CONTENTS
Wednesday, January 19, 1994
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 18
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 20
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 21
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 21
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 21
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 21
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 21
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 22
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 22
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 22
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 23
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 23
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 24
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 24
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 25
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 25
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 25
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 25
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 25
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 26
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 26
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 27
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 28
Motion of Mr. Bouchard 40
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 41
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 54
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 58
17
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, January 19, 1994
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
[
English]
The Speaker: Order, please. I have the honour to lay upon the
table the report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of
Commons for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1993.
[Translation]
I remind hon. members that, under Standing Order 108(3)(e),
this report is deemed to have been permanently referred to the
Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
[English]
It being two o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to
Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.
May I say a few words, more to give my colleagues
information than anything else. I met earlier with the whips and
through their negotiations and after discussions with me it was
decided that we are to operate on a certain pattern for the next
few days while negotiations are continued with the whips and
the House leaders.
With regard to Standing Order 31 statements it has been
agreed that we are to begin this way: We will have nine
interventions by the government, three by the Official
Opposition, three by the Reform Party, and we will work in the
independents as we go along. This will be brought forth a little
bit later.
As for the question period, at least for the next few days-
An hon. member: Order.
The Speaker: I thought the House was going to be raucous; it
is the gallery I have to worry about now. We are going to get that
cleared up.
(1405)
For the next few days we are to follow, subject to negotiation
with the whips and the House leaders, an arrangement on which
we will come to a decision with regard to the layout of the
question period.
With that in mind, I am going to conduct question period on
the basis of what we set up for this kind of situation in the last
Parliament. We will go from here.
_____________________________________________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):
Mr. Speaker, I welcome you and all members of the House to a
great job with many descriptions.
Today as Canadians we have many great challenges facing us,
which also means that we have many great opportunities. Let us
be very mindful that it is our responsibility to tackle the
challenges of today with the same dedication, determination,
courage and foresight as those early pioneers who developed
this great country God has given to us as a gift.
On behalf of all Canadians it is up to us to build a human
infrastructure into our nation in the form of human bridges of
understanding among regions of the country, bridges between
suffering and comfort, bridges between unemployment and
employment, bridges among cultures based on a proud but
humble Canadian spirit.
As Pearl McInnis said: ``I have no yesterdays. Time took them
away. Tomorrow may not be but I have today''. Let us work
toward a greater Canada and a better world. Welcome to these
new challenges.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Speaker, speaking
on my own behalf and on behalf of the Official Opposition, I
18
wish to extend my sincere condolences to the families in Los
Angeles who recently suffered the loss of a loved one.
Upon seeing the damage caused by the earthquake, we
realized the extent of the disaster and what a terrible experience
it must have been for the people in the area.
These are trying times for the people of Los Angeles, and we
deeply sympathize with their suffering as a result of this ordeal.
However, we know they will show much courage in the face of
adversity.
A number of us have relatives or friends living in Los
Angeles, and we therefore urge the Canadian government to do
whatever is necessary to ensure the safety of Canadians and
Quebecers who are still there and give them any support they
may require to overcome this calamity.
* * *
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
rise before you today with a great deal of pride and apprehension
and a deep sense of duty, honour and responsibility.
My statement echoes the statement of my colleague
preceding. I would ask that all members of the House recognize
the suffering that has gone on in Los Angeles with our
neighbours to the south.
* * *
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, the
United Nations has proclaimed 1994 the International Year of
the Family.
Communities and organizations including governments
around the world are planning activities this year to recognize
the importance of the family today.
The UN refers to the family as a basic unit of society which is
appreciated for its fundamental role in the building of a society
as well as for the important socioeconomic functions that it
performs.
In spite of the many challenges it has undergone, the family
continues to provide the natural framework for the emotional,
financial and material support essential to the growth of its
members, particularly children, and for the care of other
dependents including the elderly, the disabled and the infirm.
[Translation]
The family continues to play an important role in preserving
and promoting the cultural values we all cherish.
The family teaches, trains and motivates its members, and
contributes to the progress of our society.
(1410)
I am proud of what is being done by the government to
improve those structures the family needs, and there was proof
of further progress in the Throne Speech yesterday.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough): Mr. Speaker, let us start
1994 with an example of Canadians already solving problems of
the 21st century.
Labotix Automation has a new plant in Peterborough to make
robot-like equipment for testing medical, agricultural and
environmental samples.
The Canadians in this Canadian company are addressing
concerns we have about AIDS, our national blood supply,
environmental pollution and the cost of medicare. Their
technology allows the sampling of all kinds of fluids. They are
showing how we can compete in the global market by putting
this quality Peterborough product into 80 nations. They are also
showing how to create jobs and train young Canadians. Their
success is based on the talents of young Canadian engineers,
technologists and computer people.
In Peterborough, Canadians are facing the next century with
confidence.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies): Mr.
Speaker, as the press revealed last week, in Canadian amateur
sport-and I am referring to Team Canada, this country's
national hockey team which will defend Canada's honour in
Lillehammer-Quebecers are once again suffering
discrimination as a result of racial prejudice and stereotyping.
On behalf of all Quebecers and all Canadians, I demand that
the government take specific steps to put an end to this
discrimination so that all Quebecers, like everybody else, will
have a chance to be on the team.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, in
response to the Reform caucus report on parliamentary pay,
perks and pensions, the government has advanced a plan to
reduce certain benefits on Parliament Hill. The Gagliano report
is a commendable first step that will save the taxpayers of
Canada some significant dollars and will be supported on this
side of the House.
19
However there are significant actions that still must be taken.
Let me indicate two. Each member of Parliament continues to
receive a tax-free, non-receiptable expense allowance starting
at $21,300 a year. This must be reformed. Also taxpayers are
insisting on real, comprehensive reform to MPs' and senators'
pensions, not tinkering.
Canadians are demanding reductions to taxpayers'
contributions that are at least $10 million in excess per year by
private sector standards and a benefit structure that has created
actuarial liabilities of nearly $200 million.
The taxpayers will be watching and we will be watching.
* * *
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester): Mr.
Speaker, IMP Aerospace Components Ltd., a manufacturing
plant in Amherst, Nova Scotia, is on strike. Since World War II,
Amherst Aerospace has been a long-time and valued employer
in the community, employing more than 150 people in the
manufacture of aerospace components.
The dispute between management and union is very complex
and is escalating daily since talks broke off in mid-December.
IMP's new facility was officially opened only last year with
the help of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money both
federally and provincially.
I implore management to return to the bargaining table as
quickly as possible and offer my assistance to end this strike
which is causing hardship and mistrust in the lives of the people
of Amherst.
* * *
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge): Mr. Speaker, on October 25,
1993 I was honoured to be elected by the people of Cambridge,
North Dumfries and south Kitchener in the federal riding of
Cambridge. What makes this election special to me is that I am
the first Croatian-born Canadian to be elected to the House of
Commons.
(1415)
In 1968 I came to this country in search of better opportunity,
a better life. I found it here. For that I am grateful and thankful to
Canada and the Canadian people.
As a Croatian I am a brother to all people and as a Canadian I
am a big brother to all people.
Vive le Canada. Long live Canada. Zivila Canada.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
address a matter of great concern to all our small and medium
sized business sectors in Durham and indeed in all of Canada.
These sectors have contributed between 75 per cent and 83 per
cent of all new employment growth in the immediate past. In
addition a preponderance of our economy is controlled from
outside our borders.
I suggest that through incentives and support for small and
medium sized businesses in areas of new technologies that
Canadians can gain control of their economy. We must create
new sources of capital, and I would point to the existence of a
great capital base of pension funds and other savings vehicles as
good sources of long-term capital which could underpin
long-term growth in our economy.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Mr. Speaker, as the member for
Lévis, I welcome this opportunity to inform the members of this
House of the alarming situation at the MIL Davie shipyards.
At the beginning of 1993, there were 3,500 employees, and
now there are only 2,400 left. Since lay-offs are taking place at a
rate of one hundred a week, the number of employees may drop
to 500 in a matter of months. If nothing is done pretty soon, this
will mean an economic loss of $600 million for the Quebec City
area.
The company has prepared a plan for conversion from
military to civilian business, but MIL Davie needs contracts to
cover the transition to competing at the international level.
I would therefore ask the government to give serious
consideration to awarding the company the contract for building
the Magdalen Islands ferry and to helping it develop the
so-called ``smart ship''.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, there has
been a growing torrent of inquiries regarding the new
regulations under Bill C-17 restricting accessibility of firearms
acquisition certificates.
I have information that while the new regulations were
originally to go into effect June 30, 1993 they were deferred to
January 1 of this year so that the program could be implemented.
Yet well into the third week of January there is mass confusion
and frustration among firearms owners, RCMP and firearm
20
safety education training. It would appear that there has been
inadequate consultation and instruction among the federal
justice department, the chief provincial firearms officers and
the RCMP.
While the Canadian public supports firearms regulations and
gun owners are the first to agree with the necessity of safety, if
the confusion and misinformation currently being distributed
causes law-abiding citizens who own firearms to decide not to
register, what has the law achieved?
* * *
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton): Mr.
Speaker, today is the 328th birthday of Sri Guru Gobind Singh
Ji, the 10th guru of the Sikh religion. He sacrificed his father, his
sons and himself to preserve the faith of his people.
It is the Sikh duty to walk in the footsteps of Sri Guru Gobind
Singh Ji for the welfare of all human beings.
Let us remember the 10th guru by his belief that all persons
are the same though they appear different: the bright, the dark,
the ugly and the beautiful.
* * *
(1420 )
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville): Mr. Speaker, here in
the capital a few weeks ago my home town, the small city of
Brockville, was presented with the national municipal award for
environmental leadership.
Brockville was chosen for the prestigious award over 15 other
Canadian cities. Brockville was chosen for its pioneering of a
successful recycling program several years ago. This successful
program and other measures have resulted in an extension of
several years to the city's landfill site. It is truly a success story.
I want to extend my congratulations to Mayor Doran, all the
councillors, as well as all the citizens of Brockville who
participated. They improved the environment and brought
positive recognition to the city of Brockville.
* * *
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon): Mr. Speaker,
let me offer my personal congratulations and those of the
constituency I represent, Thunder Bay-Nipigon. Our
congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker, and our very best wishes.
May I, on behalf of the people I represent, welcome you to visit
with us in Thunder Bay at your earliest convenience.
There are many issues facing this government. I can think of
no more serious issue than the protection of our natural
resources, particularly our forestry industry.
The forestry industry is Canada's largest industry. There are
over three-quarters of a million jobs as a direct result of our
forestry industry which creates over $40 billion in wealth in this
country. It is our largest single export commodity.
I ask all members of this House, my colleagues from the Bloc
Quebecois, the Reform Party and the New Democratic Party to
strongly endorse a policy of reforestation in this country that
will protect the forestry industry in Canada, not only for our
generation but for generations to come.
The Speaker: Colleagues, the Chair takes note that I have
gone overtime because I used extra time at the beginning. It
would be the intention of the Chair, with your agreement of
course, to cut off the statements precisely at 2.15 p.m. I propose
to do that tomorrow.
_____________________________________________
20
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, the federal debt went above the $500 billion mark.
In general, people were disappointed with the Throne Speech in
that there was no mention of any true resolve on the part of the
government to address with determination the issue of deficit
reduction. The Throne Speech confirmed all of the fears about
the threats facing our social programs.
Are we to understand from the Throne Speech that the
government, lacking the courage the make the hard choices that
are necessary, has decided to reduce the deficit at the expense of
the less fortunate by cutting funding to social programs?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to tell the Leader of the Opposition once again that
the government has a very clear program for deficit reduction
and that the Minister of Finance will be tabling a budget next
month. When the Minister of Finance met with his provincial
counterparts and when I myself met with the provincial premiers
in December, we made it very clear that we had no intention of
reducing transfer payments to the provinces.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I take what the Prime Minister just said as a
commitment from the highest-ranking law-maker in the land.
But how can we take this commitment seriously when we
contrast it with a statement made recently by the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, who publicly said he would like to
see health care
21
expenditures reduced by 20 per cent? Who are we to believe?
The Prime Minister or the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
there is no contradiction here. If we are able, working in
co-operation with the provinces, to reduce the health care
expenditures of all levels of government, then both the
provinces and the federal government will save money.
(1425)
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, it occurs to me that the Prime Minister is once again
dangling the sword of Damocles over social programs since he
has just said that the objective he is pursuing along with the
provinces is to reduce health care expenditures. This is precisely
the kind of half-truth that spreads fear among the public.
