity of our people, mobilizing the capital resources,
coupled with creativity to get this country moving again, get it
out of the starting blocks.
I do not want to blame all our ills on the last 10 years, but let
us blame some of the ills. Members will seldom hear the right
hon. Prime Minister blame the last government for the
predicament we are in, but those are the facts.
It really requires of us now that we always put people first. If I
go through the list of the throne speech initiatives I do not see
one that does not put people first, even something like the Rural
Residential Assistance Program, the housing program. I can say
that in my riding of Algoma where there are a lot of older people
who are trying to stay in their homes longer so that they do not
have to go into nursing homes that it is important to have access
to funds to improve their homes so they can stay in them. That is
a program about people.
Let us look at municipal infrastructure. That is a program
about people. It gets people, I do not want to say at the bottom of
the economic ladder as I do not mean that, but labourers,
contractors and equipment operators, working. It gets money
into the economy at the local level and gets it there quickly. We
are talking about putting people back to work.
When I was preparing for my earlier S. O. 31 statement today
on literacy I was reminded of how many of our adult population
have difficulty functioning in our modern society because they
cannot read. I just beamed with pride when our government's
commitment to literacy, not only in the red book and not only by
the appointment of a minister responsible for literacy, was given
major mention in the throne speech.
(1350)
If we do not have strong building blocks and if we do not have
strong people, how can we have a strong country.
As I mentioned earlier in the statements, literacy is an
important issue in my riding of Algoma. We have people who
spent years working in the resource sectors of mining, forestry
and so on. When times were good it was easy to get a job. Maybe
they did not get the education that was required or for economic
reasons they had to go to work. Now with our country having to
restructure itself economically these people are being left out. I
think it is important that we do not leave anybody behind.
When we talk about the social safety net we are talking about
people again. The social safety net without a doubt has become
frayed over the years. There may be a few holes in the safety net.
We would not want any trapeze artist falling into that safety net
and hitting the wrong spot. That is what happens too often
unfortunately.
I believe we have to honestly look at our social safety net
programs to make them better. It does not mean that it is going to
cost more. I really appreciated the comment in the speech by the
member for Madawaska-Victoria, the seconder of the reply to
the throne speech, that we can have a leaner government without
a meaner government. We can do things better.
I am prepared and I am sure that my constituents are prepared
to look honestly at changing constructively our social safety net
program. We want it to do a better job. I campaigned openly,
saying that there were abuses and that I was prepared to look
honestly at making changes. I look forward to working with
other members in this House to that end.
Even our initiative on crime talks about people. Who is it that
is worried about getting mugged? It is people. Whatever we can
do to make people feel safer on their streets, to make people feel
that the justice system serves not only the victim but the
community and deals effectively and constructively with the
criminal will be moving this country forward.
173
Why is it that this country is singly the most desired country
in the world in which to live? As long as we do not tell people
how cold it can get here sometimes, I am sure everybody in this
world would like to move here.
We have a community of peoples. Just imagine, this country
was really built on three founding nations.
When one considers that we have such a desirable country,
what better chance do we have than to serve together to move
this country forward into the next century.
I would like to conclude my remarks by saying that we as a
group certainly have many tough decisions to make in the
months and years ahead. I think if we continue to be transparent
in our dealings with the public they will look at us with
confidence. If we try hard and we listen to the people I believe
we will be successful. Fortunately for us and unfortunately for
the other parties in this House, we will be here for a long time.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Algoma for his
speech. However, before making some comments and asking a
question, and since this is my first speech before the House, I
would also like to take this opportunity to extend my thanks to
the people from the riding of Anjou-Rivières-des-Prairies, in
the east end of Montreal, who elected me.
As you know, many newspapers are describing Montreal as
the capital of poverty in Canada, and the east end of Montreal is
one of the most disadvantaged areas of all the metropolitan area.
Therefore, I want to make the commitment to my constituents,
those who elected me and even those who did not vote for me
and whom I represent today, that I will promote their interests in
the best way I know how.
I would also like to thank all members who, probably for the
first time, rose or will rise in the next few days in this House. I
think that most people, and this has been stressed, realize that it
is a difficult task. I believe we all did an excellent job and that is
a good sign for the days to come. Surely, we will learn very
quickly the technicalities of government. I should point out that
this will be extremely important for the debates to come.
(1355)
You know that, to a certain extent, we are here to learn. In
view of the economic situation, Mr. Speaker, I believe that we
will have lively and, hopefully, spirited debates in this House.
All parties are committed to raising the level of parliamentary
debates which people have considered a bit too low over the last
few years.
We are presently in a political situation quite peculiar as in a
few months, I strongly believe, Quebecers will be called upon to
determine their own future. We will probably have a referendum
within 18 to 24 months and, in due time, this referendum will
generate some debate in this House where, for the first time,
there will be clearly defined positions on both sides. Canadians
will no doubt follow that debate. We will have to approach it in a
very professional way.
I listened carefully to the speech given by my colleague from
Algoma, and I thank him. He mainly spoke of something I also
believe in, something he referred to by using the terms ``people
first''. I would like to ask him a question in this regard. Clearly,
the first role of government and of people in government is to
represent and defend the citizens who elected them.
I believe that the Conservative Party-if you allow me this
political digression-lost the elections when Ms. Campbell said
that she would reform social programs. We know that the
Liberal Party did not make that promise, on the contrary, it
promised to stimulate employment. However, statements by the
Right Hon. Prime Minister lead us to believe that the
government do indeed plan cuts in social programs, either
directly or through cuts in transfer payments to the provinces.
My question to the hon. member for Algoma is this: How can
you say that you put ``people first'' when in actual fact you are
planning cuts in social programs?
[English]
Mr. St. Denis: I would like to thank the hon. member for
Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies for his question and offer my
good wishes on his first intervention.
It is because we are putting people first that we have included
in the throne speech a number of initiatives. It is because we put
people first that we need to look at the social safety net so that it
better serves Canadians. Maybe all of us, certainly I did during
my campaign, have people approach us and talk to us about what
they perceive as abuses to the system and ways to improve it and
make it serve the public better. I am not saying that we have to
make cuts to improve it, but we have to look at what we do. We
always have to renew our contract with each other and consider
the terms of our contracts with the public. If we do not
constantly update and reflect the current situation in our
relationships with others we will lose track of where we are
going.
I have great confidence in the minister of human resources
who is, as members know, now undertaking a review along with
the provinces in consultation with people across this country. I
am very confident. I have faith that changes will be proposed
that will be constructive, acceptable, fiscally responsible and
reflect the realities of today.
174
(1400 )
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to congratulate the hon. member for Algoma on his maiden
speech in this House, but I feel I must comment and set the
record straight on one thing regarding the position of my party
on the bottom line. That position on the bottom line, through you
Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member is people related.
As a small businessman I appreciated the importance of the
bottom line because if I did not have a bottom line my people
lost their jobs. Therefore, as a businessman I was constantly
concerned about the bottom line and how it related to my ability
to employ people and pay fair wages.
The concern of my party is that the government is a business
with a bottom line. Our taxpayers support that bottom line. Our
bottom line is in danger of collapsing and then who will be there
to look after those who are truly in need? We want to save the
social safety nets for those who are truly in need. It is the deficit
and the debt that is the real threat to those social safety nets.
That is the threat to this economy and the creation of jobs. Our
party is dedicated to doing something about that. That is why I
say to all members of the House that our party's position on the
bottom line is very much people related toward the people who
need us most.
Mr. St. Denis: Mr. Speaker, governments are not businesses. I
do not disagree with conducting our affairs in a businesslike
manner. However, one cannot lay off a citizen. One can lay off
an employee from a business but one cannot lay off a citizen.
One cannot tell them to go away because one cannot afford to
provide a certain fundamental and essential service.
When I talk about my concern about a single minded focus on
the deficit as not being people oriented it is in recognition of the
fact that people have to be working to pay the taxes that will
allow the deficit to be managed.
I had this debate numerous times during the campaign. I really
appreciated the other candidates in the campaign. They were
excellent, all of them.
It is a matter of what comes first. It is not a chicken and egg
problem because people must really be working first. If it
requires investment to bring that about then I think we have to
do it. If we have to use bottom line then we have to look at it in
longer terms.
Consider the motion that was put forward about limiting the
expenditures this coming fiscal year. Without thinking that
through I have to question if it is people first or is it just a blind
devotion to the bottom line without that consideration for
people?
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to wish you great success in carrying out
the responsibilities vested in you, at the beginning of the week,
by the parliamentarians of this House.
I am confident that you will discharge these new
responsibilities of yours with a firm yet courteous hand, and
above all with a keen sense of fairness, a sense a fairness which
the veterans of this House did not fail to mention.
Mr. Speaker, tradition has it that on the occasion of our
maiden speech in the House, we are allowed to tell our fellow
members what inspires and motivates us. As the member for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, I will be guided by three principles.
The first one is never to forget that all of us are
parliamentarians, elected by the people, and as such our
behaviour must constantly reflect and be based on the right to
express our diversity.
The second principle deals with the fact that we live in a
representative democracy .
Mr. Speaker, if I can address you today, it is because people
put their trust in me. These people, you will have understood,
are my constituents in Hochelaga-Maisonneuve to whom I
would like to express my deepest appreciation; they can rest
assured that I will defend their interests with all my energy and
enthusiasm.
(1405)
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve is an urban riding, 92 per cent
French speaking, located in east Montreal. It is a typical
working class riding.
I am the son of a labourer and proud of it, and I think this is the
best guarantee for my constituents that I will never let the
government cut social programs, drop its plans for tax reform or
downgrade the extent of our economic problems.
Finally, my third principle arises from what we must conclude
from the last election on October 25, and my conclusion is that
Quebecers rejected the constitutional status quo once and for all.
By electing 54 Bloc Quebecois members, the people of
Quebec rejected a government that attacked the most vulnerable
members of our society. For instance, we had the notorious
measures to reform the unemployment insurance system, when
Canadians saw their benefits reduced from 60 to 57 per cent.
Canada also made dubious history when it became the only
OECD member that does not contribute to a public
unemployment insurance fund.
On October 25, Quebecers chose to support a national
liberation movement. This movement, as you know, is rooted in
the recent and not so recent history of the only French-speaking
people in the Americas.
175
Quebec, as lawyer André Brassard reminded us, is the only
example in the world of a people living within a federation
where 82 per cent of the same population has a territory,
democratic institutions and common aspirations.
The election on October 25 made it clear to the political elites
that the concept of national unity, so dear to Pierre Elliott
Trudeau and his followers, died with the demise of Meech Lake
and the clear rejection of the Charlottetown Accord.
The arrival of a strong contingent of Bloc and Reform
members is eloquent testimony that Canada has entered the era
of regional identities. As these identities mature, Canada will
have to make a thorough review of its institutions. I am firmly
convinced that as a result, Quebec will be able to propose new
forms of political co-operation with English Canada. These new
forms of co-operation will reflect a generous, modern and
effective approach and together they represent sovereignty.
Sovereignty as defined by international public law, that is to say
the power for the State to collect all taxes on its territory, to see
to its own external relations and to enact all the laws that apply
to its citizens.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the Speech
from the Throne read by His Excellency the Governor General
on behalf of the government.
First of all, I would like to take this opportunity to
congratulate the Prime Minister and his cabinet, and wish them
the best of luck in their responsibilities.