Is the Prime Minister serious about really wanting to cut
expenditures and trim government fat and, if so, will he agree to
set up a special committee of parliamentarians from this House
with an urgent and detailed mandate to review all expenditures
and all departmental budgetary items and to report back to the
public? Its goal would be to reduce government spending, to cut
the deficit and to quell this monster without touching social
programs.
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
we are willing to work with all the parties of this House to make
sure that we find the cuts needed to reduce the deficit.
The finance committee will be meeting very soon. The
different committees will have the opportunity to look at the
estimates of every department. We will look at every aspect of
the government operations and make sure to review the
expenditures.
I do not think it is possible, as the hon. Leader of the
Opposition is trying to tell us, to have your cake and eat it too.
We have to look at everything.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
to pursue this line of questioning, so far the federal government
has not demonstrated a firm commitment towards reforming the
Canadian tax system to address blatant unfairness and
inequities. It is more concerned with testing the public opinion
left and right about possible deep cuts pretty well across the
board, but especially in social programs, while sparing the rich.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Is the Minister
backing away from undertaking as a matter of urgency a serious
and thorough reform of the Canadian tax system to better
distribute the burden among Quebec and Canadian taxpayers?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
(Quebec)): Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating
my colleague on his first question before this House. As he
knows, consultations are underway, in fact the most extensive
ones ever carried out in this country regarding a budget.
Within this framework, the Canadian people have told us that
they wanted radical changes in many government programs,
including taxation, and that is what we have set out to do.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
if the Minister of Finance is indeed firmly committed to reform,
is he prepared to undertake today to eliminate immediately this
horrible family trust system which benefits only the richest of
the rich, not the poorest of the poor in our society?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
(Quebec)): Mr. Speaker, as my honourable colleague knows full
well, I will be tabling shortly before this House the federal
budget, in which he will no doubt find an answer to his
questions.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister.
At the same time that we are facing record debt and taxation
levels to which the hon. member has just referred, we are also
facing record levels of unemployment. Many economists and
business people feel there is a direct connection between the
two, that high debt and taxes kill private sector job creation.
Would the Prime Minister give the House the government's
view on the connection between high record levels of debt and
high record levels of unemployment and tell us whether the
government believes that deficit cutting is essential to private
sector job creation.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
we understand that we have a huge debt in Canada. Yesterday
apparently we surpassed the fantastic figure of $500 billion. It is
a big burden that the Conservative Party left as a legacy with
which we must start our work today. It is a reality and it is a big
problem for the nation.
(1430)
There are two ways we can solve this problem and it will take
some time. We have to cut expenditures but the main thing we
can do to reduce the debt is to make sure that there are jobs in
Canada for Canadians so that they can work and produce growth
22
and produce taxes. That is the way we want to approach the
problem.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): I think all
members agree with your reply but my question was: Is there a
direct connection between the-
The Speaker: Order. I know we are all new to the House but
would you please address your questions and your statements
directly to the Chair.
Mr. Manning: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, on the
same subject of deficits and jobs.
This has come to us. It is an inquiry received on our question
fax line from Dr. Dean P. Eyre of Ottawa. He asked the
government this question. He said: ``The government proposes
to spend $6 billion on infrastructure and create 65,000 jobs. Has
the government calculated how many jobs might have been
created if that $6 billion were simply cut from the taxes of
individuals, property owners and small businesses?''
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): The
questioners through the leader of the Reform Party should know
that only $2 billion of the $6 billion is coming from the federal
treasury, so it will have reduced only the deficit of the federal
government. This infrastructure program is a big success.
The mayor of Calgary is very enthusiastic about this program,
as are the mayors of Hamilton, Edmonton, Vancouver, Victoria,
and Shawinigan, Quebec.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
in the Throne Speech the government really disappointed
Quebecers and Canadians, who were expecting, after the
election campaign's theme of ``jobs, jobs, jobs'', a true job
creation program. In fact, no concrete initiatives were
announced, except for the infrastructure program, which is
inadequate to our needs.
My question is for Mr. Axworthy who is responsible for
human resources development.
An hon. member: The Minister of Human Resources.
Mrs. Lalonde: The Minister of Human Resources, Mr.
Axworthy.
An hon. member: No, you are not allowed to mention his
name.
Mrs. Lalonde: I cannot name him. Mr. Speaker, I will not
name the minister.
The Speaker: Thank you.
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, would the minister reassure
everybody by telling us when the government will finally do
something and which initiatives it will take to help the many
Quebecers and Canadians who want to work but who cannot find
jobs?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate
you as the new Speaker of the House, which is a difficult task to
assume.
I also want to congratulate the hon. member for Mercier for
her interest in this issue. I hope that we will have many
opportunities to exchange our views, for the benefit of all
Canadians.
As the hon. members will know, the Throne Speech includes
several initiatives and measures. For example, the Youth
Service Corps is a very important tool to put young Canadians to
work. We will also set up a training program for all Canadians. I
believe this can provide a good solution to the important
problems which our young people are facing.
We have also announced a comprehensive reform of our
social security system.
(1435)
This is a good response to the concerns voiced by the poor and
it will bring about the essential changes needed to develop an
employment program for a large number of Canadians.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, this answer
is totally unsatisfactory. I have a supplementary question for the
minister. Why did he agree to the $800 million increase in UI
contributions, given the disastrous effect this measure will have
on the economy, and considering that the government invests
only $1 billion a year in the infrastructure program?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what the
exact question is but as I tried to outline to the hon. member I
will be very glad to provide her with a full explanation of the
measures.
In the throne speech we detailed very specific commitments
that are made in the red book for providing employment for
young people and for the very serious problem of transition from
school to work.
The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry have
outlined a number of measures to help create employment in the
small business sector and in high technology to help the
provinces develop new initiatives.
As the hon. member will know, we are presenting a series of
more detailed explanations. Each minister will be giving an
outline of those during the reply to the speech from the throne. I
am sure that after the hon. member has had an occasion to listen
to the excellent speeches presented by my colleagues she will
23
fully understand the major commitment we in this government
have to jobs.
* * *
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Finance.
The Auditor General tabled his report today. In it he has
pointed out that unless some real changes are made the federal
debt, that is, the federal debt alone and not the national debt, will
reach 100 per cent of the gross domestic product by the year
2008.
The Auditor General has red flagged the situation as being of
serious concern. He has stated in his report: ``Hard choices lie
ahead''.
The speech from the throne has focused on spending programs
with no recognition of the serious fiscal situation facing this
country.
Is the Minister of Finance now able to assure Canadians that
deficit reduction is this country's number one priority rather
than introducing more spending programs as we heard about
yesterday?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that deficit reduction
is a major priority of this government.
There is no doubt that we share the views largely expressed by
the Auditor General. We did so in a matter of weeks after taking
office. There is no doubt, as well, as the Prime Minister said so
well in his opening remarks that we are not going to get the
deficit reduction unless we also understand that economics is
about people and that this country needs jobs.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, we understand
that this country certainly does need jobs.
However, having looked at and read through the report, it
would appear that there are many areas where this government
can take charge of its own finances and ensure that money that is
currently being wasted and misspent is available for Canadians.
Will the Minister of Finance assure us that he will look at the
Auditor General's report and implement the recommendations
there to ensure that Canadian taxpayers' money is spent for the
best benefit of this country?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite and I
certainly share one thing in common. When I first came to the
House and was up I also forgot to ask my question.
The hon. member can rest assured that we are going to take the
comments of the Auditor General very seriously, especially
since he is looking at us from up there. We have already begun to
do so.
* * *
(1440)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, there is a
broad consensus in Quebec on eliminating costly administrative
duplication in manpower programs. Unions, management, the
government and hundreds of thousands of unemployed
Quebecers agree. The 26,000 Quebecers waiting for
occupational training, even though skilled jobs are available,
also agree.
My question for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is
as follows: Does he intend to conclude an agreement with the
Government of Quebec as soon as possible on eliminating this
costly duplication and thus respect the commitment which the
Prime Minister made at the first ministers' summit on December
21, and the commitment which he himself made in early
December?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal): Mr.
Speaker, our government is in full agreement with eliminating
overlap and duplication so as to reduce the cost of government.
We said that in the throne speech and we obtained an agreement
to that effect at the first ministers' conference.
As for an agreement on occupational training, my colleague,
the Minister of Human Resources Development, has already
discussed this with his colleague who is now Quebec's finance
minister but who then was responsible for the manpower
agreement, and he is continuing with the discussions.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, since experts
say that eliminating these overlaps would save at least some
$250 million a year from the moment the agreement is reached
and signed, would the minister not agree that for a
cash-strapped government, it is time for him, the Prime
Minister and his Cabinet colleagues to get with it as soon as
possible?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal): Mr.
Speaker, I feel that we are already with it because we intend to
cut government spending by much more than $250 million by
reducing overlap.
24
[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister responsible for the infrastructure
program.
At the beginning of this month the government announced the
program's first project, a convention centre in Quebec City.
Since then many Canadians have wondered how this project was
approved prior to the government's announcement on the
criteria for qualification.
I would like the minister to explain to this House by what
criteria and by what process the project in Quebec City was
approved.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker,
the Government of Quebec had for some time been in
negotiations with the previous government here in Ottawa with
respect to the project of the convention centre in Quebec City. It
was anxious because of the change in leadership coming in the
Government of Quebec to be able to bring the matter to a head.
The premiers had been here on December 21 and had come to an
agreement about the the program. They in fact unanimously
agreed to be participants in the infrastructure program.
We then said to the Quebec government that it was
conditional-and I want to point out that it is conditional upon
signing the formal agreement-that the project would be one
that could proceed.
Once the formal agreement is signed the project will in fact
have to go through all of the tests required. We already have,
however, through the Federal Economic Development Agency
in Quebec, processed the application on an informal basis. I
Must say that it is an excellent project. It will put over 1,000
people to work in construction jobs and create more than 400
long-term jobs after that. It is a project that will help get the
people in Quebec City, the province of Quebec and Canadians to
work and to work fast.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): I have a
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for his clarification. Obviously this was a
case of a political announcement occurring before this House
was consulted and before criteria were publicly known. It
creates the impression that we have another pork-barrel
program. What action is the minister going to take to ensure that
this type of situation does not occur in the future and what
precisely did he do about the fact that the announcement was as
ill timed as it was?
(1445 )
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker,
this is going to be a very open and transparent program.
Information has been supplied to all members of the House with
respect to the criteria under which the projects will be examined.
The projects are not initiated at the federal level even though the
program has been. The projects are initiated at the municipal
level and are designed to meet the priorities of local government
and the provincial government.
That is what we have done in the case of this project to meet
the priorities and the needs of the province of Quebec and the
people of Quebec City and with the full support, I might add, of
the mayor of Quebec City, members of the Quebec caucus and
the Quebec government. I believe that is a good example of how
we can get all levels of government together. It is the kind of
thing we want to do to make sure this program succeeds, ensure
that it be very open and transparent and in fact avoid the very
kinds of concerns the member has.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie): Mr. Speaker, my question
is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Does the
Minister responsible for the Treasury Board intend to react to
the request made by the Auditor General who, year after year,
has revealed cases of income tax revenue lost as a result of the
use of tax shelters, and does he intend to give the Auditor
General a clear mandate to evaluate what these tax shelters cost
the Federal Treasury?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker,
the government, as I think was indicated previously by my
colleague the Minister of Finance, finds itself very substantially
in agreement with most of the observations that have been made
in the Auditor General's report. Even though those observations
relate to what went on previous to this government taking office,
nevertheless it is the responsibility of this government to make
sure we respond to the concerns the member has raised.
Indeed, we have already done so to a great extent in things like
the opening up of the budget process which my colleague talked
about earlier and streamlining the decisions in cabinet and
various other programs that have been put forward by the Prime
Minister to reduce the costs of operation of different ministries,
the size of political perks and many other things. We have
responded to some of the concerns the member has raised.
25
We are going to continue to take note and look into all of these
matters. I am sure we will be able to come back to the hon.
member and to this House with some further observations and
suggestions as to how we can meet many of these requests of the
Auditor General.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie): Mr. Speaker, the Auditor
General says in the report tabled today that it may cost Canadian
taxpayers another $1.2 billion in income tax revenues lost in the
resource sector and the petroleum and mining industries.
Here is a case that was mentioned by the Auditor General.
After 14 years of dispute, litigation, negotiation and discussion,
there is still no consensus on how the profits of these
corporations should be calculated.
How does the minister intend to end this judicial saga, which
has already cost Canadian taxpayers a great deal, recover the
amounts outstanding, and plug these expensive tax loopholes
once and for all?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
(Quebec)): As far as natural resources are concerned, Mr.
Speaker, the Auditor General was referring to a specific case
and, in fact, the government acted very quickly once the dispute
was settled.
As far as tax shelters are concerned, we have already said that
everything was on the table and that we would take a long, hard
look at all existing loopholes and exemptions. Considering the
hon. member's question, I hope the Bloc québécois will support
us when we bring down the budget in this House.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr.
Speaker, this is a question for the Minister of Finance. As the
minister is no doubt aware, many Canadians rely heavily on
their RRSP accounts for their eventual retirement. That is why
the statement made in December by the minister's
parliamentary secretary concerning a review of the system has
caused so much concern among Canadians.
(1450)
Will the minister please tell Canadians unequivocally that this
government will not jeopardize their financial future by further
limiting contributions to RRSPs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
(Quebec)): Mr. Speaker, I find that in government one is on
one's feet more than in opposition.
The government said in the pre-budget consultations that it is
reviewing not only every line of government expenditure but
really all government policy. Certainly the matters to which the
member has made reference are part of that review.
I can tell the member however that this government will never
do anything that will put into jeopardy Canadians' retirement
income. What we are going to do is make sure that the tax system
in this country treats everyone fairly and equitably.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr.
Speaker, a supplementary for the Minister of Finance.
Will he guarantee or at least allay the fears of the Canadian
people that he is going to continue the RRSP and that it is not
going to be a tax concession to be reduced but rather a personal
retirement safety net that is to be encouraged for these people in
the future?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
(Quebec)): Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to my hon. friend that
his supplementary is exactly the same as his first question and
my answer must be the same, that RRSPs are an important part
of the retirement savings program in this country. However we
are in the process of reviewing all policies and there really are
no exceptions.
When we bring down the budget my colleague's questions
will be answered at that time.
* * *
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage concerning
Scarborough's Rouge River Valley.
The minister will be aware of the existing commitment to
negotiate with the Ontario government to protect this 10,000
acre area and the federal government's $10 million commitment
for conservation of the Rouge Valley.
Will the minister confirm that the federal government
remains committed to those objectives? Will he update the
House on the negotiations with the province and provide
assurances that further federal participation would be
considered for this large urban environmental undertaking?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, the member for Scarborough-Rouge River is quite
right in reminding us of the federal government's support for
this wonderful park which was created in 1988 by a decision of
the previous government.
The government remains committed to the creation of the
park. It is a project which is a good illustration of the kind of
co-operation there can be between the federal government, the
provincial governments and private organizations.
26
Part of the federal government's contribution in the current
fiscal year has been expended for the acquisition of the
nationally significant Bead Hill aboriginal history site. It is the
intention to bring this site into the Rouge River park when the
necessary arrangements have been made.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
Last night's news and this morning's papers reported that the
federal government was not in favour of the Quebec
government's proposal to reduce tobacco taxes as a way of
eliminating smuggling. Can the Minister of Finance confirm
that what the Finance Department spokesperson said is official
government policy and therefore that Ottawa rejects the Quebec
government's position of reducing the tax rate on tobacco as a
way of eliminating the scourge of smuggling?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
(Quebec)): First of all, Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with my friend
that smuggling really is a scourge that must be dealt with.
Certainly, considering the discussions and measures taken by
my colleagues, the Solicitor General and the Minister of
National Revenue, the laws which already exist will really have
to be enforced.
That being said, there is no doubt that one option is to lower
tobacco taxes and Quebec has put forward the case for it very
well. That is an option to consider, but as you know, it will have
to be coordinated with all the provinces or at least most of the
provinces concerned.
(1455)
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance referred to other possible options, one of
them being enforcement.
Can the Minister of Finance give us specifics on new
enforcement measures that could be more effective in solving a
problem which has gone on for a very long time?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
(Quebec)): Mr. Speaker, as I said, it is up to my colleagues, the
Minister of National Revenue and the Solicitor General, to act
on this. I believe that the Minister of National Revenue intends
to make an announcement on it. I will let him speak about this at
the appropriate time.
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Last Sunday CTV disclosed the results of an internal study by
CIDA in which nearly all of the Canadian advisers received a
failing grade. Nearly 80 per cent of the 1,400 technical advisers
interviewed were rated as ineffective.
On behalf of millions of hard-pressed Canadian taxpayers I
would like to ask the minister precisely what he intends to do to
end this enormous waste of public funds.
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to assure the hon. member that the
interview given by CTV was in relation to projects that took
place some time ago. In fact CIDA has been aware of the
situation.
Measures have been taken to correct the situation and
hopefully in the future projects of this kind will be done in better
fashion and will be more productive.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Some allegations have been made to the effect that the brutal
crackdown by the federal Mexican army to quell the revolt of
peasants and zapatist infantrymen violates human rights in
several ways. Indeed, several observers have mentioned that
people have disappeared, have been murdered or have been
intimidated.
Can the minister tell us what is the government's official
position regarding this issue, and can he tell us if he has asked
the Mexican government to ensure that human rights arerespected and protected?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that representations have
been made by Canadian officials to the Mexican authorities. The
Canadian ambassador to Mexico has met with the minister of
Foreign Affairs of that country to inform him of our concerns.
There is no doubt that the Canadian delegations which are
now in Mexico will have the opportunity to meet officials from
my department. In fact, a group has already met with the
Secretary of State to discuss issues relating to Latin America.
Later this week, I myself will meet with Mr. Ovide Mercredi
27
when he returns from his visit to Mexico, and I hope to discuss
this issue very soon with the Mexican ambassador in Ottawa.
Obviously, we must take a very careful look at the situation. A
great number of people have died and we certainly deplore that,
but it is very important to let the Mexican authorities take
appropriate measures to solve the problem, in their own country.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, it goes without saying that I share the minister's
concerns, and our party will support every effort made by the
minister to protect human rights. However, I would like to know
if, when he talks about taking a very careful look, the minister
considers that trade has nothing to do with human rights and that
the uprising of natives is but an unavoidable adjustment episode
in a period of economic development?
[English]
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, it is important to remind all hon. members in this
House that in 1990 President Salinas created the National
Commission of Human Rights which is now entrenched by law.
We believe the Mexican authorities themselves want to take
measures to ensure that human rights are respected in their
country.
(1500 )
Second, I want to assure hon. members that through the
NAFTA Canada will now be working more closely on a number
of issues with our Mexican friends. We hope the criteria
established here in Canada and in the United States in regard to
human rights will be followed by the Mexicans.
Clearly through NAFTA we could be in a position to help the
situation there. Hopefully the Mexicans will involve their
people in this process and those who are poorer than others will
benefit from NAFTA.
* * *
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of National Revenue.
In the throne speech the government stated that it would
replace the goods and services tax. It did not outline any
specifics or set out any proposed timetable.
Will the minister please tell members of this House and
thereby all Canadians what he knows to this date about the
substance of his party's new proposed tax?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue): Mr.
Speaker, may I congratulate you on your position and
congratulate the member on his question.
Time is short. I would be unable to tell the House in the time
available everything I know on this subject. I will say, however,
that the Prime Minister has made it very clear that the goods and
services tax is to go. A replacement obviously must be found
because the government and the country needs the money and
the revenue. Therefore, the process for eliminating the tax and
finding an appropriate new tax will indeed be announced in due
course by my colleague, the Minister of Finance.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, will the
Minister of National Revenue rule out categorically in this
House today that any tax reform or tax invented to replace the
GST will not in fact simply be an increase in taxes?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue): Mr.
Speaker, it is certainly the wish of everybody on this side of the
House, and I am sure the other, that the burden of taxation on the
Canadian public be reduced rather than increased.
However, as has been already discussed today in this House
by many members, including the leaders of all parties, we have a
problem of deficit, we have a problem of debt, and we can make
no such promise at this time that there can be no change in tax
levels in any particular area of taxation.
We trust that we can in fact deal with deficit and deal with
debt and at the same time have no increase in taxation levels.
* * *
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt): Mr.
Speaker, today in his annual report the Auditor General stressed
the need for reconciling the convention of budget secrecy with
open consultation in debate to allow greater parliamentary input
before budgetary decisions are made.
Will the Minister of Finance inform the House as to his
position on opening up the process to provide an opportunity for
greater input earlier in the process to enhance the participation
of members as well as ordinary Canadians in the very important
task of dealing with Canada's debt and deficit?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
(Quebec)): Mr. Speaker, the member's question is quite
obviously very much in the line that this government wants to
take and we certainly do support the recommendations of the
Auditor General.
We are committed to the elimination of budget secrecy, to
open budgeting. As the House was not meeting, the
announcement of the deficit was made not by a press release but
at a meeting at the University of Montreal involving students
from that university and McGill.
We had a public meeting of 40 economists from across the
country who dealt with the economic projections and where the
country was going. We had a very successful pre-budget
consultation meeting in Halifax last week. We expect to have an
28
equally successful one in Montreal this week followed by one in
Toronto and one in Calgary.
When there is more time leading to the following budget for
1995 we expect to be able to do even more public consultation.
In terms of this House, we are going to remain faithful, as we
are in other things, to the concepts and principles set out in the
red book.
(1505 )
As the Prime Minister and the House leader have said, it will
be a substantially enhanced role for the finance committee.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): That was the Reform prime
minister.
The finance committee will be given the opportunity to hold
public hearings and will play a major role in the development of
the budget. All members of this House are invited to attend the
four consultation meetings that have been announced.
Also, after discussion with the House leader, who I believe
will be discussing with his opposite numbers, we, understanding
that there is a very short period of time, would like to call for a
one day pre-budget debate, which would be the first time it has
ever been held, so that all members can give us their views on
what the budget should do, along with ordinary Canadians.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Many Canadians who voted for the government were
disappointed that one of the first things the government
concerned about job creation did was to implement the North
American Free Trade Agreement which many regard as an
agreement that makes it more difficult for the government to
create jobs and to protect existing jobs.
Following up on the question raised earlier with respect to
events in Mexico, an interesting exchange in which those who
were against NAFTA defended it and those who were for it
criticized it, what does the government intend to do about the
situation in Mexico? What is the government prepared to do if
the human rights situation does not improve in Mexico?
Are we going to continue in this agreement regardless of what
the Mexican army and government do to people who feel these
agreements are destroying their lives?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to reply that in the red book we had a very definitive
program regarding the need for the improvements to NAFTA
before we signed. We managed to get the improvements that we
wanted so we were in a position to sign.
Of course as the Minister of Foreign Affairs said, we are
following very closely what is happening at this moment in
Mexico. We are putting pressure on its government to respect
human rights. We will keep pressing.
However, there are a lot of hypothetical questions in the
question the member has put to which I am not in a position to
reply. We have to see how the situation develops there. We have
confidence that the grievances that exist in that society have no
relation to the signing of NAFTA.
The Speaker: The Chair is aware that we went a little over. I
signified the intention of the Chair to cut off question period
precisely at three o'clock. We will have one final short question.
* * *
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk): Mr. Speaker, in
the absence of a question from the other side, my question is for
the Minister of Agriculture.
First, I want to thank the minister for his work on behalf of
Canadian farmers to date. He must be aware of the anxiety being
felt in the dairy community regarding his negotiations with the
Americans on ice cream and yogurt.
Canadian dairy farmers want the government to stand up to
the Americans and not to cave in on their unreasonable request
for zero tariffs on these products immediately.
What specific action is the minister prepared to take to assure
the survival of a viable Canadian dairy industry? Is there a
resolution to the problem that will help the Canadian dairy
farmer?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the hon. member for
the question.
Since Canada and the United States are continuing to discuss
possible solutions to a variety of outstanding bilateral concerns
in agricultural trade, including some that affect the dairy
industry, my public comments with respect to this situation for
obvious reasons must be rather guarded.
What I can say is that we have had useful discussions with our
American counterparts. Those discussions are ongoing.
Whether they result in a resolution in the short term or not we
will have to wait and see.
29
However, the hon. member and other members of this House
can be absolutely assured that the vital interests of Canada
including the vital interests of the Canadian dairy industry are
very much in my mind and very much on the front of the table.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
(1510)
[Translation]
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order.
Allow me first of all to convey my respects and my
congratulations to you on your election. For reasons that I will
not mention, I was not in the House at the time when you were
elected to this office. Needless to say, I am proud to extend to
you, on behalf of the Conservative caucus in this House, our
support and, above all, to wish you all the best for the coming
Parliament.
I have chosen and asked to speak today on an issue which will
impact on our rights and privileges during this Parliament. Part
of yesterday's Throne Speech reads as follows:
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 a greater opportunity to contribute to the development
of public policy and legislation.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my caucus and my Party, let me tell
all the members of this House that we fully endorse such a
statement and that we intend to support the government in this
regard.
[English]
In respect to the statement made by the government in the
speech from the throne, I want to take advantage of the fact that
on the very first day that we sit we have very deep and very real
preoccupations relating to our rights and privileges in this
House.