Among the positive aspects of the Speech from the Throne, I
would like to mention the commitment of the government to
enhance the credibility of Parliament and insist on integrity and
honesty. This is to the credit of the government.
I cannot but concur with the intention of the Prime Minister to
change the rules of the House of Commons to give Members of
Parliament a greater opportunity to contribute to the
development of public policy and legislation.
However, on the financial side, the Speech from the Throne is
rather disappointing. This is because it is so vague, so nebulous,
because as the philosopher Pascal would have said: ``It is a
speech where the centre is everywhere and the periphery
nowhere.'' It is so conservative that it looks like a commitment
to the status quo.
We would be hard pressed to find any project of significance,
capable of giving some hope to out-of-work Canadians and
Quebecers.
There is no indication that the government is determined to
get out of the rut we are in, to innovate and create the conditions
that should lead us to what is really needed, and that is full
employment.
(1410)
We cannot limit our economic development policy to the
national infrastructure program. Even if that program does
address some of the issues raised by the municipalities, we must
admit that the tripartite financing could create problems since
municipal administrations are tragically short on resources and
provincial governments are not much better off.
What is disturbing is that the national infrastructure program
is likely to create temporary jobs that will only bring
disappointment to workers.
Finally, the Speech from the Throne was totally silent on the
question of tax reform.
For now, let me examine the Speech from the Throne from the
point of view of research and development since my leader has
chosen me as our party's critic in that area.
It is easy enough for me to deal with that issue since there is a
consensus on research and development. I think I can safely say
that all parties in this House recognize that research and
development is a necessity for the future, a pathway to the next
century.
We all know that industries who want to be competitive in the
near future have to invest considerably right now in research and
development.
Why is research and development so important? Simply
because the strength of any economy no longer resides in the
possession, the processing or the transformation of raw
material, as the Minister of Industry indicated this morning.
Competitiveness lies mainly in a worker's ability to master
new production technologies and deliver new goods and
services. This translates into a demand for a more educated and
better trained labour force willing to continuously upgrade their
skills. It is in such a context that the relationship between
competitiveness, training and research takes its full meaning.
Several advisory bodies, in Quebec as well as in Canada,
warned that in the next 10 years, half of all new jobs will require
up to five years of postsecondary education.
The increased significance of research and development will
shape a society in which economic growth will rest first and
foremost on skilled labour.
In the eyes of the Bloc Quebecois members, research and
development is particularly important. If there is an area in
which Quebec has been the poor relation of the federation, in
which Quebec has been systematically discriminated against, it
is in that one.
It is important to remind Quebecers that the federal
government is a main player in that area. For example, in 1990,
the federal government invested around $6 billion in research
and development.
No matter how you look at this issue, disparities are painfully
obvious when it comes to Quebec. One fact is clear, the
176
distribution of research and development expenditures has
constantly been unfair to Quebec and, consequently, has
hampered its future economic development.
This fact is so clear that even Robert Bourassa's former
government had to recognize it on the strength of the now
famous study carried out by the ministry of industry and
commerce, which can hardly be suspected of being a
sovereignist sympathizer.
The great merit of this study performed under Étienne
Grégoire in 1991 is that it assessed the distribution of federal
funds allocated to research and development over the past
decade, using four seldom considered criteria: the size of the
population in each province; federal spending in relation to the
size of the provincial economy; as well as regional support for
research and, last, development and the federal support in that
area as compared to that of each province.
The study shows that over the last decade a mere 18.5 per cent
of research and development funds went to Quebec, while
Ontario got the lion's share, receiving 50 per cent of the funds.
These findings are both disturbing and unacceptable, especially
knowing how pivotal R and D is in societies intent on expanding
their share of the market on the international market.
It is imperative that the Minister of Industry and the Secretary
of State for Science, Research and Development develop
corrective action to put an end to this underfunding affecting
Quebec.
I can assure you that my colleagues and myself will fight
relentlessly to put a stop to such discrimination.
(1415)
Quebecers have invested too much in their development over
the last 20 years to put up with this situation. We will act and be
vigilant to ensure that Quebecers do not tolerate any unfairness
in research and development.
While federal investment in research and development in
Quebec is far from satisfactory, R and D in Canada is also cause
for concern on several fronts as well. First, Canada is one of the
industrialized countries which spends the least on R and D, on
average, a mere 1.44 per cent of its gross domestic product,
while the other OECD countries spend 3 per cent on it. Second,
most Canadian and Quebec companies do little or no research.
Third, Canadian industrial research is concentrated in a few very
limited sectors.
What does the Speech from the Throne offer us in terms of
research and development? Very little, actually, except for a
centre of excellence for women's health, with which we agree.
Nevertheless, in the last election campaign, the Liberal team
and its leader, the present Prime Minister, swore to heaven that
R and D would be a priority in a Liberal government.
These promises did not make it as far as the Speech from the
Throne.
The greatest disappointment of the scientific community is
the government's silence on the Liberal team's commitment to
spend $1 billion in support of research and development. I want
to say it loud and clear: the Official Opposition will not accept
the government shirking its responsibilities in such an important
area as research and development.
The scientific community is concerned, for two reasons: first,
no one in the inner cabinet is responsible for science, research
and development as such. Mr. Speaker, you will tell me that
there is a secretary of state responsible for these issues, but you
will agree that he does not sit in the council of ministers. Will he
be able to influence the government on policy development?
Will he be able to convince the government to invest the billion
dollars promised in the last election? That is very uncertain!
Secondly, will the government allow the main granting
agencies such as the Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council and the Medical Research Council to play their proper
role by stabilizing their resources and giving them a five-year
funding plan? In this regard, I heard about the concern of some
social science researchers following the departure of the former
president of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council, Dr. Paule Leduc. I take the opportunity to thank her for
her services to the scientific community and urge the
government to fill the void left by her departure, in consultation
with the interested agencies.
The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council has a
key role to play in reaching Canada's and Quebec's R and D
objectives. Therefore it wants its funding to continue to come
from the same envelope as the other two granting agencies, thus
showing the public that social science research is also scientific
research.
Rumours have been going around that the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council could be transferred to the
Department of Canadian Heritage. Such a move would disturb
the scientific community in that it would suggest that the social
sciences are closer to culture and the arts than to science.
One sector that must receive particular attention from the
government is biomedical and biological research, especially
since Canada and Quebec have solid experience in this area.
A coalition, the coalition for biomedical and health research,
was created a few weeks ago. This coalition brings together 16
medical schools and 6,000 biomedical and biological
researchers.
177
(1420)
I submit that a novel approach to curbing the growth of health
costs and the deficit would be to invest significant amounts in
biomedical research.
Disease and its accompanying harmful effects create not only
personal hardship but also a financial burden that we must strive
to alleviate.
Did you know that, each year, loss of productivity due to
short-term or permanent disability costs $21 billion to the
Canadian economy?
In order for biomedical and health research to constitute a
viable solution and to help curb health costs significantly, the
Minister of Industry and the Secretary of State for Science,
Research and Development must be urged to take three steps.
First, to restore funding to federal research councils to their
1992 levels. Second, to develop a mechanism to protect R and D
activities carried out in federal laboratories from
government-wide budget cuts. Third, to call a summit
conference bringing together representatives of the stakeholders
in the area of biomedical research and health as well as the
Prime Minister and his ministers responsible for finance,
science, health, human resources and labour to develop an
integrated research and development strategy with a long-term
view to improving Canada's international competitiveness.
These suggestions, which take into account the present state
of government finances, would enable the government to honour
a number of election promises and above all send a strong signal
about this government's commitment to biomedical research.
In closing, I want to reiterate that federal investment in
research and development in Quebec is a great tool afforded this
government to correct the injustices Quebec has been suffering
for much too long already. This is an area where economic
development and constitutional reform are not incompatible. I
hope to have persuaded the hon. members that the horizons of
the Bloc extend way beyond sovereignty, even though this is
indeed our ultimate goal.
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on his
opening remarks. I would like to deal specifically with those
remarks in his speech pertaining to research and development.
I would also like to make a general statement through you, Mr.
Speaker, to members of the Bloc Quebecois. I have been sitting
here listening to their speeches over the last few days. Quite
frankly I am impressed and encouraged because I find many of
the things they are representing and fighting for, with the
exception of independence, are the same things that we and our
constituents are fighting for. If we could somehow get them to
rekindle their spirit toward Canada rather than give up on
Canada, this could probably be a very interesting Parliament.
However we will not try to get that all accomplished in the first
week.
I want to make a point about research and development
funding. Proportionally the amount of funding for R and D in
Quebec and in Ontario is relatively the same. We inherited a
situation where a lot of the cuts were made for us. We are not
going to cry over a mistake that was made in the past. I want to
give an assurance that we on this side of the House are looking
forward to a renewed commitment toward research and
development in all regions of the country with laboratories
because funding is more organized around the labs than on an
across the board basis.
If the member reads the red book closely he will see we have
made a very serious commitment to enhanced research and
development in the up and coming session.
(1425)
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend for
his kind words. From the outset I noted that he was an excellent
parliamentarian and it is a pleasure for me to debate these issues
with him.
I know the Bloc Quebecois is concerned about a number of
issues, including independence, which it will have the
opportunity to address.
However, I disagree with him when he says that
proportionally, Quebec and Ontario receive relatively the same
amount of research and development funding. Moreover, I
would be happy to provide him with some material on this
subject so that we can discuss the matter with full knowledge of
the facts.
Which brings me to the role the Official Opposition will be
called upon to play in the next few years. It will be our job to
make our friends in the government party understand that
sovereignty is first and foremost a form of political
organization, one that is inevitable when one belongs to a
minority.
As for the rest, as a number of members have said in this
House, there is nothing to stop us from sharing the same
interests. My hon. friend will agree with us that States share
interests first, and feelings second. I think we will be able to
demonstrate in this House that as parliamentarians, in areas of
mutual interest, we will not hesitate to recommend associative
formulas.
There have been a number of references to an economic
union. In our program, we speak of sharing the same passport
and of the free flow of goods. There are many areas in which
Canada and Quebec can find common ground as two distinct
nations. Where it hurts, however, is when one is in a minority
position, and that is why the government will be unable to avoid
a proper debate on the Constitution.
178
As Maurice Séguin, a celebrated Quebec historian and the
first of his kind to advocate independence, once said, a nation
must demand the right to take full charge of the development
of its economy, culture and language. And in order to
accomplish this, it needs to have all the political levers
required.
What we are demanding, with magnanimity and an open
mind, is the economic leverage we lack to initiate this
development. I know I can convince my hon. friend that this is
certainly a debate worth getting into.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
Mr. John English (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I too would like to
express my congratulations to the member on his address.
I was particularly interested to hear his references to the
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. They were of
particular interest to me because I had a grant from the council
that I had to give up when I joined this Chamber. I was the first
person to do so since the member for Winnipeg South Centre
gave his up in 1974. Also the remarks about Madam Leduc were
appropriate. She has been an excellent leader of that
organization.
In addition to the possibility of support from the SSHRC in
the province of Quebec there is the possibility of support from
the provincial government which I did not have in the province
of Ontario. In other words, social scientists in Quebec have
more substantial opportunities for funding for their social
science research than do social scientists in Ontario.