I am rising on a point of order today not because I am asking
for a ruling from the House, but I want to attract your attention,
Mr. Speaker, and the attention of members to a few facts relating
to our position on this side.
Even though the election campaign rendered a result that was
quite clear in regard to the previous government, the results, if
examined objectively for what they yielded for us on an
electoral basis, were such that the Reform Party that sits with us
in this House obtained approximately 19 per cent of the vote and
has a representation of 52 members.
The Official Opposition with 14 per cent of the vote has 54
members. The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada with
16 per cent of the vote has only two members. Our colleagues in
the New Democratic Party, who I think have approximately 9
per cent of the vote, have nine members.
This, Mr. Speaker, as you know, creates a situation where-
The Speaker: The Chair would be disposed at this point to
ask the hon. member to come to the point. I would very much
like to hear it. I will then take other points of order. I would very
much like to hear the end of this point of order if I could.
Mr. Charest: If I may be allowed to finish what I have to say.
The point that I want to make today is that as the leader of my
own party I intend to bring this matter forward to you first, Mr.
Speaker, on an informal basis and with the other political parties
in this House so that we can discuss what opportunities there
will be for us in this House of Commons in respect to the
statement made in the speech from the throne, in respect to the
statements already made by our friends in the Reform Party or
our friends in the Bloc Quebecois in regard to the opportunities
that we will have to speak on behalf of the two million
Canadians who offered us their support in the last election
campaign.
That is the point that I wanted to make on this day so that at the
very first opportunity when this House sits and when question
period is happening you know, Mr. Speaker, and all members of
this House know that we intend to argue this point and at least
have the opportunity to be heard. This is so that we can deal with
such matters as my hon. colleague and friend from Saint John
sitting at one end of the aisle and I am sitting at the other end.
Furthermore, if I may, I have a question of privilege.
The Speaker: Order. The hon. member has made his point
and I look forward to discussions with all hon. members in this
House. The point is well taken and I do thank you for your
intervention.
Is this on the same point of order or have you terminated?
Mr. Charest: No, I have a point of privilege.
(1515 )
The Speaker: I have made the ruling on the point of order. Is
this a point of privilege sir?
Mr. Charest: Mr. Speaker, it is but I understand that my
colleague from the Reform Party also has a point of order on the
same subject I have just broached. I would be more than willing
to enable him to say what he has to say and follow that up with a
different point of privilege.
30
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston): Mr. Speaker, on
the same point with regard to the conduct of Question Period,
there were a total of 17 members who asked questions today; 14
from the opposition parties and 3 from the government party. In
your deliberations I would ask that there be a fairer distribution
of questions during Question Period. The governing party has a
majority of seats in this House yet we were relegated to three
questions during question period.
I would also ask that you consider the use of lists during
Question Period. I understand that it is the first question period
of the session, but you were referring to lists provided to you by
the government and by the opposition parties. I would submit
that in effect restricts, limits and fetters your ultimate authority
to recognize members in this House. I would ask that in your
deliberations you consider the question of the provision of lists
in order to establish those who are entitled and able to ask
questions during question period.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member. I would point out that
I made a statement prior to question period today explaining the
decision why we were going to go a little bit over. Of course, I
take these comments under advisement. Negotiations will be
ongoing for the next little while.
On the same point of order. The hon. member for Kamloops.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, I have to reply to
my hon. friend who has just spoken. I think it is well recognized
in the parliamentary system that question period provides the
opportunity for those in opposition to ask questions of the
government. My hon. friend has many opportunities in caucus
meetings and in other areas to raise questions of importance on
behalf of his constituents. This is really the only opportunity
that we have as opposition members.
If my hon. friend looks at the record of today he will find that
for the first time that I can recall the government had far more
statements than it would normally receive.
Mr. Speaker, recognize when you make your deliberations
that this is the only opportunity we have on a daily basis to ask
questions of the members opposite.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker I rise on a point of order.
I would request that you not permit grandstanding on
supposed points of order. When the member for Sherbrooke was
actually speaking to the throne speech he was totally out of
order.
We would suggest that the House management committee
which deals with standing orders look at these matters and
respond to the House in the appropriate fashion.
The Speaker: Again, I will take your comments under
advisement and I thank you for giving me as much room as you
have thus far.
* * *
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke): Mr. Speaker, it is my
understanding that the point I raised is an issue that is ultimately
to be decided by the Speaker and not by any other House or
management committee. That is my understanding of the rules
and the practices in this place. I am happy to co-operate with all
members in this House in assisting you in making that decision.
My point of privilege is the following. I am sorry to have to
raise it on this the very first day of question period. However, I
could not help but notice that as we started question period you
gave the House a temporary ruling on how this place would work
for question period and for the statements we make before
question period. I do not want to quarrel with the content of your
ruling, maybe not at this point, but I want to question the process
that led to this ruling.
(1520 )
Let me point out that your ruling directly affects my rights and
privileges and those of 12 other people in this place. I
understand that neither I nor any of the other 12 members
referred to in the ruling were consulted. This is my
understanding unless someone else has spoken with you.
It is my understanding that you informed us as you gave us the
ruling that you had spoken with the whips of the other official
parties who represented a point of view.
The point I want to raise with you and the reason I feel it is
critically important that we raise it at this time is that if you are
going to make rulings as you are called upon to do every day
concerning the rights and privileges of members of Parliament
and how this place works, then it seems only fair on the principle
of natural justice that all members in this place have an
opportunity to be heard before such rulings are made.
The Speaker: I will take your comments under advisement. It
would be the intention of the Chair to consult as widely as
possible before taking any decisions. I will take the hon.
member's comments under advisement.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
During the last Parliament, I recall a somewhat similar
experience and I heard arguments from the government party.
The Speaker told us at the time to consult with party officials
and subsequently to notify the independent members who were
not necessarily taking part in the negotiations. We know
something about this. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that a ruling
was
31
made at the time, that arguments were put forward by two
parties which were official parties at the time and which no
longer have this status, and that I for one was convinced by what
they had to say.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
31
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
The Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table a
reprinted copy of the standing orders of this House dated June
1993 which encompasses all the changes made to the standing
orders since May 1991, as well as a revised index.
* * *
The Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table two
reports of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada pursuant to
section 195(3) of the Canada Elections Act, chapter (e)(ii),
Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985.
[Translation]
The first report is entitled ``The 1992 Federal Referendum-
Challenge Met.'' The second report is entitled ``Towards the
Thirty-Fifth General Election''.
Consequently, pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), these reports
are deemed to have been referred to the Standing Committee on
House Management.
* * *
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the
Canadian Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. It is the
report of the official Canadian delegation to the
Inter-Parliamentary Conference on the North-South Dialogue
for Global Prosperity which was held in Ottawa from October 18
to October 22, 1993.
* * *
(1525)
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to
submit the following petition.
[English]
It is my duty and honour to present this petition.
[Translation]
The petitioners urge the Government to recognize officially
the significant services rendered by ambulance attendants and to
ask the Committee on decorations and medals to authorize the
striking of a medal for distinguished conduct in ambulance
services. It would be given out after twenty years of good
conduct and meritorious service.
[English]
I must add that this medal is given out in other services such
as police, correction services, coast guard and fire. I would ask
that the government consider this petition.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions.
The first is a petition signed by my constituents in
Burnaby-Kingsway and residents from elsewhere in British
Columbia. It notes that in October 1985 a parliamentary
subcommittee on equality rights unanimously recommended
that the Canadian Human Rights Act be amended to prohibit
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in all areas of
federal jurisdiction. It also notes that the government has yet to
introduce a legislative amendment to the Canadian Human
Rights Act despite the passage of time.
Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to ensure that
the government and Parliament act immediately to bring
forward an amendment to add sexual orientation to the Canadian
Human Rights Act as a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition is signed by residents of Langley,
British Columbia, as well as elsewhere in British Columbia and
Ontario. It notes that the only relief available to two Canadians,
Christine Lamont and David Spencer who have been sentenced
to 28 years each in a Brazilian prison and have suffered
miscarriages of justice in their judicial process, is for Canada to
request expulsion in accordance with Brazilian law.
Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to urge the
Minister of Foreign Affairs to request the Government of Brazil
to expel Christine Lamont and David Spencer and return them to
Canada.
Certainly I support that and I urge the government to act upon
that request.
32
32
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed from January 18 consideration of the
motion for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in
reply to his Speech at the opening of the session.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, here we are at the beginning not only of a new year but
also of a new Parliament, with a new government, a new official
opposition elected by the people of Quebec and a new formation
representing mainly Western Canada.
The government party and the third party were given clear
mandates by their respective voters. I wish to congratulate both
leaders for their success at the polls. To the Prime Minister in
particular, I wish health, clear-mindedness and broadness of
outlook in carrying out his duties in this crucial time in the
history of Canada and Quebec.
The people of Quebec will soon decide their future following
a debate that we all hope will be marked by a spirit of
democracy. This is also a time when the adverse effects of the
combined economic and political crisis are threatening to make
a growing number of our fellow citizens lose hope.
I also want to pay my respects generally to all the other
members elected to this House. On behalf of my colleagues from
the Bloc Québécois, I can assure the Speaker, the government
and all members of this House of our full co-operation in
respecting decorum in this House. We will see to it, as far as we
are concerned, that exchanges remain courteous though intense,
rational though impassioned, orderly though vigorous.
The major change in this House is undoubtedly the massive
influx of sovereigntist members from Quebec. No one can
trivialize the shift represented by the decision some 2 million
voters have made to send 54 members here to pave the way for
Quebec's sovereignty.
(1530)
The dynamics which led Quebec to this decision were such
that enough members were elected to form the Official
Opposition. Paradoxical as it may seem, this electoral result
flows from an implacable logic.
Indeed, it was inevitable that these old walls, which too often
resounded with the voices of Quebecers who were ready to
approve measures rejected by the voters, such as the
Charlottetown Accord and the unilateral patriation of 1982,
would one day hear the speeches of members who base their
party allegiance on the commitment never to accept to
compromise Quebec's interests in Ottawa; members who are
freed from the constraints of the old Canada-wide parties and
who therefore will not be torn between their obligations as
federalist parliamentarians and their loyalty to Quebec;
members whose political career is motivated only by the
determination to work, with their blinkers off, for Quebec's
sovereignty.
Many in English Canada were surprised by the Bloc
Québécois's achievement on October 25. To tell the truth, I am
not surprised by that: the channels of communication from
Quebec to English Canada are significantly distorted as they
cross the border, so that the Quebec reality is perceived in a very
confused way on the other side. That is the first justification for
the presence of Quebec sovereigntists in this House.
Institutions often lag behind reality. The previous House of
Commons was no exception to this rule; the stinging rejection of
the Charlottetown Accord by voters in Canada and Quebec is
striking proof. Today, the main architects of that accord have all
disappeared from the political scene. They were the same people
who showed cold indifference to the misfortune brought on by
the long and difficult recession which began in the spring of
1990.
The voters have set the record straight. For the first time in
contemporary history, this House which is now beginning its
work reflects the very essence of Canada, its binational nature
and the very different visions of the future which flow from that.
Truth is never a bad advisor. As General de Gaulle said, one may
well long for the days of sailing ships, but the only valid policy
one can have is based on realities.
What are the realities with which this House will be faced?
First of all, a really bad economic situation. To realize the full
extent of it, it is not enough to look at the total picture as it is
now; we must put it in the relevant chronological context.
The latest recession lasted roughly from April 1990 to April
1992, when net job losses stopped. But big business continues to
lay off employees and the so-called recovery is so anemic that
only economists dare to call it a recovery. Now, in early 1994,
per capita GDP for all of Canada is still nearly 5 per cent less
than it was in 1989. We know that per capita GDP is a more
relevant indicator than total GDP, since it is affected by
population growth, which is very large in Canada. Not only has
Canada declined in relation to its partners but it is doing worse
than before.
The employment situation does not seem any brighter, any
more encouraging. By the end of 1993, the Canadian economy
had regained only 60 per cent of all the jobs lost during the
recession. The situation in Quebec is even more disastrous,
since the recovery rate there is only 25 per cent. It must be said
that for all practical purposes, Quebec had no government for
much of 1993, but in that time, many young people arrived on
the labour market. Just to absorb the number of net new job
seekers, the Canadian economy would have to create over
200,000 jobs a year, about 45,000 of them in Quebec. The 1993
33
performance of 147,000 jobs in Canada, most of which are
part-time, and none in Quebec, is far off the mark.
These chilling statistics hide thousands of human dramas. No
one goes gladly to an employment centre for the unemployment
insurance benefits to which they are entitled. Underemployment
has considerable economic and social costs. It is a real
collective tragedy. In this regard, it is very urgent to put people
back to work, giving them real hope of recovering their dignity
by regaining the right to earn their living.