Second, having served on juries for the SSHRC, I recall that
the province of Quebec received a proportion that was higher
than the portion of its university population. In terms of the
member's larger remarks about sovereignty, in considering
these questions he should recognize that over the past 25 or 30
years these councils have developed social science research.
The province of Quebec has had an extraordinary amount of
research supported by the SSHRC and the federal government.
Social science research in the province of Quebec has benefited
admirably by this contribution. In a sovereign Quebec it would
be lost.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, I appreciate the
excellent job done by the former chairperson, Dr. Paule Leduc.
(1430)
True, Quebec is particularly active in social studies. There are
historical reasons for that, and I would like to remind the hon.
member that, when we consider such issues, the first criterion to
use is the specific amount of money invested by the government.
But since the accepted proposals have to go through a peer
assessment process, there is a second criterion to take into
account, and that is the number of requests and research
proposals received. My colleague would certainly agree with me
that, historically, in the past, Quebec has submitted more
proposals than a number of provinces.
When we talk about sovereignty, it is not that we do not want
to recognize but first, we have to recognize a significant and
historical event, which I am not afraid to refer to in this House.
The people who were 20 or 30 years old during the fifties felt
freedom in the air, a feeling originating from Ottawa. I can
appreciate that and I know some people who can testify to that
effect, namely Gérard Pelletier and Pierre Elliott Trudeau. A
number of them published articles in Cité libre, a publication
which had a lot of influence on intellectuals. What has changed
today is the fact that Quebec built itself a modern State and
seems capable of handling all the levers and responsibilities
granted to a modern state. That is why sovereignty is supported
by more and more people in our province.
[English]
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James): Mr. Speaker, first
of all I want to congratulate you on your appointment this week.
It is an appointment much deserved. I am sure that the good
people of Stormont-Dundas are very proud of you.
I also want to offer my sincere congratulations to my good
friend and colleague and now former room-mate who was
elected Speaker this week. It is a great honour. I know that he
will serve us and the whole country very well.
Over the past five years I have come to know the Speaker well.
I can tell Canadians with utmost certainty that he is kind, decent
and a man of great integrity. We parliamentarians would do well
to emulate our new Speaker. I will do everything in my capacity
to do that.
I also want to thank the people of Winnipeg St. James for
electing me to my second term. It is indeed an honour to
represent the people of Winnipeg St. James. I promise to
continue to do my best to represent their best interests.
It is a privilege to participate in this debate. Before I get on to
the economy, which is the number one priority for this new
government, I want to talk about restoring integrity to
government which is a preoccupation of the Prime Minister.
Over the past 10 years Canadians came to believe that they
could not trust their government any more. In fact, it spilled
over to include almost all politicians. Canadians thought that
they could not trust anyone any more. They saw sleaze
everywhere. Sometimes they saw sleaze when none existed.
People were in the grips of cynicism. Such was the mood of
Canadians. They were distrustful and cranky and they used the
last election to make a point: ``Mess around with me and mess
around with my country and you're gone, you're history''. The
people across the way, the Bloc Quebecois, would be very clever
to take note of that.
179
That explains, at least in part, why there are so many new
faces in this the 35th Parliament, over 200 new MPs, an
unprecedented number.
The message we Liberals received, one which we have
already acted upon, is that Canadians want a government they
can respect, a government of integrity, a government that works
with Canadians not against them, a government that says what it
means and means what it says and, in these difficult times, they
want a government that is lean but, as the Prime Minister has
pointed out and as the seconder to the throne speech pointed out,
not mean. That can be done. A compassionate government can
make difficult financial decisions. I think that the government
has made a good start in that regard. We understand that people
do not want a big spending, pompous government. They want
one which is down to earth. They want practical managers who
are careful with the public purse.
(1435)
Examples of such careful decisions were the cancellation of
the Pearson airport contract, cuts in government departments
and staff, and the Prime Minister's services such as the sale of
the so-called Mulroney air force 1 aircraft or the bulletproof
Cadillac and the proposed reforms to the House of Commons
budget and procedures where we will see a significant reduction
in the services offered to members of Parliament.
I am enthusiastic about our government's promise to delegate
more power to opposition MPs in standing committees in
influencing public policy and determining legislation.
These actions all highlight the characteristics of our
government, frugality, rationality and openness which we
solidly stood for during the election campaign. These are some
of the things that reflect the style of this new government, a
government that wants to earn the respect and trust of
Canadians.
If this is done, and I am confident that the government is well
on its way to that goal, Canadians will I believe be more
understanding of the difficult decisions which are bound to
come. I think the electorate has already responded positively to
the messages and signals that we have set out.
I have taken note of some of the letters I have received and I
want to read into the record a few of the comments made by
constituents in letters to me.
``Mr. Chrétien is an honest man and I am sure he will work for
the people in Canada to the best of his ability''. Jean Cutting
from St. James.
Joyce Chapman of St. James writes: ``I am impressed with Mr.
Chrétien. I have a feeling he is an honest man. What a difference
from King Brian''.
There are more letters. ``I do not know what is involved in the
job of the Prime Minister but it seems to me that he has a frugal
nature that will extend to all of his work,'' writes Cathy McLean
of St. James.
Here is one from Carey and Christine Lee of my riding: ``So
far the Liberals have shown that you don't need all the bells and
whistles that the Tories had to run a government. I hope it stays
that way. Keep up the good work''.
Those are just some of the comments made by constituents.
You can tell they are listening and watching, as they should.
Let us hope that the days of bad mouthing everything the
government tries to do are gone for good. We have had enough of
the neo-Conservative nonsense that government is essentially
bad, that it is an enemy of the people.
Over the period of Thatcher, Reagan, and Mulroney we were
told that the government should just get out of the way and leave
most big decisions to the marketplace. I can say that I have the
utmost respect for the marketplace and, yes, government is far
from perfect. The neo-Conservative approach to government
certainly proved that. But in a democracy, Sir, there is a major
role for government. It can lead. It can act as a partner. It can
work toward equality and justice for all and it can be a unifying
force for good.
The Prime Minister understands that perhaps better than any
person in this country. Instead of dismissing government as
ineffectual this Prime Minister is committed to making
government work better for all Canadians.
Specifically we were given the mandate to turn the economy
around. Our main objective as stated so often during the
campaign and in the red book is to create jobs. We were
committed to that through the throne speech and we will
continue to be so in the upcoming budget.
Canadians want the opportunity to work. Our focus on
developing opportunities for small and medium sized
businesses by improving access to capital such as the Canada
Investment Fund to help high technology firms means better
employment prospects.
The tripartite infrastructure program has already been
welcomed by politicians at all levels of government and the
public in general. The reintroduction of the Residential
Rehabilitation Assistance Program and the establishment of the
Youth Service Corps will give young people and others who
have limited opportunities a chance for a good livelihood and
prosperity.
180
Through partnerships, streamlining and improved accessibility
to capital our Canadian economy will bounce back with much
needed job opportunities.
(1440)
We have already heard criticism on our policy on the deficit
and the debt. The hon. member for Calgary Southwest
apparently did not hear alarm bells go off during the throne
speech debate on Tuesday with regard to the deficit and the debt.
I would suggest that the hon. leader of the Reform Party check
his hearing. The throne speech did mention the importance of
deficit reduction. Let me just quote a couple of the sentences in
the throne speech: ``The budget will be tabled in February and
will include measures to bring the federal debt and deficit under
control in a means that is compatible with putting Canadians
back to work''. The throne speech continued: ``The government
will work with the provinces to ensure that our shared fiscal
challenge is dealt with co-operatively and creatively''. I think
that is pretty clear.
The throne speech did mention the importance of deficit
reduction. That is why we proposed a prudent balance to the
economy as mentioned in the red book. Members can be sure
that the budget will reflect that.
As the Prime Minister so clearly pointed out yesterday the
best way to control the deficit is through job creation. It creates
revenues and thus lessens the need for cutbacks to important
government services.
Let us not hear any more talk about the government not being
serious about the deficit and the debt. Instead of rhetoric and
corny analogies the opposition should offer alternatives and
ideas.
I am excited about the government restating its commitment
to a national forum on health. I find a touch of irony here that the
hon. Leader of the Opposition should come out in defence of
medicare and social programs. On this issue we agree. However
this is the same man who wishes to take the province of Quebec
out of Confederation. Let us try to understand the situation. He
wants to save our most cherished social program which brings
Canadians together, but at the same time would rather forsake it
to break up the country. I do not believe that the people of
Quebec see it that way. I cannot envisage a Canada without
medicare and I cannot see Canada without Quebec.
The government is completely committed to maintaining
medicare and the social safety net. Admittedly there are
problems with the system and we in the Liberal Party have been
long concerned by the situation, not just since becoming
government. How better a way for Canadians to influence the
future of health care in this country than through a national
forum. We have agencies and ordinary citizens who may come
together with federal and provincial politicians to strengthen,
not weaken, universal health care. Not only is medicare a way to
cover service costs, but it is available to all, not just the rich. The
only qualifier for our health care system is that one be a
Canadian resident. We pledge to keep this inherent right for all
Canadians in the future.
I cannot forget the riding and the province which I am
privileged to represent in this House. Growth in the Manitoba
economy in the last 10 years has been well below the national
average. My good friend from Winnipeg South has done
research on this and has made that case forcefully, not only here
in Ottawa but in the Manitoba legislature when he served the
people of the provincial constituency of Osborne so well. He
showed graphically with strong evidence that Manitoba when it
comes to its own economy, compared to the economies of other
provinces, has not kept up to the national pace, if I can put it that
way.
We now have 12 government MPs from the province of
Manitoba and as the chair of the Manitoba Liberal caucus I am
confident that this fine group of experienced and some rookie
members will work together as a team. I can assure the House
that we are all Canadians first and foremost.
(1445)
As we say though, we believe Manitoba should have a just
share of the nation's prosperity. We have an excellent senior
minister in the hon. Minister for Human Resources and Western
Economic Diversification. He knows the province of Manitoba
as well as he knows the back of his hand. His assurances of
economic growth in our province give me optimism for the near
future.
Manitoba will benefit in the short term through the
infrastructure program, a $68.3 million investment by the
federal government and over 10,000 direct and indirect jobs. We
have also heard of a revamped core area initiative with a wider
scope. This means good news on the horizon for all the people in
Winnipeg and not just those in the downtown area.
In my riding a vibrant aerospace industry exists. Part of this
industry took a serious hit when the helicopter contract was
cancelled. Our party made very clear during the election
campaign our intention to revoke approval of this deal because
of its enormous costs. The Prime Minister carried through on
that promise just days after the election.
While layoffs brought all of us pain, especially to the workers
involved, I still believe there is a strong future for aerospace in
Winnipeg-St. James. Our government I am sure will do
everything to make this happen. We have taken a leap of faith in
our defence conversion program which proposes to adapt
aerospace technology to civilian projects. With the right policy
we will see more, not fewer, jobs coming to the province of
Manitoba.
181
I also consider the Winnipeg International Airport a
constituent of sorts. As a regular stop for several domestic and
international airlines the Winnipeg International Airport can
become a major centre for air cargo facilities. Studies prove
that Winnipeg is in an ideal location, at the heart not only of
North America but between western Europe and the Pacific rim.