(1535)
Therefore, it is no surprise that the unemployment level
remains at such a high level. Fortunately, the American
economy is not suffering from the same problems as those of the
Canadian economy. Consequently, the economic situation has at
least one aspect that works for us, namely exports to the United
States. But the result is that the gap between American and
Canadian unemployment rates has never been so high, the
difference being close to five percentage points. The recovery
south of the border is much stronger than here.
Indeed, major obstacles to a strong recovery continue to exist
in Canada. In the last few years, inflation has been lower here
than in the United States, but our interest rates remain high.
We hear a lot about the fact that interest rates are presently at
their lowest level in thirty years. The reality is that this is only
true of short-term interest rates. In 1963, the bank rate set by the
Bank of Canada and the preferred rate charged by banks were
about the same as today. However, the rate of a 25 year mortgage
was 7 per cent, and the rate of long-term Canadian bonds was
5,1 per cent, instead of the present 7.25 and 7 per cent rates that
now apply to a five-year mortgage. This is where the problem
lies, and it is a two-fold problem. Indeed, long-term interest
rates remain too high, while the purchasing power of Canadian
households has dropped significantly.
Soon we will have no choice but to take a close look at the
characteristics, the evolution and the magnitude of our
economic problems, and also at the hardships that they create
for their primary victims, namely the one and a half million
unemployed workers, and the millions of children and adults
who live below the poverty level. It appears that the new
government prefers not to assess the magnitude of the problem,
which is not even touched upon in the Throne Speech. Moreover,
the government does not realize that we are caught in a vicious
circle. The fact is that there will not be a true recovery as long as
the political structure remains the same. Indeed, the present
political structure is the primary cause of the falling into decay
of the Canadian economy.
One of the most obvious, if not spectacular, signs of this is the
chronic inability of federal governments to control the budget
deficit and the resulting soaring debt. It seems that this
voracious monster can at will, like the Minotaur, take its toll in
terms of jobs, of the minimal security of the poor, of the
financial health of the federal State, and even of the future of our
young people. Not only have those deficits been constant for the
past 18 years, but this year's, which stands at some $43 billion,
confirms that the system is totally out of order.
In order to get out of this mess, it will not be enough to blame
the previous government. In any case, Canadians have already
let us know what they thought of its performance. Yet, the
careful observer who has not buried his head in the sand cannot
fail to identify a certain element of ineffectiveness, which is
inherent to the system.
Nevertheless, the government continues to pursue the
ostrich's policy followed by its predecessor. By escaping from
reality, it cannot put the finger on the main problem: this country
is not governable, because it is stuck with a deficient and
sclerotic decision-making structure.
Nothing seems to make successive governments in Ottawa
come out of the cocoon in which they shelter themselves from
reality, and so it is with this new government.
Yet, one only has to look at the relative performance of
various other countries subject to the same international
environment. This is a sure criterion, since everybody is facing
the same economic problems and requirements. Therefore, the
global context does not justify Canada's mediocre performance
in terms of productivity since 1979, the worst of all OECD
countries, nor the persistence of such a high unemployment
level, nor the uncontrolled growth of the debt which, as we
know, reached $500 billion yesterday. Canada is also in first
place in terms of relying on foreign investors, since 40 per cent
of its debt is owed to foreign interests.
Be that as it may, it is not free trade agreements, global
markets, or the requirements imposed by the competitiveness of
the world markets which, in the last few decades, have forced
the federal government to embark upon all kinds of programs
and expenditures, to encroach upon provincial jurisdictions, and
to create a tentacular bureaucracy. Rather, this extravagance and
this inconsistency were motivated by a triple internal concern:
to give to the federal government a legitimacy snatched from the
provinces; to affirm its role as a strong central government; and
to neutralize the centrifugal forces of the structure. It is our
political structures which are called into question when we
wonder why we have become the most overgoverned country in
the Western world, with 11 governments for a population of 28
million people.
34
(1540)
We only have ourselves to blame if overlapping federal and
provincial activities prevent the creation of cohesive programs
and generate an outrageous amount of waste in human and
financial resources That reveals a second reality as inescapable
as the economic crisis, that certain inefficiencies are at the very
heart of our system. These realities feed upon each other, and are
a true reflection of the vicious circle which characterizes
Canadian federalism. At the core of the economic crisis is a
political crisis.
But for the better part of English Canada, there is no political
crisis. Or, if there is one, they choose to ignore it. They have sent
to Ottawa a new government with the mandate to better manage
the present system without changing anything in it.
On the other hand, Quebecers not only sent a completely new
team to Ottawa, but they gave their elected representatives the
mandate to prepare a new order. The Bloc Quebecois was given a
double mission: to manage the economic crisis and to handle the
political crisis. Does the distribution of elected members in this
House not prove the very existence of this second crisis? The
government party only got 19 seats in Quebec, compared to 54
for the Bloc. Who do you think speaks for Quebec today?
[English]
More than 30 years ago Quebec awakened to the world and
decided to catch up. The quiet revolution transformed Quebec. It
did not take long before the spirit of reform in Quebec collided
with the spirit of Canadian federalism in Ottawa. Thirty years
ago the horns were locked. Thirty years later we are still at it, as
if frozen in a time warp. We should learn from the past, and this
we should have learned: The political problem with Canada is
Quebec, and the problem of Quebec is Canada.
However, many Canadians refuse to acknowledge the
problem which only serves to compound it. For example, the
Bloc Quebecois has been on the federal scene for more than
three years, but until recently we were ranked alongside the
bizarre and the outer fringes.
Our aim of course is not to win popularity contests in English
Canada, but we have here in a nugget the essence of the political
predicament which bedevils Canada. A new political party
which had led systematically in the polls in Quebec for three
years was regularly dismissed as a quirk on the charts or a
manifestation of a temporary leave of the senses. Hugh
MacLennan's powerful novel Two Solitudes was published in
1945. Half a century later the title still mirrors the political
landscape.
Some are willing to deny the obvious in order not to upset the
status quo. They speak of one Canadian nation, whereas Quebec
and English Canada are two different nations. Even when
nobody in Quebec was contemplating sovereignty, the Canada
that steered Quebecers was not of the same cloth as the Canada
that seized the minds and hearts of maritimers, Ontarians or
westerners. Quebecers were in the vanguard of the struggle for
more Canadian autonomy under the Red Ensign and eventually
for the political independence of Canada. This tends to be
forgotten in certain quarters where Quebec bashing is a popular
pastime.
Canada and Quebec have both changed tremendously in the
last 100 years, but they are travelling on parallel tracks and
remain as different today as they were yesterday. By and large
they both continue to ignore the history and the culture of the
other. This is no accident; language, geography and history
largely account for it.
However, Quebecers do not deny that English Canada
constitutes a nation in its own right with its own sense of
community. Every single poll in the last few years has shown
that the vast majority of the people in each of the nine provinces
want to remain politically united after Quebec becomes
sovereign. This small detail is conveniently neglected by all
those who question the existence of an English Canada on the
shaky basis of regional differences.
In France the people of the north are certainly as different, if
not more so, from the people of the south as maritimers are from
the people of British Columbia. But they both feel a strong
attachment to France, or to Canada.
(1545 )
In fact, by clinging to the one nation thesis, English Canada is
running the risk of undermining itself. As Kenneth McRoberts,
the political scientist from York University, wrote in 1991: ``In
its effort to deny Quebec's distinctiveness, English Canada has
been led to deny its own''.
If one accepts the obvious, one must surely accept the
consequences. Every nation has the right to self-government,
that is to decide its own policies and future. We have no quarrel
with the concept of federalism when applied to uninational
states. It is a different matter when it comes to multinational
states, particularly to the Canadian brand of federalism.
Canadian federalism means that the Government of Quebec is
subordinate to the central government both in large and lesser
matters. Within the federal regime, English Canada in fact has a
veto on the future development of Quebec.
When the theme of national sovereignty is brought up in
English Canada a nice paradox almost always emerges. As I will
certainly refer to it in the coming months, I shall call it the
paradox of English Canada. First, the tendency to consider passé
the concept of national sovereignty, what with the European
Community, GATT, NAFTA and so on. This is a patent
misreading of the situation. Take a look at the western world.
Ninety-five per cent of its population live in nation states.
35
The fact is that Quebec is the only nation of more than seven
million people in the western world not to have attained political
sovereignty. I invite members of this House to reflect upon this.
As a political structure Canada is the exception rather than the
rule, an exception that is not working well, to understate the
case.
The particular situation of Quebec was inadvertently
recognized by a member of the Canadian delegation to the final
GATT negotiations in mid-December. As will be recalled,
Canada was seeking to be exempted from the clause attacking
subsidies by sub-national governments because, in his words:
``There is only one Quebec''. He was right of course.
Let us ask ourselves: Who was in the driver's seat during the
European revolution of 1989-90 which saw German
reunification and the accession to political sovereignty of so
many nations in central and eastern Europe? Was it the
supranational institutions, the EC, NATO, the Warsaw pact, or
was it the different nations, each one of them seizing the chance
of a lifetime?
In short, Quebecers aspire to what is considered normal in the
western world.
The paradox of English Canada pops up with the second part
of the discussion about national sovereignty, the part that deals
with the issue of Canadian sovereignty. A large part of the free
trade election of November 1988 was spent, in English Canada,
on the impact of the free trade agreement on the sovereignty of
Canada. Everybody agreed that this was something important
that should not be tampered with. However if Canada's political
sovereignty vis-à-vis the U.S.A. is valuable and must be
preserved, why is it that Quebec's political sovereignty
vis-à-vis Canada is depicted as irrational in the anglophone
media of the land? When the preceding Prime Minister said that
she preserved Canadian sovereignty during the last stage of the
NAFTA negotiations, why is it that nobody rolled their eyes and
derided this quaint idea of sovereignty? What mysterious
alchemy transforms the quality of a concept according to the
people to whom it applies or according to the year of accession
to sovereignty? One must not forget that independent nations are
not born. They are made.
All this does not prevent Canadians and Quebecers from
having quite a few things in common: a respect for democracy, a
large degree of openness to people of other cultures, and a
fascination with our neighbours south of the border. And they
both love their country. However, the problem is and has been
for a very long time, that it is not the same country.
[Translation]
Make no mistake about it. We will not stop reminding the
people that, in order to legitimize his power play against Quebec
National Assembly in 1982, Pierre Trudeau was able to call
upon the support of Quebec's Liberal members of Parliament in
order to claim to speak on behalf of Quebec.
(1550)
We will repeat as often as necessary that the government party
no longer speaks for Quebec. You can also be sure that we will
not lose sight-and will not allow anyone to lose sight-of the
fact that the new Prime Minister is the very man who led the
assault against Quebec, in 1981, and ignored the
quasi-unanimous repudiation by the Quebec National
Assembly.
The Charlottetown episode followed a similar pattern. Did we
not see a block of Conservative members from Quebec, who had
initially got into politics to repair the damage done by the 1982
patriation, side with the Liberals in an effort to seal the fate,
once and for all, of Quebec's historical claims?
The 1992 referendum results dispelled any lingering
ambiguity. The rejection of the Accord from coast to coast
ended all hopes that some may still have had for a renewed
federal system in Canada. You take it or leave it as it is.
The Prime Minister himself came to the same conclusion. Did
he not announce shortly after coming into office that he would
not even attempt such a reform?
Thus we should be able to make in the clear light of day the
decision we are supposed to make by referendum in Quebec. We
are left with only two choices: either we settle for the status quo
that almost every federalist in Quebec since Jean Lesage has
denounced or, the alternative is clear, Quebec attains full
sovereignty, with full powers to assume full responsibility. The
identity and roles of the players would be clarified at the same
time.
There certainly seems to be a sort of poetic justice in all this.
The henchman of the dastardly deed in 1982, who has since
become Prime Minister, will soon have to ask the people of
Quebec to turn down the sovereignty deal in favour of the
constitutional one which had earned him their reprobation in the
first place. And he will have to do it on his own, without the
support that his mentor, Pierre Trudeau, claimed to have in
Quebec. You can see why he does not want the talk Constitution,
as he said.
By its presence and actions in this House, the Bloc Quebecois
will be doing every Quebecer and Canadian a service, whether
they like it or not, by preventing them from going back to square
one. Now that the Meech and Charlottetown accords have
stripped the varnish of political correctness from the Canadian
federal system, revealing its obstinate fixedness, everyone is
immune to promises of renewal. So much so that nobody dares
make any, not even to score political points.
This imposes upon us a basic civic duty, which consists in
sparing ourselves three more decades of fruitless discussion,
endless attempts and lost illusions. This waste of resources, this
dilution of collective hope, this misuse of our energy has been
going on for too long already. All we have to show today for the
36
ordeal the best wills in Quebec and English Canada have
suffered is bitterness, suspicion, lack of understanding and a
profound collective alienation. We are about to lose the very
will to face reality squarely.
More importantly, there is the waste of time. I am not only
referring to that of the people who, in the excitement of the
sixties, dreamed of solving our conflicts and building in Quebec
and Canada societies that would be tolerant, imaginative, open
to the world and concerned with social justice. I am thinking of
our two nations in particular. Because time is running out for
them too. While we mope around, the world is coming apart and
rebuilding around us. The boat is going by and we are missing it.
Whether we like it or not, there will be a debate on our
political future, and it will take place right here. The
government is free to stonewall as has been the practice in this
House with regard to the sovereigntist aspirations of so many
Quebecers. Is it out of fear or powerlessness that they are
evading subjects that put into question the old political
structures of Quebec and Canada as well as their capacity to
solve social and economic problems? Whether fainthearted or
resigned, this total silence is irresponsible and leads to
paralysis. The Bloc Québécois has been sent here precisely to
break this conspiracy of silence.
(1555)
We will not be afraid to point out that Quebecers are and will
always be in a clear minority position within the federal system.
The population ratio is three to one. We can fool ourselves and
believe that we can determine the course of events despite this
ever-present handicap which relegates Quebec to second-place
status when interests diverge. This would imply constant
tension and a superior performance on our part. In other words,
utopia.
If the truth be told, the Trudeauesque utopia is not foreign to
the annals of French Canadian history. For many decades,
French Canadians believed that their destiny was prophetic. In
many respects, Pierre Trudeau is the last missionary of French
Canada.
Here again, we are confronted with a paradox. Canada needed
measures to safeguard against the demographic and economic
weight of the United States. Hence the creation of the Foreign
Investment Review Agency and the implementation of the new
energy policy. Quebec, on the other hand, did not require
measures to protect itself from the demographic and economic
weight of English Canada. Competence was all that was
required and everything else would take care of itself. How very
naive! And this was seen as reason triumphing over passion.
In reality, Quebecers want to live a normal life. They are tired
of fighting for basic things that have been denied them. They are
quite willing to confront the challenges of the day, but they want
all of the odds to be on their side. On the one hand, they want
greater economic integration and a stronger competitive
position internationally, while on the other hand, they want
political sovereignty in order to face Quebec's competitive
partners on a level playing field.
Quebec sovereigntists advocate a modern concept of political
sovereignty, one which is exercised within the framework of
major economic structures and which is respectful of minorities.
Under no circumstances will the 630,000 francophones outside
Quebec be sacrificed. Moreover, Quebec sovereigntists were not
the ones who rejected the Free Trade Agreement with the United
States and NAFTA. There is a difference between withdrawing
into oneself and pulling out in order to perform better in the new
global economy.
The close economic integration between Quebec and Canada
forces us to take a careful look at what is happening in Europe.
What lessons can we draw from the European model?
[English]
Some pundits like to believe the European Community will
gradually transform itself into something resembling Canadian
federalism and use this as an argument against Quebec
sovereignty. Thus they reveal their lack of familiarity with
European developments. In fact the other way around appears
much more likely. To solve the Canadian political crisis our
present institutions should and I dare say will evolve along the
lines of the European Community.
A few facts seem in order. The European Commission in
Brussels has a budget that amounts to 1.2 per cent of the global
GNP of the community. It has no fiscal powers and-such a
tragedy-cannot run a deficit. The federal government in
Ottawa spends 22 per cent of GNP and has the whole gamut of
fiscal powers. As for deficits we all know what has happened.
The commission in Brussels has no army, no police and a small
bureaucracy when compared to national governments.
Community decisions are in fact executed by national
bureaucracies. If we exclude trade matters, national sovereignty
remains the basic ingredient of the community.
For instance the 12 members could modify the structure and
the workings of the EC without the commission having any say
in the decision. For these countries co-operation is the master
word, not subordination.
This is a far cry from the Canadian brand of federalism. Who
will pretend, for example, that only the provincial governments
determine the future of Canada? Who will pretend that the
federal government is but a benevolent arbitrator of
inter-regional conflicts? For Quebec the central government is
the problem. For English Canada it is part of the solution.
37
The Maastricht treaty extended the process of economic
integration to the field of monetary policy by setting the
objective of a common currency before the end of the century,
and the process of political co-operation by specifying the
objective of a common thread in the fields of defence and
foreign policy. These sensitive fields will remain the
prerogative of the heads of state assembled in the European
Council.
(1600)
Hence the following question: If the European union is indeed
the wave of the future as is frequently alleged in the Canadian
media, why not propose this model as a solution to Canada's
national problem? If Maastricht represents the embodiment of
the next century, why does English Canada not propose the same
kind of arrangement to Quebec? The Maastricht arrangements
would be much easier to implement between Quebec and Canada
than among 12 very diverse countries.
[Translation]
Let there be no mistake. Bloc members will not forget that
their commitment to sovereignty constitutes the real reason for
their presence in this House. One could say that as far as we are
concerned, the pre-referendum campaign has begun.
Meanwhile, we will not let the recession be dissociated from its
causes.
For the time being, and until Quebecers have made their
decision in a referendum, members of the Bloc will seek to
safeguard the future by averting present evils to the best of their
ability. These evils include unemployment, poverty, lack of
budgetary restraint, undue duplication, threats to our social
programs, fiscal inequity and loss of confidence in our political
institutions and leaders.
All these issues have a direct impact on Quebec's interests but
are equally important for the rest of Canada. Our aspirations
drive us apart, but our social, economic and budgetary problems
are the same.
[English]
As Premier Bob Rae would say: ``We are all in the same
boat''.
[Translation]
Who can challenge the legitimacy, even for the whole at
Canada, of any action the Bloc may take to limit the damage,
create jobs, wrestle with the deficit and fight off attacks against
our social programs? The universal character of these concerns
confers a clear legitimacy on a common response to these issues.
In addition, we received an electoral mandate. Our 54 seats were
allocated by the principal players: the electorate. Do these seats
have any less clout because they come from Quebec?
I can already hear our opponents claiming that it was only
thanks to an erratic division of seats of English Canada between
the Liberals and Reform members that the Bloc was able to
come to the fore with the second largest number of members.
However, the impact of spoilers and how this translates to the
electoral map is also an expression of the will of the electorate.
It was a combination of all votes, whether they were from
Quebec or the rest of Canada, which made us the Official
Opposition. To criticise the fact that this responsibility has now
been taken over by the Bloc Quebecois shows a lack of respect
for the democratic process has a whole.
We intend to take these responsibilities seriously; and we will
do so loyally, correctly and with due resolve. We know that is
what Quebecers expect us to do , and they would never forgive
us if we deviated from this path.
In this respect, we are guided by two principles: equity and
responsibility. On both counts, the speech from the throne was a
complete disappointment. At a time when more than one child
out of six and one family out of eight are living below the
poverty line in this country, when a million and a half people are
unemployed, and when more and more people in Quebec see this
as proof of the failure of Canadian federalism, one would expect
the new government to stage a strong and spectacular rally.
There is a general and widespread feeling of disappointment,
both among the needy, breadwinners, young people and seniors,
and also among business people and investors.
All were anxious to know what specific measures would be
taken to put Canadians back to work. Unfortunately, the
government merely served up a condensed version of its little
red book. The first hundred days of this government will not go
down in history.
Analyse though we may, we will find none of the answers we
expected in the speech from the throne.
Is there anything in the way of projects that hold out some
hope? Nothing. The talk goes on about municipal
infrastructures. It may be useful, but the program falls tragically
short of what it would take to jump start the economy. The
government has failed to understand how important it is to give
people hope. How can the unemployed take heart, how can
decision makers consider investing when the government is not
even aware of the seriousness of the situation? When it should
have taken drastic measures such as starting work on the
high-speed rail link between Windsor and Quebec City,
transferring labour training programs and resources to Quebec,
where all parties have been lobbying for it for a long time, when
it should have set up a fund to convert military industry to
civilian uses, when it should have taken so many measures, the
government chose to be content with publishing yet another
pamphlet filled with vague electioneering propaganda.
38
(1605)
The government will no doubt retort that it does not have the
resources to invest in economic recovery. That is tantamount to
acknowledging a lack of political courage and administrative
stringency. Indeed, it is possible to reduce the deficit while
leaving room to manoeuvre. To do that, you have to decide once
and for all to cut spending. But the will to do so is lacking. We
agree as to the diagnosis, but not as to the treatment.
The Bloc Quebecois is willing to support an ambitious deficit
cutting plan, but not just any one. We cannot ignore the origin of
the present national debt. We cannot forget that the federal
government was the first one to open wide the gates in the early
1980's, leading to this spiralling public debt. As we all know, on
March 31, 1994, the net debt will reach $507 billion whereas the
combined debt of all the provinces will be less than $170 billion.
This explains why, a few years ago, the federal government
decided to unload part of the federal deficit on the provinces.
In view of this heavy responsibility, the federal government
should show the way rather than impose its will by decree.
Before considering shrinking the social safety net, before
passing the buck to the provinces, the federal government must
first put its own house in order. It could follow two very
different paths. Ridding the federal administration of its fat
could be done very quickly by eliminating useless trips,
contracts awarded to private interests, friends and friends of
friends, extravagant spending here and abroad, and by taking
into account the horror stories which have been listed, year after
year, by the Auditor General in his annual report.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Bouchard: Good resolutions, noble intentions to let
parliamentarians speak do not last long, do they? They cannot
even wait for the end of the first real sitting day, for the end of
the speech by the Leader of the Opposition to start hurling
insults.
[English]
The Speaker: Order. I would hope hon. members would hear
each other out in the debates as much as possible.
[Translation]
Mr. Bouchard: That would require a thorough and detailed
study of each and every department's internal expenses. We all
know how much the bureaucracy is unwilling to curb its
appetite. Restraint will have to be imposed from the outside; in
other words, it will have to come from the Canadian Parliament.
The government has expressed its willingness to increase the
responsibilities of this House. We take them at their word. We
ask that they abide by that promise in a very concrete and
significant manner. A meticulous analysis of theses
expenditures by a parliamentary commission representing all of
us in this House would be proof of the government's good faith
and would allow us to seriously inform the public as to the
extent of the excessive expenses within government itself.
The whole issue of national defence will have to be rethought
in the light of the new geopolitical world map. The Bloc
Quebecois will closely follow the federal task force in charge of
this operation. Meanwhile, however, all capital expenditures
should be frozen.
This is only part of the way of life of our government. There is
another aspect which was omitted in the Speech from the
Throne. The federal government refuses to recognize the real
scope of it, that is the duplication of federal and provincial
activities. What exactly is the cost of that constant grappling
between the federal and the provinces?
A curious turnaround occurred in the way even the most
fervent federalists themselves analyze the operation of the
present system. Until recently, they praised the government for
having achieved the optimum sharing of powers between the
two levels. But we cannot keep on deluding ourselves; it is quite
common now for people to denounce the bureaucratic
duplication and the waste it causes.
(1610)
In 1991 the Canadian Treasury Board conducted a study of
overlapping federal and provincial programs. The study
involved 453 different federal programs in 119 Departments,
Crown corporations or other federal organizations, with a total
budget of $96 billion. Forty-five per cent of these programs,
which account for $40 billion in expenditures, overlapped
directly with provincial programs.
In other words, overlapping is the rule rather than the
exception. The Bélanger-Campeau Commission concluded that
if we could do away with this situation, we could save billions of
dollars. According to the Quebec government itself, in the area
of manpower and employment training alone, the overlapping is
costing Quebec taxpayers $250 million a year. The federal and
provincial structures in the field of manpower adjustment and
training services include more than 50 programs and
sub-programs for the same people who are thus left to wander in
a maze of services.
Right now, in Quebec, we are in the incredible situation
whereby 75,000 to 90,000 jobs cannot be filled due to a lack of
skilled labour, when over 25,000 Quebecers are waiting to be
trained.
This is at the heart of the dysfunctional federalism and the
legitimacy crisis which is paralysing Canada. This
administrative mess comes from the very nature of the system.
However, this is also a sign of the willingness of the government
to tolerate waste. Here is a real bonanza, an opportunity to save
money and increase efficiency at all levels of government. But
the federal government refuses because of its centralising
39
ideology, its veneration of the status quo or simply because of
petty politics.