Government and the private sector are now working to create
what is called an intermodal transportation service at the
Winnipeg International Airport. I can see no reason why it
cannot become a world class facility worth billions of dollars
and hundreds of jobs for Winnipeg and Manitoba. I believe our
government will be committed to supporting this initiative.
While I am on the subject of the Winnipeg International
Airport and before I close I would like to voice concerns relating
to the proposed privatization of the airport. The previous Tory
government introduced a plan toward privatization but that plan
has been put on hold by the new government pending a review. I
think that is prudent on the part of the new government because
the plan as proposed by the Tories raises many questions.
I would like to bring to the attention of this House the Auditor
General's report on this matter. The report warns that
privatization could cost taxpayers millions of dollars. In fact the
Auditor General states that at Montreal, Calgary and Edmonton,
airports which were recently privatized, revenues are much
lower than forecast. That shortfall could mean another hit on the
taxpayer or it could mean slapping user fees on air travellers.
Air travellers through Vancouver airport are familiar with such
user fees and I can say that they do not like them.
Therefore, airport privatization, at least Tory style
privatization raises concerns and a government review of how
that is to be carried out is very much in order. Over and above
cost concerns I have a concern about accountability or perhaps
more precisely, a lack of accountability. That accountability as
proposed by the previous government amounted to little more
than the printing of an annual report and holding a public
meeting once a year. To me that is not accountability.
If we are going to have a local airport authority to run the
Winnipeg International Airport, and I am not opposed to this
change in principle, there must be transparency and openness.
Business cannot be done behind closed doors. Business plans
proposed by such an authority that have a substantial impact on
air travellers, people, or business around the airport or the
airport itself should be scrutinized publicly. Such an authority
should manage the airport on a sound business basis. However,
the airport should make room on its board for people
representing air travellers, labour and the public at large.
(1450)
This government promises greater accountability. That
accountability starts here in Ottawa, but it must extend right
across the country and include all institutions of government.
The Winnipeg airport is a public facility and it must be managed
accordingly.
This approach fits in with the style of this government, a
government committed to openness and whose Prime Minister
is committed to restoring integrity to government.
In closing I would like to say that we face some daunting
problems, repair of the economy and overhaul of social
programs to name just a couple, and things cannot be turned
around over night. I believe that if we offer good honest
government, and I think we will, Canadians will give us the time
needed to get the job done. The throne speech shows that that job
has already begun.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, since this
is my first speech in the House, I would like to take this
opportunity to convey my congratulations to you as my hon.
colleagues have done.
Before I put my questions to the hon. member for Winnipeg
St. James, I would like to focus in on some remarks he made to
the effect that the Bloc Quebecois and its leader wanted to break
up this beautiful country. In my opinion, this is not only a
pejorative, but also an inaccurate statement. I would like to draw
his attention to several historic footnotes to this debate.
First, there was the Act of Union which, in my estimation,
may have been the beginning of the emergence of the two
solitudes. As we know, Upper and Lower Canada were united in
1840. Lower Canada came out on the losing end since at the
time, it had a much more effective and efficient administration
than did Upper Canada. The situation was unfair from the
beginning.
I will not review the events of the past 200 years, since it
would only bring me to cite examples of the way Quebec has
been treated by English Canada. Specifically, in the case of the
Meech Lake agreement which set out five minimum conditions
for bringing Quebec back into the constitutional fold, English
Canada was unable to accept these conditions and these were
just our minimum demands.
Charlottetown ultimately signalled the end of this debate and
for one very simple reason. English Canada as a whole rejected
the Charlottetown accord, claiming that Quebec was asking for
too much and that the accord was slanted in its favour. Quebec
rejected the accord for exactly the opposite reason. Our goal is
definitely not to break up the country. It is to build a nation that
would work side by side with Canada, share the same economic
space and viability.
182
I would like my hon. colleagues to think of our objective as
being not to break up the country, but rather to complement it
on our terms.
Now then, as far as the economy is concerned, I fail to see how
the Liberal Party can resolve the problem of the deficit which
will hit $45 billion this year, tackle the national debt which just
surpassed $500 billion and create jobs without touching social
programs. This would seem to me to be a Herculean task, one
that I personally think is impossible to accomplish. Therefore,
as we can already see, there are some glitches in the throne
speech which lead one to believe that this government says one
thing, but when the time comes to follow through, it will find
that it cannot.
Does the hon. member for Winnipeg St. James agree that a
parliamentary committee should be set up to look at ways of
resolving the country's economic problems? This is the course
of action we are advocating. Why not make this a priority, sit
down together and review each budget item separately? And
everybody knows that the bureaucracy must be streamlined. So,
let us start there before embarking on a crusade against social
programs, which is what could well happen now. I would like the
hon. member to answer a question. Would it not be better to have
an all-party joint parliamentary committee instead of a red book
or a throne speech which is only wishful thinking?
(1455)
[English]
Mr. Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
comments. I will try to answer his questions as best as I can.
In so far as this Parliament examining the kinds of issues that
he raised and wants examined, of course we are in favour of that.
The committees will be up and running in the next few days and
they are going to be working very hard.
The Prime Minister has already pointed out when it comes to
tax matters, especially the GST, the finance committee will be
given instructions to do a very thorough job. The finance
committee will also be taking into consideration not only the
budget that will be brought down next month but future budgets
as well.
I say very sincerely to the hon. member from the Bloc that
there will be plenty of opportunity at the committee level to
discuss all the issues that weigh so heavily on his mind.
Let me respond for a moment to his remarks about his leader
not being a man who wants to take Quebec out of Canada. As far
as I know, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois calls himself a
sovereignist.
My definition of sovereignty is a country that is sovereign,
separate from another country. It seems to me when a party
leader says he wants to establish a country that is sovereign, that
is a country which is separate and apart from Canada. As far as I
know the province of Quebec, which is a terrific province and
one that is as good as any other province in this country, is still
not a separate country.
Let us not try to treat this as some kind of semantic argument.
This is a political problem and a political issue. No fancy
dancing with semantics will change it. What we are talking
about here is a faction in this House that wants to break up the
country.
If the Péquistes in Quebec win the next provincial election
and if, God forbid, they win the referendum as they promise to
do, does anyone think that these ladies and gentlemen who call
themselves the Bloc will be sitting around here representing the
best interests of Canada? Not on your life.
Let us put a stop to this talk about semantics. One more thing.
The hon. member tries to misquote the Prime Minister when he
said that the Prime Minister was indicating that we were going
to solve all our economic problems and revamp our social
programs in the coming year. Nobody ever said that.
When it comes to government and politics, a year is a very
short period of time. In fact, one never completely solves all
economic problems and one never completely solves all social
problems. This is an ongoing thing.
We have promised to tackle these problems head on. We are
going to make some changes. We are going to create jobs. We are
going to turn this economy around, but it will not be overnight
and it will not happen in one year.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, I will try
to be brief.
As you know, my name is Jean-Guy Chrétien and I am
referring to the letters read earlier by the hon. member for
Winnipeg St. James. I wonder if the hon. member could tell me
why the right hon. Prime Minister is so unpopular in Quebec,
and so well-liked outside that province. The primary problem
which I encountered in my riding during the six weeks of the
election campaign was my surname. People would say: ``Your
name is going to work against you. Some will think that they are
voting for Jean Chrétien, the leader of the Liberal Party.'' Much
to my surprise, the name of the party on the ballot was written in
very small characters.
(1500)
An hon. member: You only have two minutes left.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): I only have two minutes left. Mr.
Speaker, perhaps the hon. member for Winnipeg St. James could
use that time to try to explain to us, Quebecers, why the
popularity of our Prime Minister varies so much?
183
[English]
Mr. Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I do not pretend to be an expert on
Quebec politics but I can tell you one thing. I do not know what
his definition of popularity is but I did check the voting results
in the riding where the right hon. Prime Minister serves and he
won with an overwhelming majority. I think that in his riding he
is a very popular politician. I will make this prediction. After
four to five years of his prime ministership not only will he be
exceedingly popular in his own riding but he will be exceedingly
popular right across the province of Quebec.
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon): Mr. Speaker, I
will be succinct in my question but I cannot respond with any
degree of authority for my colleague who is going to give the
answer as to brevity.
I first wanted just to rise and compliment my colleague from
the riding of Winnipeg-St. James for the excellent presentation
that he has just given this House with respect to comments on his
speech from the throne. I wanted to do that because of the very
strong relationship and love between the people in his riding and
all ridings in Manitoba and those of us in northwestern Ontario
in the centre of this great country of ours. We have always felt
that. What happens basically in Manitoba and in the city of
Winnipeg and what happens in Thunder Bay and northwestern
Ontario is that we both feel each other's reverberations. There is
a jointness and a oneness there that we share from the centre of
Canada.
Let me make this comment. I will try to be succinct. From the
interventions that we heard and the remarks my colleague made
there are so many things that they both talked about that bring us
together: the grain business is vital to Manitoba and Quebec; the
aerospace industry is vital to Manitoba and to the future of
Quebec; the transportation industry and the local airport
authority which Dorval and Mirabel have already implemented
and which the city of Winnipeg is on the threshold of
implementing brings us together. There are other areas of
mutual interest that they both spoke about that lead us to being
together in this country. I just wanted to compliment my
colleague and my friends on the other side. There are many
issues that should bring us together.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to begin by adding my congratulations to those which
have already been expressed to the Speaker of this House on his
election to a post of great trust and responsibility. I hope my
words will not be taken as a mere formality because they are
most sincerely meant.
Members of this House chose their Speaker in a free and
democratic vote. We hope it will be the first of many free and
democratic votes in this Parliament. I believe their vote was a
clear indication of members' confidence in the Speaker and his
ability to preside over this Chamber fairly and effectively.
I also congratulate the right hon. Prime Minister and members
opposite on being given the opportunity to form the government
of this great country as well as all members here for earning the
confidence of fellow citizens in their home ridings.
(1505 )
Voters in the riding of Calgary North have allowed me the
great privilege of representing them in the Parliament of their
country. I want to take the opportunity of my first speech in the
House of Commons to once again express to the citizens of
Calgary North sincere thanks for the confidence they have
placed in me and in the Reform program which I intend to work
for as I work for them.
Other members will be interested to know that the riding of
Calgary North has the largest population of any of the 26 Alberta
ridings. New residential areas are continually being built in
Calgary North and our people are forward looking, dynamic and
working hard to build sound futures for themselves, their
families and their communities.
It has been my pleasure to meet and talk with many of them in
recent months and I am determined to do my very best to provide
the competent and trustworthy representation they want and
deserve.
In the many hours I have spent talking with Canadians in
Calgary North I have heard two messages loud and clear. One is
a real concern and growing anxiety about the mismanagement of
this country's finances. The people of Calgary North like most
Canadians do understand that there is a connection between the
enormous amounts of debt which successive governments have
run up and the difficulty people are having in finding stable jobs
with good incomes.
Excessive government spending has led to more and higher
taxes. Taxes are like weeds in a garden. Let too many grow and
pretty soon there is not enough soil left to grow flowers.
The second message is the focus of my own reply today to the
speech from the throne. It is this. Canadians have a profound and
disturbing distrust for the institutions of government and for
politicians in general. It is no secret how this has happened.
Politicians tell us they will do certain things. They do something
different.
We try to tell politicians what we want them to do. They do not
listen. Yet it is our money they are spending and it is our future
they are deciding.