Another area were the government is not taking its
responsibilities has to do with public probity. It is praiseworthy
to talk about promoting parliamentary democracy and deferring
to the moral authority of the Speaker, but when searching for
ways to enhance the credibility of parliamentarians, it is too
easy to make only cosmetic reforms. The Speech from the
Throne fails to recognize that the first step to take to ensure an
ethical public service is to institute party financing by the
people. When will federal parties forego the unlimited
contributions they get from large corporations? When will they
finally get out from under their hold? The Bloc, for one, made
the necessary sacrifices to enter this House with its hands free.
Of its free will, it adopted the restrictions provided by the
Quebec legislation, drawing its inspiration from one of the great
democratic principles passed down to us by René Lévesque. To
talk about a political code of ethics and to think openness can be
achieved without reforming party financing is just smoke and
mirrors.
The opportunities flowing from the generalities of the Speech
from the Throne are no better in the area of equity. First, the
omissions of the abbreviated red book that serves as a Speech
from the Throne say a lot about the Liberal complacency where
fiscal inequities are concerned.
Canadians are not all equal before the tax system. Some
benefit from tax shelters that have no economic justification.
Some sell smuggled cigarettes or liquor and others buy them.
Several avoid paying any tax, thanks to the underground
economy whose rapid expansion is a measure of the poor
performance of the GST. This tax, which was supposed to bring
in $16.5 billion of federal revenue in 1991, yielded only $15
billion in 1993. The government's legitimacy is still losing
ground while the idea that it is OK to evade taxation is gaining
ground.
Some adjustments must be made. First, illegitimate tax
shelters must disappear. Second, smuggling must be eradicated.
In fact, there is only one peaceful way to do this and that is to
pull the carpet out from under the smugglers' feet, that is, to
reduce sharply the price gap between the product sold legally
and the smuggled one. It has become urgent from a social point
of view to reduce taxes on tobacco because of all the
repercussions due to their prohibitive level. If we do not take
immediate and decisive action, the social contract will continue
to be broken a little bit more every day.
Inequity breeds inequity. Not only will wealthy families be
allowed to shelter huge sums of money into trusts but, in a
blatant example of double standards, the government will
recoup by reducing the social safety net provided to the
underprivileged. Lacking the courage to cut into its wasteful
spending, into federal-provincial duplication and into
unjustified tax shelters, the government will prefer to make the
unemployed, the people on welfare and pensioners pay. The
direct victims of the crisis are about to be described as
troublemakers at the very time where they most need the help
they are used to expect, given the compassion and social
solidarity held as true Quebec and Canadian values.
(1615)
We have heard various hypotheses about what the government
intends to do with the social programs and provincial transfers.
In the Throne Speech, we heard about ``reform'', ``renewal'',
``streamlining'', ``restructuring'', ``modernization'',
``redefinition'' and ``review''. In fact, we heard all the deceitful
synonyms used by governments trying to avoid the appropriate
terminology, like cuts, reduction, and decrease. Any extended
recession tends to increase the income gap between the people at
the top of the pyramid and those at the bottom. The previous
government was particularly insensitive to the seriousness of
the last recession and the hardships it brought about. There is a
new kind of poverty in Canada. It is unacceptable that the new
budget cuts be aimed at people already severely affected by
economic hardships. To work together to get out of the recession
is one thing. But to do so at the expense of the people who are
already suffering too much is something the Bloc Quebecois is
determined to expose and fight. For us in the Bloc, social
protection is something that remains inviolable.
The same goes for federal transfers to the provinces, which
have been targeted in the last few years. As you know, these
transfers are used to finance part of the provincial social
programs. Parliament has yet to be consulted and already the
government is talking about simply freezing the transfers for the
next five years. Such a decision would put the blame on the
provinces for the federal budget crisis, which would be a blatant
non-truth. Economically, transfer freezing would result in a
decrease, in constant dollars, of 3.5 percent per capita per year,
for a total reduction of 18 percent over five years. But in fact,
more than 60 percent of these payments are made to the poorer
provinces. Quebec would become a net contributor to the
federation, which would be a total aberration. And the federal
government would wash its hands and seem to have a good
conscience, while the provinces are left to care for the
underprivileged who have been dealt another blow.
With respect to federal inequities towards Quebec, it is hardly
enough to say that the Speech from the Throne was silent on that
subject. It would be more appropriate to say that the government
wants to bury these telling signs of the true fate of Quebec under
the federal system in Canada. Not a line on that, not a word, not
even a subtle reference, nothing. The government continues to
ignore the official statistics, compiled here in Ottawa, which
clearly show that in many areas Quebec receives a lot less than
its fair share, namely in the areas of federal procurement,
federal investments, agriculture, research and development,
regional development, defence and so on. The media in English
Canada have blamed the Bloc for putting the emphasis on those
areas where Quebec is at a disadvantage and ignoring those
where our province enjoys an advantage. They accuse us of
painting a darker picture of the situation without reason. The
presence of sovereigntists in this House is absolutely necessary
40
to remind people of certain true facts that have been kept in the
dark.
It is very simple and one does not need a long list of statistics
to understand what it is all about. In fact, one just has to look at
the most recent data available, which show that Quebec receives
from the federal government about the same amount it sends to
Ottawa in taxes, converting of course the present deficits of the
federal government in future taxes. Thanks to their deficits, the
federal authorities can spend in each province more than they
levy in taxes. But just wait to see the bill that the next generation
will have to pay!
Some are in a hurry to point out that, as a poorer member of
the federation, Quebec will receive equalization payments
totalling $3.7 billion in 1993-94. But the original purpose of
equalization was to bridge the gap between poorer and richer
provinces, was it not? In other words, equalization should
represent a real supplement for those provinces which receive it.
It so happens that Quebec does not get a supplement. The
equalization payments that Quebec receives are only to
compensate for what the province does not get from the federal
government in other areas. So Quebec has to finance its own
equalization payments. In reality, equalization in Canada is a
transfer from rich English-speaking provinces to poor
English-speaking provinces.
(1620)
For Quebec, equalization is only meagre compensation for the
considerable loss of potential revenue in the form of federal
spending on job creation. For instance, the equalization system
does not compensate for the substantial advantage enjoyed by
Ontario's economy as a result of concentrated federal spending
on research and development.
This unfair division of government spending is not just some
perverse result of the federal system but is part and parcel of that
system.
So how does all this fit in with what we intend to do during the
months to come?
First of all, there is a way to reduce the federal deficit by
several billion dollars, starting with the next fiscal year, without
affecting the social safety net and transfer payments to the
provinces which are basically earmarked for social programs.
This would have a significant impact on financial markets and
thus on interest rates. A drop of one percentage point would put
$8 billion annually back into the pockets of consumers and
businesses and at the same time ease the servicing of federal and
provincial debts. The impact would be vastly superior to that of
the government's infrastructure program.
In the present context, however, it is not enough to simply
reduce the deficit. Steps must also be taken to strengthen
productivity, the backbone of the Canadian and Quebec
economies. If interest rates continue to go down, there will be a
recovery in the consumption of durable goods, including
housing and cars. However, the production side will also need a
boost. This would include helping more vulnerable sectors find
a new niche. That is the way of the jobs of the future. Increasing
research and development, an area where Canada is clearly
lagging behind other Western countries, and easing the
conversion of much of our military industry would be a priority
as far as we are concerned. Once the economy has been nudged
on its way to recovery, it will generate tax revenues that will
help bring the federal deficit back to acceptable proportions.
Cuts may be necessary, but cuts alone are not enough.
In concluding, I would like to repeat that unlike the
government, members of the Bloc Quebecois will not evade any
of the issues this Parliament will have to face. We will not
tolerate the government's refusal to deal with Quebec's
aspirations. Let it not be said that it was for nothing that the
majority of federalists and all Quebec sovereignists struggled,
each in their own way, for thirty years to give Quebec the tools to
develop as a people. What Quebec started in the Sixties must be
allowed to come to fruition.
After the concept of a nation was established, after mobilizing
Quebec society, after the efforts of Jean Lesage, the
manoeuvring of Robert Bourassa and the courage of René
Lévesque, there must be more than the evasive platitudes of the
Prime Minister. He should realize that the history of Quebec did
not stop on a certain night in November in 1981, behind closed
doors in the Château Laurier. I suggest he look at the 54
members of this party sitting here today and remember who sent
us here and the mandate we were given.
Then he will realize that Quebec's future as a sovereign
country is just one step ahead, a sovereign country that is
Canada's neighbour and friend.
I move, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition in the
House of Commons and member for Roberval,
That the following words be added to the Address: ``This House deplores the fact
that Your Excellency's advisers have shown themselves to be unconcerned about
matters of extreme importance, such as the placing of public finances on a sounder
footing and the cutting of fat from the federal administration; lack of vision in dealing
with the economy, as made evident by the inadequacy of their proposed measures for
promoting employment and by their perpetuation of the existing confusion in human
resource programs; are ignorant of Quebec's legitimate political aspirations; and have
41
presented to Parliament a program embodying an obvious willingness to dismatle
the social security system and maintain an unfair tax system, thereby further
undermining the financial well-being of a growing number of citizens.''
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
(1625)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
before anything else, let me congratulate you on your election
last Monday which was exceptional in a way. As you know, your
role is a fundamental one in our democratic institutions. Let me
assure you today that my government and the members of my
party will support you at all times and will try to facilitate your
work in every possible way.
I would also like to congratulate the two members who moved
the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, the
members for Bruce-Grey and Madawaska-Victoria.
Although they are new at this, they showed us how wise their
constituents were in choosing them as their representatives in
this House.
I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that they will enjoy a long and
outstanding career in this House.
[English]
There is no greater honour than standing before you in this
House as Prime Minister of Canada. I will do my best to make a
contribution to this great work in progress we know as Canada.
In fact, each of us in this House has a role to play and a
responsibility in that area.
I want to salute and welcome the men and women from all
parties whom Canadians elected to the House of Commons on
October 25.
This session of Parliament has an unprecedented number of
new members. More than two-thirds of the women and men in
this House are new to Parliament. It is the biggest injection of
new energy in the history of this institution. I look forward to the
new spirit that will come from this fresh Parliament. Canadians
are looking for members of all parties in this House to work
together in a very constructive way and I am confident that we
can work together on many issues of importance to the people of
our constituencies and of our country as a whole.
[Translation]
If there are a record number of new members in the House,
there are also a few well-known figures such as the Government
House leader who has been part of our political scene for 31
years, I am told, and other veterans such as the members for
Ottawa-Vanier and Notre-Dame-de-Grâce who have been
present in this House for so long they should serve as models for
many of us. I would also call upon the many new party members
to consult them occasionally as they could be of service. They
are familiar with this House and have made some very positive
contributions throughout their successful career.
(1630)
I want to express my heartfelt appreciation to the people of the
constituency of Saint-Maurice, a region that knows me and
understands me very well. I want my constituents to know that I
will work hard for them and that I am deeply honoured to serve
for the ninth time in my life as the honourable member for
Saint-Maurice, a responsibility which gives me the greatest
pleasure of all. I will always be very grateful for this
opportunity.
The people of Saint-Maurice want the same things as their
fellow Canadians across the country. They want their
government and their elected representatives to begin the
much-needed process of healing the country. They want them to
set aside old grievances and debates and to focus on building a
country that we will be proud to leave to our children.
What kind of country do the constituents of Saint-Maurice
want? What kind of country do Canadians want? They want a
country full of hope instead of fear, a country where each person
is an equal partner and can make a contribution, rather than be a
burden to society. They want a country where adults can find a
decent, interesting job, a country where children can dream of a
happy future. They want a country that recognizes our
communities as the pillars of social stability and economic
strength, a country with a dynamic economy, one which fosters
the entrepreneurial spirit and which is on the cutting edge of
technological progress and change.
They want a country where the government listens to them
and respects them. Finally, they want a competent, honest and
fair government, one that keeps its promises and helps them
achieve their potential. That is what Canadians want and that is
what this government will endeavour to give them.
[English]
Everything we do during this Parliament will be aimed at
healing the deep wounds in our country, at restoring the bonds of
trust and respect between Canadians and the government. It will
be aimed at rebuilding our economic vitality to ensure that every
Canadian is able to realize his or her full potential.
Canadians voted for that kind of government on October 25.
Above all, Canadians voted for a government that follows
through on its commitments, that keeps its word and lives up to
its promises.
From the moment we took office a little more than two months
ago we have been working to keep the pledges we made to the
Canadian people. We have done what we said we would do.
For example, on November 4 we cancelled the $5.8 billion
helicopter program, a luxury we did not need and could not
afford. The same day we introduced a 23-member cabinet, the
42
smallest ever. We cut $10 million from the offices of ministers
and we reduced the size of the Prime Minister's Office.