That is why I together with many other Canadians in Calgary
North and elsewhere applaud the statement in the speech from
the throne which reads:
The government is committed to enhancing the credibility of Parliament.
Changes will be proposed to the rules of the House of Commons to provide
members of Parliament with a greater opportunity to contribute to the
development of public policy and legislation.
184
I would like to inform the government and the members in
this House that the people in Calgary North would be all for
this. They want and are prepared to contribute to the
development of public policy and legislation through me as
their elected representative. In fact since the election they have
been working with me to set up mechanisms which will
genuinely allow me to inform, consult with, and be advised by
constituents.
Less than a month following the election over 300 people
packed a school gym in my riding for our first constituency
meeting to discuss how this could best be done. Out of this
meeting and through subsequent consultations have and will
come many excellent recommendations. We will hold regular
public constituency meetings to discuss key issues and
legislation which come before this House.
Constituents have requested regular communications about
what is happening here and they want to know how government
activities will affect their lives. They want their say on major
legislation and that is why we are designing ways to get their
input before I come here to vote.
In early March we will discuss the federal budget at a public
constituency meeting. The people will tell me which budget
initiatives they support, which do not carry their judgment and
where this is so what alternatives they would recommend. This
is a constructive approach and one which the people of Calgary
North believe is consistent with the principles of representative
democracy which this House has been entrusted to uphold and to
practise.
(1510 )
Calgary North constituents are also able to participate in
question period by sending questions they want asked of the
government to the fax line and voice mail number installed in
our Reform parliamentary office. People are demanding that the
parliamentary process must be opened up and made more
relevant to the real needs of Canadians.
Believe me, they will be watching. They are watching these
proceedings and the highlights of the daily question period on
the nightly news to see if the decorum and attitude in this place
will truly change.
When Canadians watch television they expect to see the body
checking, cheering and jeering left to Hockey Night in Canada,
but when they watch Parliament they want to see us put the puck
in the net. They want and look to us to work together to find real
answers to real problems facing this country.
The decisions taken in this House must reflect the will of the
people of Canada expressed through their legitimate
representatives and not just the will of a small group of
ministers and bureaucrats who advise them. Government
proposals must be tested and balanced by the people themselves.
In this 35th Parliament I believe the courage to demonstrate
faith in the democratic system by making this possible would
prove to be justified. It is clear not only to myself as a new
member but to all members that there now exists an
unprecedented and genuine desire in this House for new
directions and new approaches.
I sincerely believe that we want this Parliament to operate for
the people of this country by consulting them meaningfully and
by seeking direction from them. I and the Canadians I represent
are willing and waiting to see whether the good intentions which
have been expressed in the speech from the throne to enhance
the credibility of Parliament will be implemented and whether
the words will be matched by the deeds.
I would appeal to this government to allow members of
Parliament to do the job we came here to do. I hope it will not
allow our reports and recommendations to this House and to the
government to gather dust on some shelf. I would ask that all
members be allowed to vote freely in consultation with the
people they were elected to speak for. We want this House to
operate in such a way as to provide us with the opportunity to
make a real difference and to carry out the wishes of our
constituents.
I conclude by affirming to the people of Calgary North my
sincere intention to represent to the best of my ability their
interests, concerns and aspirations for themselves and for their
country.
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
congratulate the hon. member on her speech. It was very well
presented with some very good ideas.
I just wanted to comment that in fact many of the ideas that
she suggested certainly have been used by my colleagues in the
Liberal Party. I know in talking with many of the members that
they have used faxes for a number of years to connect with their
constituents. In talking to others they have effectively used
householders to communicate new and innovative ideas with
members of their ridings.
For myself, I have had a forum on finance already as the
member is suggesting she is going to do in her riding. It has been
very effective and very useful. I think many of the things that the
hon. member is talking about are in fact things that are done by
individual members and they do not require specific legislation.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): On a point of order, the
hon. member for Richelieu.
[Translation]
Mr. Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a problem.
We cannot hear the interpreter.
Oh, it seems to have been solved now. My apologies, Mr.
Speaker.
185
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The member for
Richelieu is raising a point that the translation was not working,
so I will give the floor back to the member for Brant.
Mrs. Stewart (Brant): Mr. Speaker, what I would like to say
to the hon. member is that her suggestions are very good. I think
some of them are not necessarily new. Perhaps they felt out in
the wilderness in the west because they have not been
represented by Liberals in the very recent and in the long term.
(1515 )
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the kind remarks of
the hon. member for Brant whom I have met and hope to get to
know better. Her remarks underscore the fact that there is a
genuine and possibly unprecedented desire in Parliament for
new directions and for doing things differently. Members are
very much determined to consult their constituents and to
represent them truly.
That is the point at which we have some question marks, or at
least I do as a new member. It is all very well to consult with
constituents, talk to them, to have meetings and to hear what
they have to say. However if we come back here and we are told
how to vote, what is the point? Their input does not mean
anything.
When our constituents tell us they want us to represent them
and voice their desires and concerns because they are paying us
to do so since they cannot be here, we have to be free to do that.
We cannot have our parties telling us: ``You cannot vote that
way. We have decided to do something different''.
That is the reform we must have in the House and that is what
we are going to keep working for. We have to support that
together. If not just our particular caucus but all members have
the drive and determination to achieve that, it will turn this
House upside down and make it truly a House of the people
which it was meant to be.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): There is one minute
remaining in the five minute question and comment period. I
will allow one short question and, hopefully, the answer will be
equally short.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Speaker, first of
all, I would like to congratulate and thank my hon. colleague
from Calgary North for her speech. Listening to our colleagues
from the Reform Party, I note an underlying concern having to
do with members gaining the ability to make a greater
contribution as well as reducing government spending and
generally putting government finances in order. We must, I
think, salute the sense of initiative and determination of the
Reform Party in that area.
However, I am somewhat surprised to hear them go on and on
about the need to put government finances in order, after having
heard yesterday the hon. member for Calgary Southwest blame
the Bloc Quebecois for bringing up the constitutional issue a
number of times in this place. The speakers who spoke after him
asked questions dealing with various issues, like free votes, free
trade-which reflected the obsessive fear you can often find in
English Canada on that subject-and self-government, but very
few questions relating specifically to government finances and
fiscal consolidation.
Of course, I would like to press on with this issue. So much so
that I will ask my hon. colleague from Calgary North if the
Reform Party would consider supporting the proposal the Bloc
Quebecois put forward several weeks or months ago to strike a
special committee to examine, item by item, all the tax and
budget expenditures of the federal government.
I would be interested in hearing what my colleague from
Calgary North has to say on that. This would allow us, in fact, to
know better where to make cuts, so that social programs and
those intended to provide assistance to the poor would not be
such easy targets.
Can our hon. colleagues from the Reform Party tell us
whether or not it would be possible to set up a parliamentary
committee to go over all government tax and budget
expenditures, item by item?
[English]
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, that does not sound like a set up
for a one-minute answer.
In answer to my colleague's question I would say that Reform
certainly would be very open to anything that could help the
government get its spending under control. I believe many
people in Quebec voted against the past government very much
because they rejected the fiscal policies and mismanagement
that have practically ruined not only the province of Quebec but
our entire country.
We have to get a grip on that. I think as members we have a
mandate to do that. Our people want us to do that. We would be
very happy to co-operate with and support anything that would
assist in doing that.
(1520)
On what we would cut back, I would commend to my
colleague a study of the program we put forward during the
election called our zero and three plan to balance the federal
budget over a three-year period of Parliament. It would be
interesting for the member to know-and a lot of people do not
know it-that our plan balances the federal budget while
preserving funding for important social programs like health
care, education and pensions for people who need pensions.
186
A lot of people are not aware that is something that has been
done, with figures attached. We have been promoting such a
program during the election and will continue to promote it.
We know that Canadians put the highest priority on social
programs like health care and education. Our program to
balance spending does not jeopardize those programs. In fact
it ensures, we believe, that those programs will be sustained
into the foreseeable future for when I am older and need most
of them and many Canadians are in the same boat.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment
as a deputy speaker. I also want to take this opportunity to
congratulate the Speaker on his election to that office. While
this position has been a challenge over the years, the
unprecedented number of new members in this 35th Parliament
may provide the most difficult challenge of all.
As one of the new members I will do my best to learn the rules
as quickly as possible and in so doing make both our jobs a little
easier. Under your guidance, Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope the
House will enjoy the same harmonious relationship that exists in
the Ontario caucus of my party.
My congratulations go out to all members on their election or
re-election to this new Parliament. From the number of new
members it would appear that being re-elected was a much more
difficult task, so a special bouquet goes to those members.
To those who voted for me in my riding of Simcoe Centre, I
want to say how much I appreciate the honour and the
opportunity to represent them in this House. The trust my
constituents have placed in me will not rest lightly on my
shoulders as I work hard to be deserving of that honour.
A special thanks also goes to my wife and my family for their
love, support and hard work on my campaign.
I have always regarded my riding of Simcoe Centre as
grassroots Ontario with a good mix of industry, tourism and
farming. It has been said that as Simcoe Centre goes so goes
most of Ontario.
My riding is named for the first Lieutenant-Governor of
Upper Canada, John Graves Simcoe, and like the governor the
riding has played an important role in the development of this
province and this nation.
The agricultural community in Simcoe Centre has been a
mainstay of the local economy since the land was first opened up
in the early 1800s. Towns have gained prominence such as
Alliston, Ontario's potato capital. Alliston is also famous as the
home of Nobel prize winner Sir Frederick Banting,
co-discoverer of insulin.
As a place to work and play, Simcoe Centre offers a quality of
life that is second to none. Hundreds of thousands of people
come to visit each year, to shop and dine as they enjoy both
skiing and cottaging in the region. Between the shores of the
world's largest fresh water beach in Wasaga and beautiful Lake
Simcoe we offer outstanding year-round recreation and leisure
activities.
My riding also includes Canada's largest military training
base, Base Borden, which has played an important role in the
defence of this country since World War I.
I would be remiss if I did not speak about my own city of
Barrie which is central to my riding and is the largest city. Barrie
enjoys its location around the tip of Kempenfelt Bay. Its
manufacturing base and service economy are prime examples of
what the hard work and entrepreneurship of Barrie residents can
produce.
Being situated just an hour's drive north of Toronto, one of the
world's truly great cities, we can enjoy the best of both worlds in
Simcoe Centre.
When I made the decision to seek office I was certainly aware
of the low image of politicians held by many Canadian people.
However as I went door to door I was surprised and shocked at
how deeply these feelings were held. Voter after voter
complained that politicians had lost touch with them, were only
hearing what they wanted to hear, and were not to be trusted. Far
too often I heard this comment: ``I will not be voting. You are all
the same''. To me that hurt more than any other response.
(1525)
In addition to the cynicism and lack of trust, the main issues
within Simcoe Centre were the never ending and ever increasing
tax burden as well as the economy and job creation. Simcoe
Centre and indeed all of Canada is on the verge of a tax revolt.
The huge underground economy is evidence of how close we
are.
As a youngster I was told there were only two sure things in
life: death and taxes. Little did I know then that one was going to
cause the other. Unless we are going to get government spending
under control we will never eliminate the deficit so that we can
offer Canadians tax relief.
Deficits and debt are the most serious issues we face. All
others are pale by comparison. Indeed the answer to job
creation, stimulating the economy and saving our social safety
nets, is directly tied to the solution of this problem.
I campaigned very hard on this issue and was disappointed the
throne speech contained no plans for substantial reductions in
government spending. Many times I have been asked why I
chose to seek office. There are two words that best describe my
desire and conviction to come to Ottawa. They are Jessica and
Nicholas, my grandchildren. The realization that I have been
part of a generation that had lived beyond our means and was
now leaving a huge debt on their shoulders did not sit well with
me. I had to run for office and try to do something about it.
187
The decisions we make in this 35th Parliament will not
greatly impact on our lives, but they will influence
tremendously the Canada our children and grandchildren
inherit.
One of the most encouraging points in the speech from the
throne was the commitment to parliamentary reform. Trust is a
two-way street. If we are to earn it from our constituents we
must be prepared to place a level of trust in them.
Canadians have said very clearly they want more voice in the
decisions affecting their lives. The Citizens' Forum on Canada's
Future chaired by Mr. Spicer listened to 400,000 Canadians as
well as another 300,000 Canadian elementary and secondary
school students.
One of the strongest messages the forum received was that
Canadian people had lost faith in their political leaders. They
did not feel their governments, especially at the federal level,
reflected the will of the people. They did not feel that they had
the means at that moment to correct it. Many of the participants
were prepared to support substantial change of the political
system if they would result in a responsive and responsible
political process and in responsive and responsible political
leaders. The forum cost the Canadian taxpayers about $27
million. However, if we can change and respond to this message,
it will be a bargain.
If there is a constant in today's world, it is change. After 48
years of Tory representation Simcoe Centre voted for change. I
thank it for that. With the improvements in communications and
technology changes are occurring within an ever shrinking
timeframe. Many of us are reluctant to change but change we
must. This Parliament must examine new approaches to the way
existing institutions and procedures are used. Changes must be
made so that members can be made more responsive to their
constituents and more responsible in the exercise of their
judgment.
The time to look at these things differently has never been
more important or opportune. With over 200 new members we
have a window of opportunity for parliamentary reform that
must be taken advantage of. There should be changes such as
amending the Canada Elections Act to eliminate clauses that
place members of Parliament in a position beholden to their
national party executive or party leaders rather than their
constituents.
We should amend the MPs' oath of office such that they swear
a fundamental allegiance to their constituents as well as to the
Queen. We should place restrictions and limitations on the
number and types of orders in council permitted by a
government during its term in office. In the interim my caucus
will strive to make parliamentary committees effective in
reviewing any regulations before implementation.
We should insist all laws that apply to individuals in the
private sector should apply equally to the Government of
Canada, its personnel, its agencies and Parliament. On Monday
the Hon. Gilbert Parent in his acceptance speech indicated the
comfort he felt in the comments made during the past weeks
about restoring dignity and respect in the House. Doing things
differently, civility and parliamentary reform are words that I
have heard and give me hope that the will exists to bring about
change.
(1530)
In closing I will again make reference to the Spicer
commission report. The final paragraph in the report was not a
quote from Mr. Spicer or one of his commissioners. These are
the words of one of the citizens who participated and I quote:
``No hyperbole or political hedge can screen any member of any
legislature who thwarts the will of the people on this matter. The
voters are watching and waiting''.
The previous government ignored this message at its peril. I
trust and hope this 35th Parliament will not make the same
mistake.
Mr. John English (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I want to
congratulate the member for Simcoe Centre for his excellent
address. Like him when I campaigned in my constituency I did
hear those kinds of remarks about politicians.
However, there is a larger problem with the question of
representation that he is talking about. In the House of
Commons over the last few days we saw the example of a
question from a constituent that was sent in to the hon. member
for Calgary Southwest. This person was a doctor. It seems this
method of gaining public opinion, replying on a fax which you
pay for and secretaries in some cases when you can afford it,
illustrates the kinds of difficulties faced with making
democracy more representative. The previous speaker from the
Reform Party related the same difficulties.
We have heard questions from the Reform Party about reform
of RRSPs. I recall reading recently in the newspaper that only
four out of ten Canadians use RRSPs and there is certainly a role
for government if that is the case. Only about 20 per cent of
Canadians make the maximum contribution allowance to
RRSPs.
When I was canvassing in my constituency I encountered
people who were in opposition to the gun control legislation. I
make these comments with respect because it is a broader
question for all of us who are seeking to represent our
constituents. These people said they were joining the Reform
Party because they were told to do so by their local executive.
All of these things strike me as a real problem with the
member's definition of what representative democracy is. I
believe it was the Prime Minister who said that you are the
grandchildren of
188
the Social Credit movement. The Social Credit movement
raised these questions in the province of Alberta many years ago
and it did not follow through with them despite three decades of
government.
How can you ensure that those who are not wealthy and those
who do not represent special interests and those who do not have
access to fax machines can be heard as well as the people we
have heard from before.
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for Kitchener for his question. I do not think I indicated
in my speech that solving the problem of representing
constituents was an easy one. It is not and there is no member of
my party who is confused about that.
I feel that what has happened in the past is that governments
have responded to the special interest groups. They are the ones
who have had the ear of government to a larger degree. Average
Canadians, the ones who are paying the bills, are the ones who
have not been heard from. It is incumbent on me and I believe
my party members share this feeling that we must go out into our
ridings with town hall meetings, meet the people, talk to the
people but more importantly to listen to the people about what
they have to say about what is going on in this place, what we are
talking about and the decisions that are being made. That is the
challenge that faces me. I am going to meet that challenge
because when I go back to my riding I am going to maintain that
contact with the people.
I believe that is the main factor that caused the upheaval we
experienced in this House after this past election. The people
who sat here had lost touch with their constituents and the result
is what we have here today. We want to make sure that we do not
lose that contact, that we keep in touch with the average
Canadian and not be heavily influenced by those special interest
groups that have captivated our ear.
(1535 )
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker, let
me join in congratulating the hon. member for Simcoe Centre on
his maiden speech and on his election to the House. He was the
only member as we know to resist the Liberal juggernaut in
Ontario and he is therefore extra due for congratulations.
I share one thing with the hon. member. Simcoe is the
birthplace of Sir Frederick Banting and London is known as the
city where he began to do his important work at the University of
Western Ontario.
That leads me to my question for the hon. member. The
Reform Party is very concerned with deficit reduction as indeed
all members of this House are or should be. In the campaign it
became clear to me that the Reform Party proposals on the
health care plan for Canada would give too much leeway to the
provinces, that in fact in the name of deficit reduction it would
threaten the universality of our health care program. I have yet
to hear that adequately explained by a member of his party.
I give the hon. member the opportunity now and I ask through
you, Mr. Speaker, how they can ensure that when provinces are
given such leeway to decide what health care would be like in
their provinces that does not in fact jeopardize in an insidious
way the universality of the health care system of which all
Canadians are so proud.
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for his compliments on my election. I am considered
the green dot in a sea of red. It was the subject of much media
attention to see what this giant killer looked like. They were
some shocked when they found I was only five-foot-four.
To deal with the question, health care in this country is in
grave peril. Our position is that the system must be saved. Our
provinces have the constitutional responsibility for health care.
When we brought in health care the federal government was
supporting the provinces on a 50-50 cost-sharing basis. That
position has declined to the point where I think it is something
like 30 per cent coming from the federal government and is
heading in an even lower direction to the point where the federal
government in a few years time will no longer be participating in
a cost-sharing plan for health care.
By virtue of that mere fact it will end up with the provinces
having that responsibility which I and my party members feel is
properly their responsibility. They are the ones who are closest
to the people in delivering health care. They are the ones who
will ultimately answer to the voters on the job that they do in
running the health care system. We think the responsibility
properly belongs there.
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's): Mr. Speaker,
it has been a marvellous week and this kinder, gentler House is
soothing. It is absolutely soothing. I am hearing rumblings
among the old boys and girls that it is not like it used to be. I
admit I used to love having a spar or two with John Crosbie from
St. John's West and we are going to miss fellows like Crosbie,
but we are also going to miss people like Bernie Valcourt and
Michael Wilson. You know there are some things you do not
mind missing.
I am proud to stand as I have done either here or in the
legislature in St. John's for the past 20 years and represent the
people of the south coast of Newfoundland and since 1988 a
chunk of the west coast of Newfoundland as well with the
expansion of the riding that is now Burin-St. George's.
189
Let me tell you about those people. There is George Sam
Fudge, a fisherman in his forties from a community called
François, a community of 150 people, who until a year or so
ago when I last spoke to him personally had never in his 30
years of fishing drawn a cent of unemployment insurance.
There is at least one Newfoundlander out there who is not on
UI 42 weeks a year.
There is Minnie White who was here in Ottawa a few weeks
ago to receive the Order of Canada because she is one of the best
accordion players in Canada and is making quite a contribution
to preserving the Irish tradition in Newfoundland from her
community of Tompkins.
There is Misel Joe, a proud Micmac in his late thirties, who
has been both chief and spiritual leader of his Micmac band at
Conne River in my riding. There is Lisa Cheeseman who is for
the moment in Kingston, in the riding of my colleague, the hon.
member for Kingston and the Islands, at the Royal Military
College, but who before that was at the Collège militaire royal
de Saint-Jean where she had taken second place in her
engineering class there.
(1540)
[Translation]
There is Tommy LaFitte who is 103 years old and whose
father came from France. Tommy, his son and I celebrated his
100th birthday at the SkyDome in Toronto.
[English]
Yes, these are the people for whose voice I am here, these and
86,000 others in 158 communities stretched along 1,500 miles
of rugged coastline.
I am, as I have been for 20 years, their man in Ottawa. I am not
Ottawa's man in Burin-St. George's. I have not come here to
blindly support government policies, but rather to help craft
policies which will help my people in Burin-St. George's and
to oppose those which do not help them. That is why I support
the extension of custodial management beyond the 200-mile
limit to preserve our fisheries, but it is equally why I oppose
with everything in me the GST.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, as you can see, I represent
franco-Newfoundlanders. There are three small villages on the
Port au Port peninsula: Grand'terre, l'Anse-aux-Canards and
Cape St. George where people protect their tradition, their
culture and the language of their Acadian ancestors who came to
Newfoundland following the 1755 deportation. Furthermore,
many others decided to stay in my riding when they came off
French ships during the last century.
[English]
Yes, the Micmacs are there also and the Scots came and the
Irish, the Welsh and the English so that today Burin-St.
George's is one of the more culturally diverse areas of eastern
Canada.
[Translation]
I was not born a Canadian. In 1948, my parents requested
voted to become Canadians. My country was Newfoundland and
it still is Newfoundland. But these days, it is also Canada. The
people of Newfoundland did renounce their independence 45
years ago, not at all; they just adopted a larger independence.
[English]
That larger independence will stand us in good stead not far
from now when Canada takes over custodial management
beyond the 200-mile limit of our fish stocks.
Who in his or her right mind would ever suggest that the
dominion of Newfoundland, the republic of Newfoundland and
Labrador could have ever hoped to have tackled alone the entire
world on that important issue?
[Translation]
Independence and no more semantics. I say this to my Bloc
Quebecois colleagues. I also want to say something else to the
Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues, particularly the
member for Richelieu, the member for Saint-Hubert and some
others who were here during the last session and who surely
remember what I said in this House two years ago, and I quote:
[English]
``I will vote for a motion any day that runs this crowd clean
out of this place once and for good. I will go for that motion
because they do not belong here.''
[Translation]
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I said that. But I was wrong, very wrong. In
fact, during the election campaign, I was offended from time to
time with some people suggesting that the Bloc candidates did
not have a right to sit in the Parliament of Canada. That
suggestion is ridiculous and even insulting. Those people
wanted to deny others what they were claiming as having the
right to do. The day that we start considering some viewpoints as
acceptable or unacceptable in this Parliament, we will be
imposing limits on democracy.
(1545)
[English]
There are only three requirements to get here: We have to be
18 years of age, and good Lord most of us look 18 to me; we have
to be a Canadian citizen; and we have to get ourselves elected.
Those are the only three requirements to get here. Nobody looks
behind and says: ``The member for Simcoe Centre, now what
does he represent? No that is not acceptable. What does the
member for Nanaimo-Cowichan represent? Oh, that is
acceptable''. We do not do it that way. We say: ``You are 18, you
are a
190
Canadian and you got yourself elected. Come on in''. You get
past the bar if you satisfy those three requirements. That is how I
got here. That is how the NDP got here and even a couple of
Tories made it here that way. How democratic can we get? Why
should it be any different for the Bloc?
My new friend from Simcoe Centre voiced his
disappointment here yesterday over the focus during
Wednesday's sitting on the issue of constitutional matters. I
have to tell the member that I share his view on that. The
constitutional future of Quebec, I say to my friends in the Bloc
and also to my friends on this side particularly my friends from
Quebec, is a crucial subject, but it is not going to be resolved in
this Chamber.
Parliament has no mandate to arbitrarily decide the future of a
province. Imagine the uproar there would be if the government
leader stood up one day and put down a motion to talk about the
future of Saskatchewan or New Brunswick without having
consulted the people most directly affected, the people of that
particular province. Surely it is the people of that province who
must decide.
I say this kindly but I say it firmly and with conviction, those
who insist on pursuing the Quebec debate here do a disservice to
the people who sent them here. I trust Quebecers to make the
right decision when the time comes. The time is not now and the
place is not here.
I have a lot of new-found friends and I do not know what to do
with them all. My new-found friend, the leader of the Reform
Party, the gentleman from Calgary Southwest, said that the
credibility of Parliament would be enhanced by the institution of
genuinely free votes. He is right. I have to check with my
colleagues because I am up here agreeing with two Reformers in
a row and I am about to be run out of here. However, he is right.
It is too late on a Friday afternoon, I say to the member for
Winnipeg St. James, to take him on. It is too late. I am in too
charitable a mood. I am trying to get psyched up for Sunday.
I agree with the leader of the Reform Party. This place does
need free votes. This place does need a bit of a shaking up. It is
in that context that I believe the Reform caucus, together with
the 199 people who are here for the first time, are a breath of
fresh air around here because there are enough of the old guys
and girls to keep what is good from the past but not enough to
block some change and we need some change.
I want to say just a word of caution as it relates to the issue of
the concept of free votes. Do not oversell the idea and do not get
carried away because it is not the panacea that it looks like at
first glance. Let us not inadvertently mislead the public on the
issue that free votes somehow will suddenly double their
paycheques, lower their taxes and solve all their other problems.
It is not that simple. Hear me out for a moment.
(1550)
Even if we embrace immediately the concept of free votes, I
give you notice now, Mr. Speaker, that in the overwhelming
majority of cases I intend to vote with my caucus. I will tell you
why. I submit that so will the member for Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia. I submit that so will the gentleman from
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. I submit that so will people from
other parties. Why? It is for a very good reason. It has nothing to
do with being sheep. It has nothing to do with being servile putty
in the hands of relentless party leaders who will not bridge
dissent.
If I support a government measure perhaps to spend money on
a youth service corps or to cut defence spending, both policies of
our government, both of which I support but I throw them in as
examples, it will be because I have had a hand in crafting those
policies in my caucus.
I assume that when the Reform stood yesterday en masse
without exception and voted for the subamendment it was not
because they were a bunch of sheep. It was because they had
consulted each other on that issue. More to the point, they were
carrying a pretty strong mandate from their electors on that
matter.
Therefore you can get your jollies out of talking about free
votes all you want and I will too-and I want some free
votes-but do not let anybody think, suggest or mislead the
public on the idea that somehow everybody is going to be voting
all over the place every day of the week. If that is the case, this
country is not going to be well served. We would have to wait for
this Chamber to have a meeting of 295 minds. It is better to have
Wednesday morning meetings of 52 minds in one room, 54 in
another room, 177 in a third room, 9 in a fourth room and the
other 2 in a telephone booth. For my hon. friend from Beauce, of
course all he needs is a fair-sized mirror.
Then when one gets a good consensus after it is fought out in
that caucus room, come here and let us take a vote on it. If
someone does not like what the caucus is doing, stand up and
have a free vote. If five of us do not like what the other 172 are
saying, stand up. That is a free vote. We did it in this caucus and I
can name names but will not. Two of them are still members of
this caucus and the other is not here because he elected not to run
again.
We had the situation a year or so ago on gun control. Three of
our members stood up in this House and opposed the party
position on gun control. We were supporting the government
measure for tighter gun control, the government being the
Conservative government. All but three of us supported that
legislation. Three of our people opposed it. Two of them
continue to be in the caucus and the other would have, had he
decided to run and got elected.
191
The government of the day led by a fellow, Mulroney-that
is his name. He had two people, one of whom is now the Deputy
Speaker of this Chamber and the other who was the member
for Calgary Northeast. What happened to them when they voted
against the GST? They not only had a free vote, they got a free
ride right out of their caucus the same day.
We will in the overwhelming majority of cases be voting with
our parties, not because we are sheep but because we have
hammered out our compromises behind closed doors.
I will get suspicious if I see a free voter voting free too often. I
will say to myself: Can he not convince his colleagues of
anything? Is he a lone ranger? Has he no clout in his own
caucus? Does he have to come here and vote his own way all the
time? Why is he not back in his caucus room convincing his own
caucus of the rightness of his ways? That is what the caucus
system is all about.
(1555 )
Yes, we will have free votes, but will it become the order of
the day. I cannot see why it would. As a Canadian let alone as a
politician I think it would be a fairly messy way to do business.
We did not get here by our good looks. One or two of us did
maybe. The people of Canada did not take us as individuals.
They embraced the Liberal message in one riding. They
embraced the Bloc message in another riding and the Reform
message in another. Each of our parties had very specific
platforms. And now for someone to stand up and say that has all
gone out the window and that from now on we are going to be
real free around here. Real free. Remember that mandate you got
back there in so and so riding? Forget that buddy, just be free.
Some of us understand that any freedom attaches to it
responsibility. If I exercise my freedom when I stand and vote
for cuts in defence spending, I will be having a free vote. Just
because another 176 members happen to be of the same mind on
that free vote is not my problem. I will be voting because I
believe in it. I will be voting because that is what my
constituents told me to do. Now that is about as free as you can
get. Free does not have to mean being alone. If you want me to be
an isolationist I will pick some ``comma'' legislation some day
and stand up against the government just to show that I am a free
spirit. But who have I helped? How have I helped my
constituents with that bit of grandstanding?
The people of Canada want us to do the right thing and if we
carry this free vote thing to its conclusion, what we ought to do
is what the gentleman from Beauce did. All 295 of us should go
out and get elected without a party label. But Canadian people
like choices now. They like to say that here is what the Liberals
stand for, here is what the Bloc stands for and here is what the
Tories stand for. I think we will take those. I cannot willy-nilly
having gone through that process say: ``Okay people of Canada,
thanks now forget it because I am going to be my own man''.
Finally, in my last minute or so let me deal directly with the
amendment put forward by the Leader of the Opposition
together with the subamendment of the leader of the third party.
Both of them are well-intended I am sure. I will not read the
wording because I see my time is running out. But you all know
the wording. You had better because you voted on it. Both asked
me, I say with candour but deference, to say that I have no
interest in putting public finances on a more sound footing. That
is not true. I do have an interest.
Therefore why do they ask me to vote a lie? Why do they ask
everybody on this side to vote a lie on that particular issue?
Surely the wording of these motions are classic examples of
what is wrong with this place. That clever use of well chosen
verbiage in the hope of creating one-upmanship in the hope of
sucking somebody in to get him to vote for something he does
not believe in. That is what is wrong with this place. Oh, that
clever use of verbiage.
I was a bit disappointed that it came from the leader of the
Reform party and the leader of the Bloc. That they would ask us
to say that we have no interest. Mea culpa, mea culpa. I have a
great interest in seeing that public finances are put on a sound
footing.
Did the framers of those two amendments honestly believe for
one minute, for one millisecond, that nobody on this side, not
one single soul of the 177 including the crowd over there in the
Siberian rump on the other side, not one of us is concerned about
the state of the country's finances? Does anyone in the Reform
Party believe that for a second? What an insult to 176 people.
(1600)
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to thank the member for Burin-St. George's for his brilliant
speech. I would also like to tell him that the province of
Newfoundland-he will remember for sure when he reads his
history books-joined the Confederation in 1949.
We will recall that the citizens of that province voted in more
than one referendum before joining Canada in the late 1940s.
Would the hon. member from Newfoundland not agree that,
conversely, Quebecers can vote for their full sovereignty, in a
second referendum, according to the democratic rules that
prevail in Canada and in this Parliament?
If the citizens of Newfoundland were able to join the
Canadian federation freely, why would it not be possible for
Quebecers to withdraw from it freely? That is the essence of the
democracy that exists in this country and millions of people
around the world envy us for that.
192
Being a democrat, the member for Burin-St. George's
should agree with the Opposition and abide by the Quebecers'
ultimate decision.
Mr. Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for La
Prairie for his question. In fact, that is precisely what I said in
my speech. I said that the decision will be made by Quebec
voters and I also said that it should not be made in this place. I
am convinced that the time has almost come for Quebecers to
examine that question. I cannot agree more.
As to his reference to the referenda-there were two in
Newfoundland, in 1948-my father and my mother took a
decision they believed to be right. I do not dispute the fact that if
the various areas of a province can decide one way, they also
have the power and the right to decide another way. This is what
I said; I said people in Quebec will decide, not the citizens of the
whole of Canada.
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval-Est): Mr. Speaker, following
consultations with my colleagues on the government side and in
the Reform Party, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to
allow the hon. member for Bellechasse to give his speech in
response to the Speech from the Throne.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous
consent to authorize the hon. member for Bellechasse to deliver
his speech in full?
[English]
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Speaker, if the House is adjourned at the
conclusion of the hon. member's allotted time then given the
new era of co-operation in the House we would be in agreement
with that suggestion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse): Mr. Speaker, allow
me, as is the custom, to congratulate you and all the others who
will sit in the Chair and play such an important role in this
House. I have been here just a few days, but I can already
appreciate the tact and the competence of the Chair.
(1605)
I especially want to thank the hon. member for Burin-St.
George's for his eloquent speech on the right to
self-determination. The member is himself from a nation, in
fact the only nation to do so in this country, which has freely and
voluntarily decided, through a referendum held in 1948, to join
the Canadian federation. If a referendum is the process used to
join the Canadian federation, it is now clearly established that a
referendum is also the proper way to create a sovereign State.
Since the House started sitting, I have not been surprised by
the fact that our Liberal friends across the floor keep referring to
their red book. This book was their election platform and they
won a majority of seats by referring to it. As well, I am not
surprised when I hear my friends from the Reform Party talk
about changes, even cuts-we are not yet dealing with the
details regarding social programs-and talk about reforming the
voting process or adopting a different approach regarding
ministerial responsibility. Indeed, this comes as no surprise
since the Reform Party's campaign was based on that theme.
Therefore, why should you be surprised to see a Bloc Quebecois
member, who campaigned on the sovereignty of Quebec, come
in this House and talk about Quebec's sovereignty? We were
elected to do just that. It is our raison d'être. It is the mandate of
our party to defend and promote Quebec's sovereignty, a
sovereignty which is not directed against anybody but, rather,
which is premised on the self-determination of our nation in
order to be able to treat on an equal basis with any other nation,
including our Canadian friends and neighbours, who are of
course particularly close to us geographically, but more
importantly because of our common past which has promoted
the development of such strong friendships over decades and
even centuries.
We asked ourselves the question raised by the hon. member
for Papineau-Saint-Michel who said: ``But who speaks on
behalf of Quebec?'' I disagree with a lot of comments made by
the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel, but it is true that
this question will have to be answered.
The hon. member for Burin-St. George's said earlier that
this is not the place to decide over Quebec's sovereignty. I agree
with him. The decision will not be taken here; it will be taken in
Quebec, by Quebecers, who will be asked to vote on the issue
following a debate which we hope will be as open and as
enlightening as possible. So, we need to hold a referendum to
settle once and for all the issue of the legitimate right to speak of
Quebec, because Quebec never was a truly sovereign state,
unlike the Dominion of Newfoundland, which, before 1949, was
as independent as the Dominion of Canada.
Without going back to ancient times to establish the rights of
aboriginal people, we know that Canada existed before 1867.
We can describe the institutions which have made Canada what
it is today. I will touch briefly on some of the events.
Our first very own institution was set up in 1663 and was
called the Sovereign Council of New France. Of course, this
council emanated directly from the French monarchy, an
absolute monarchy which did not stand for any division of
power with a Parliament.
193
(1610)
We were governed by the Council for nearly a century. Until
September 1759, we were subject to the authority of the
Sovereign Council of New France, and as we know from our
history books, then came the battle of the Plains of Abraham.
One party's victory was the other's defeat, so that the victory by
General Wolfe on the Plains of Abraham ushered in a British
military government.
For four years we lived quite peacefully under the authority of
a military government. Historians do not mention any rebellion.
The ``Canadiens'', today's Quebecers, although in the majority,
tolerated and accepted this British military presence.
The war between Britain and France ended in 1763, when by
royal proclamation, Canada was ceded for all time, if there is
such a thing in this world, to Great Britain.
The proclamation of 1763 vested authority in a British
governor appointed by His Gracious Majesty, the King or Queen
of Great Britain. Without parliamentary institutions, Quebecers
became subject to British private and public law.
In 1774, the Quebec Act entitled us to the restoration of our
civil law and to certain parts of British criminal law, which have
expanded over the years. This was probably the most enduring
legacy of the British: the principles of British criminal law,
criminal procedures, habeas corpus and trial-by-jury, which we
did not have under the French regime. This is a legacy we intend
to preserve in a sovereign Quebec, Mr. Speaker.
Around 1778-80, Americans who had remained loyal to the
British Crown left the American republic and came to Canada.
Some settled in New Brunswick, others in the eastern townships
in Quebec and some Loyalists emigrated to Upper Canada,
today's Ontario.
Subsequently, Loyalists in Canada decided to ask Canada, the
Parliament in Westminster and the British government for the
same institutions they had in the American colonies. Parliament
and the British government were in a poor position to refuse
their loyal subjects, who had often given up land and property to
come and settle here, to refuse them these institutions.
But so as not to put the minority, which was then
English-speaking, under the French speaking majority, Canada
was divided in two, Upper Canada and Lower Canada, with a
legislative assembly for each part that was elected by the people.
This was the first time that we had a legislative assembly
directly controlled by the people and answerable only to the
people. What a fine step in our historical progress!
Neverthless, at that time we did not have ministerial
accountability as it had existed in Great Britain since the 1750s
or thereabouts. The governor still held most of the powers and
there was also the legislative council, which he appointed and
which could object to measures coming from the legislative
assembly.
Problems arose fairly quickly. In the 1820s, conflicts between
the governor, the legislative assembly and the legislative
council easily degenerated. As we sadly remember, these led to
the events of 1837, the Patriots' Rebellion, when twelve of our
people were hanged following a trial by a court martial
composed of fifteen members, none of whom was French
speaking.
This was a far cry from trial by jury. Those people were
hanged under the Durham government and the special council of
1837.
(1615)
After studying the situation, Lord Durham, as his mandate
from the British government required, submitted a report saying
that in order to assimilate the Canadian nation, today's
Quebecers, the British government should pass a law merging
the two Canadas.
Although we had some 150,000 to 200,000 more people, the
Union Act of 1840 gave equal representation to both parts.
Moreover, the Constitution of 1840 said that English was to be
the only official language. There were no provisions regarding
ministerial responsibility. We would get that in 1848, at the
same time as the repeal of the constitutional provisions banning
the use of French.
We now come to 1855, the year of reversal. This is a date we
should never forget. That was the year that English speaking
people outnumbered French speaking people for the first time.
What happened then? As soon as English speaking people
realized they were in a majority they asked for proportional
representation. From 1855 on, and increasingly until 1867, they
were asking for what was refused to the ``Canadiens'', today's
Quebecers, in 1840. The demand was so pressing that, in 1867,
the parties agreed on what I call a compromise based on a
misunderstanding.
On one side was Sir John A. Macdonald, who wanted a
legislative union of all provinces of British North America, with
a single Parliament. On the other side, representing the Quebec
way of seeing the issue, was Sir George-Étienne Cartier who
wanted strong, autonomous provincial governments sovereign
in their field of jurisdiction, a fact acknowledged in 1883 by the
British Privy Council in its decision respecting the Hodge v.
Regina case.
This compromise based on a misunderstanding resulted in a
single document, then known as the British North America Act,
and now as the Constitution Act of 1867.
It so happens that to reconcile two visions so diametrically
opposite it became necessary to play around with sections of the
Constitution so that people would be on opposite sides. It is no
wonder that the courts are constantly being asked to give their
interpretation of the Constitution. Indeed, the Constitution
cannot reconcile black and white, cannot say yes and no in the
same breath.
194
Every time a province is granted a power, somehow,
somewhere another section gives the federal government more
power. The judicial power is a case in point.
Under subsection 92(14) of the British North America Act,
1867, the constitution of provincial courts, both of civil and of
criminal jurisdiction, is a provincial responsibility; it is very
clear. However, if you read beyond section 92, you will see with
great surprise that under section 96, the Judges of the Superior
Courts, of criminal and even of civil jurisdiction, are appointed
by the Governor General. A province can set up a court, even a
superior court, but cannot appoint the judges to that court.
They even took further precautions since, in 1867, we did not
have a Supreme Court. Appeals were launched directly from
provincial appeal courts to the Privy Council in Great Britain.
As a further precaution, section 101 of the British North
America Act gave the Parliament of Canada sole power for the
constitution of a general court of appeal for Canada, without the
consent of the provinces. A few years later, in 1875, the
Supreme Court of Canada was constituted; the judges there are
appointed by the governor in council, without having to consult
the provinces.
Which led one of our former Quebec premiers, the hon.
Maurice Duplessis, to say that in view of the way judges were
appointed to the Supreme Court, it was akin to the tower of Pisa
as it was almost always leaning towards the same side.
A referendum was never held, despite the repeated calls for
one by the Leader of the Opposition at the time, Antoine-Aimé
Dorion, who also happened to be a Liberal. Over and over he
introduced motions calling for a popular referendum to ratify
the agreement reached by the Fathers of Confederation, but such
a referendum was never held. Newfoundland and Labrador were
the only ones to hold a popular referendum on the issue. Soon
there will be a referendum in Quebec. Events will run their
course and we are betting the Quebecers will make the mature
decision. The fact of the matter is that we have been excluded
from the process since 1981 when this House asked the
Parliament of Westminster to amend the Constitution without
Quebec's consent and in fact over the virtually unanimous
objections of the National Assembly.
(1620)
Of course, we had reached an impasse at the time. The 1980
referendum had failed to give the Quebec government a mandate
to negotiate sovereignty.
On the other hand, the Prime Minister who had been elected in
1984 promised at the time to do everything he could to bring
Quebec into the federation and to make it possible for it to ratify
the 1981 and 1982 agreements with honour and dignity. For
some, this was the last chance. All of the Bloc members are
sovereignists, but we did not all follow the same path to get here.
Some of us were members of the RIN, the Rassemblement pour
l'indépendance nationale back in the sixties, while others
became sovereignists following the failure of Charlottetown.
They saw that the minimum conditions set out by Mr.
Bourassa-and we know the meaning of the word ``minimum''
when it comes from Mr. Bourassa's mouth-really amounted to
very little. Some came to it on October 26, 1993, when they saw
that it was no longer possible to renew this country and that the
time had come to make a choice, as the hon. Leader of the
Opposition and some of our colleagues mentioned the other day.
The time has come to choose between the status quo as we know
it, since there will be no further amendments to the Constitution,
and an opening to the world, a willingness to consider all
possible arrangements, including and mainly, of course,
arrangements with Canada, since we have already so many
things in common.
We cannot afford to miss this historical opportunity, because
for our generation and probably the next, it is the last chance. It
is somewhat like a spacecraft that has to be put back in orbit or to
get back to Earth: if it misses its window of opportunity, it might
have to orbit a long time before getting another one.
So we have to work very hard in Quebec as well as here in this
House, where we belong of course. And here I digress for a
moment to say that I was asked recently in a survey whether I
sing ``O Canada''. But of course I do, for this anthem was the
work of Calixa Lavallée and Basile Routhier, referring to the
French version of ``O Canada''. Read in French, it is the national
anthem of Quebec. The English version is something entirely
different. We used to sing ``O Canada'' when our friends
opposite were singing ``God Save the King'' or ``God Save the
Queen''. There is a gap between the two versions, through
nobody's fault though. We followed parallel courses, each
people created its own destiny.
Whether we decide to become sovereign, whether we now
want boundaries, because we feel that our territory has been
encroached upon a bit too much, that will not keep us from being
good friends. Boundaries with your neighbor do not necessarily
make an enemy of him. When the hedge is put in, you know the
limits of your territory, you know when you must give and take
and when you can do whatever you like within the limits of
decency and acceptability in a free and democratic society.
195
Therefore, it is to this great gathering that I am inviting
Quebecers, the referendum gathering that will soon take place,
the first step being the Quebec election where, in all likelihood,
a sovereignist government will be elected in Quebec City, and
then, a provincial referendum that will be, we are all hoping in
this side of the House, in favour of Quebec sovereignty, but in
keeping the friendship of Canadians from anywhere in Canada.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 4.25 o'clock p.m.
this House stands adjourned until Monday next at eleven o'clock
a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 4.25 p.m.)