(1635)
Last Sunday the whip introduced a program to give a good
example of where this institution has decided to cut by $5
million the expenses that we have to incur as a Parliament. In the
week since then we moved immediately to implement the
national infrastructure program. In fact this month we will sign
infrastructure agreements with every province and projects to
put people back to work will get started in a matter of days and
weeks.
We sought and received improvements to enable Canada to
sign NAFTA. We helped to negotiate a GATT agreement that
opens new horizons for increased exports abroad and increased
jobs at home.
We reviewed the Pearson airport deal and cancelled it because
it did not serve the interests of taxpayers.
We appointed a new Governor of the Bank of Canada.
We levelled with Canadians about the size of the deficit that
we generated and about the huge debt that we will have to carry
and we set up a new consultative process for the next budget.
In our first meeting with provincial premiers we began work
on such issues as eliminating interprovincial trade barriers,
ending duplication between levels of government and reforming
the tax system, including replacing the GST.
[Translation]
We have done all that in a little over two months. Each of
these measures is linked to a specific promise made during the
electoral campaign. And now, in the Speech from the Throne, we
are continuing to keep our promises. In fact, I was quite pleased
to read the headline in La Presse this morning; there had been
others like it during the campaign that had been just as positive.
The Speech from the Throne, like this government's mandate,
originates from the red book, the title of which is Creating
Opportunity: The Liberal Plan for Canada. We have provided
Canadians with an action plan. We have run the risk of
submitting a complete and detailed plan of action. We have done
what no other party had ever done before.
Canadians are not afraid to go off the beaten path. They were
not expecting miracles either. What they want and deserve is a
government capable of taking up difficult challenges.
[English]
During the campaign I called it realistic hope for a better
future for themselves and their children, for a prosperous
economy in which they can contribute, for a society that is
compassionate and caring, for communities that are safe and
decent, for a government that represents them, that believes in
the same things they do.
Canadians opted for realistic hope for the future and they
invested their hopes in this government. On behalf of the men
and women who were elected to form this government I would
like to tell the Canadian people we will not let them down. What
we will do is work to respect what we said to the Canadian
people we were going to do.
(1640 )
This throne speech marks an important step in renewing the
faith of Canadians in their institution. The agenda is ambitious
but it is doable and it is the agenda Canadians have chosen. We
must build on the goodwill and the renewed confidence in
institutions that the government's actions have created among
Canadians. The people of Canada said loudly and clearly during
the election that they want to return integrity and honesty to
government.
The government understands that desire and will act on it with
concrete measures early in this session. We have already sent
very important signals. The work of the Hon. Mitchell Sharp is a
powerful message to Canadians that government can be a force
for good in society, that public life is a very honourable calling
and that we are here to serve others, not ourselves. That is how
we intend to conduct ourselves throughout our mandate.
However it is not enough to clean up the system. Canadians
voted for something more. They voted to return power to the
elected representatives here in the House of Commons. We
made commitments to the Canadian people to give the House
and members of Parliament new relevance so that it once again
becomes the focus of political debate and decision making in our
government.
The government House leader will bring forward changes to
the rules and practices of this place. We will give a much greater
role to parliamentary committees.
[Translation]
I have asked the finance committee to come up with
alternatives to the GST. Later on in the year, I will ask that they
be closely associated with pre-budget consultations. The
government will ask the parliamentary committees to submit
our strategic policy as it relates to foreign relations and defence
to a thorough examination.
This government is serious about the need for real political
debates to be held in this House before decisions are made.
Earlier, during question period, the Minister of Finance
suggested that a pre-budget debate be held in the House of
Commons to allow the members to express their views on the
coming budget, and I wish to commend him for that initiative.
43
We will also have a debate in this House on the role of our
peacekeeping forces in the former Yugoslavia because, as you
know, difficult decisions will have to be made when the time
comes to renew mandates, in March and April. And I want the
hon. members to have an opportunity to debate the issue.
[English]
I would like members to have the occasion to debate it before,
including the members of my party. I would like everyone to
speak very frankly. After that we will make a decision knowing
what everyone thinks. Particularly for my party it will be
unusual because some members may take a position that is not in
accordance with what we will eventually decide. However in a
democracy we go along with the majority view, the decision of
the authorities. I hope the opposition parties will realize this is a
new opportunity we are giving to this Parliament so that we can
know exactly what members think before, rather than us making
the decision. I have been there. It is a terrible job to be in the
opposition and I do not want to go back there.
I want members to speak first. Of course they will criticize
after that, but we will compare their first speech and the second
one.
[Translation]
These reforms are part of our efforts to bring government
closer to the people and to restore trust between them.
(1645)
A government must act in the best interest of all members of
society, mainly by promoting job creation, fostering economic
growth and creating opportunities.
[English]
The economic policy of this government can be summarized
in two words: jobs and growth.
During the course of this debate the President of the Treasury
Board will speak about the national infrastructure program. The
Minister of Industry will elaborate on government policy with
respect to small and medium sized business. The Minister of
Human Resources Development will speak about the youth
corps and programs to help the transition from school to the
workplace. The Minister of Finance has begun a consultative
process across Canada before presenting next month's budget.
He is committed to getting the economy moving and to creating
jobs.
Through a combination of expenditure restraint and economic
growth we will succeed in reducing the deficit. We are
determined to achieve our goal of 3 per cent of the deficit in
relation to the GDP.
We will not throw people out of work simply to be able to say
that the deficit has come down. Yesterday the member for
Madawaska-Victoria said it very clearly in a way we on this
side believe it should be said, as do some on the other side too.
He used a phrase all of us should keep in mind: the government
should be lean but not mean.
In fact our approach to economic policy will be guided by the
need to prepare Canadians for the jobs and economic
opportunities of the 1990s and the 21st century.
We will invest in Canadians, in training programs and
programs to improve literacy and other basic skills.
[Translation]
Our agenda for job creation and economic revival is an
ambitious one and, as everyone knows, our resources are
limited. A government cannot do everything and, in 1994, it
should not try to. This is why we are going to count on
partnership to boost growth and job creation.
We will work in partnership with other levels of government
to implement our infrastructure program, to reduce internal
barriers to trade, to replace the GST and to reform our social
programs.
We will work in partnership with the private sector for job
training and the youth service corps and for helping-and this is
very important-financial institutions to better recognize and
better meet the capital needs of small and medium-sized
businesses.
[English]
This partnership will also extend to our work in knitting
together a stronger social fabric in Canada.
Our number one focus will be the economy, but a strong
economy is not an end in itself. It is a means to an end, to better
lives for Canadian families, to healthy caring communities, to a
decent quality of life. This is the essence of what being a
Canadian is all about.
Canada's social security system was created by successive
federal governments. A cornerstone of our philosophy is the
principle of shared social responsibility. We are extremely
proud of the Liberal legacy in social policy. In fact, the father of
our Minister of Finance was one of the fathers of this great
system. I was here in this House to vote on many of these
measures.
(1650)
We believe that people experiencing economic difficulty must
have income support available to them through social
assistance. But it is our goal to help people on social assistance
who are able to work to be able to move from dependence to full
participation in the economic and social life of Canada.
[Translation]
We know that the jobless do not want to be unemployed.
Canadians want to earn their living honourably. They want the
44
dignity of a job. We must therefore design programs which will
help them find work.
We know that the poor do not want to live in poverty.
Canadians who are able to work do not want to collect welfare.
Our programs must therefore help, for example, a single mother
who does not have access to child care services; otherwise, she
will be forced to remain dependent on the state for many years.
We must admit that Canadians have never faced so many
social and economic challenges since the depression of the
1930s.
The structure of our economy is changing and the family unit
has been deeply transformed. We must therefore reform our
social security system to meet the needs of Canadians today.
The minister of human resources will announce a process to
rethink our social security system and to modernize it, in
co-operation with the provinces and for the greater good of all
Canadians.
[English]
During the course of this debate the Minister of Health will
speak about the commitment of this government to health care
and to women's health issues. The Minister of Justice will speak
about measures we will take to protect individuals from crime
and violence in their homes. He will speak about measures
which enhance our commitment to the fundamental equality of
Canadians.
These are areas in which a society is judged. This government
wants to play its role in ensuring the fabric of Canadian life
continues to be tolerant and generous and that the quality of life
we all cherish and which is so distinctively Canadian improves
and benefits all Canadians.
The agenda is full and it will require co-operation and a sense
of a shared mission which our country has not seen for a long
time, the kind of spirit we saw at the first ministers meeting in
December. Canadians are ready for this national will. They want
those of us who are in responsible positions in government and
the private sector to work together toward those worthy national
goals.
[Translation]
I wish to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on his
speech. It is a first in the House of Commons, in a quite
unprecedented situation, as he said himself. I do not intend to
respond to all the arguments he put forward, because I think the
debate would be rather sterile. In the election campaign, we
talked a lot about jobs, we talked a lot about the deficit in
Quebec and we maybe talked a little about independence and
separation, but not much. I know that if I got into that subject, I
would not be fulfilling the mandate which I received from the
people of our country.
Besides, my convictions are well known. I have been here for
many years. I would just like to tell you that my convictions
about Canada are based perhaps on a text which describes our
country very well. A hundred years ago, one of my predecessors,
Laurier, spoke thus, as the twentieth century approached:
We are French Canadians, but our country is not limited to the territory around
the Citadel in Quebec; our country is Canada. Our fellow citizens are not only
those who have French blood in their veins. They are all those, regardless of race
or language, who have come here among us as a result of the vagaries of war or the
whims of fortune or by their own choice.
(1655)
These words are just as appropriate today, on the eve of the
21st century, as they were at the beginning of the 20th century.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): I also want to mention that it
is true that we did not get as many votes as the Bloc québécois.
We will change that next time, but it is the reality now.
But I have something to say to the hon. members who were
elected in Quebec and who are French-speaking Canadians like
me. Something happened this week in this House, something
which they should have noted. First, we chose a Speaker. Two
French-Canadians from Ontario got the same number of votes in
the fifth ballot, which means that, at one point, all the members
of this House voted for a French Canadian. One won and one
lost. But in a sense it is very telling that a person like the hon.
member for Ottawa-Vanier who, throughout his career, has
always been proud to be a francophone and has always said it
loud and clear, got such support.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): The hon. member for
Madawaska-Victoria, in New Brunswick, rose in this House to
second the motion in reply to the speech from the Throne.
I have had the great honour of being the member for
Beauséjour and to rise in this House to represent francophones,
francophones from New Brunswick, and Acadians who were
deported and who came back. And those one million
francophones outside Quebec are part of my country.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): The Leader of the
Opposition talked about progress and about preparing for the
21st century. I agree with him. I look around this House.
[English]
I see these members of different colours, religions and
languages who are all members of the same family in my party
and of the same country of Canada.
45
[Translation]
If we know how to capitalize on our strengths and our
potential, if we look for new solutions, and if, while facing the
tasks awaiting us, we can communicate our hopes and our
energy, we will restore the confidence of Canadians in their
government. A country which was able to overcome its
problems, which is competitive and which becomes more
powerful and more independent, is a country which will be a
model and an inspiration throughout the world.
[English]
In short, what Canadians want is a country to be proud of and
to believe in. That is the challenge not only for this government
but for this Parliament.
(1700 )
It is in that spirit that I invite the men and women of all parties
in this House to join us in this national effort. I invite them to put
aside old tactics that have so frustrated and embittered
Canadians. I invite them to work with us in improving this
country.
I am convinced that the new spirit that men and women
elected to this House are bringing with them makes it possible
for us to enter a new constructive era together. We all have an
obligation to uphold the confidence Canadians have invested in
each and every one of us.
Together we can prove that their confidence was not
misplaced. Together we can do what every generation of
Canadians did when put to the test and that is to meet challenges
head on, beat the odds and build the country.
It is our mission to take this country and prepare it for the 21st
century, to make sure that we will give our children and our
grandchildren this land of freedom, opportunity and justice
which is an example to the world. Today, as Prime Minister of
this land, I tell everyone that the world needs the understanding,
tolerance and justice that this country has been able to prove
over the years. For me Canada is and will always be number one.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to begin by congratulating you on your election to the
office of Speaker and to offer you the co-operation and support
of our Reform members.
Canadians made it abundantly clear on October 25, 1993 that
they were not pleased with the performance of many members of
the 34th Parliament and that they clearly expected a different
style of conduct from the members of this Parliament.
As both a member and the presiding officer of this House you
have a mandate from the people to encourage a higher standard
of behaviour. As a group, we pledge our co-operation with you
in discharging that mandate.
[Translation]
I would also like to congratulate all members for their
election to the Canadian Parliament, and in particular the right
hon. member for Saint-Maurice who was elected prime minister
of Canada.
There are several people whose ambition to become prime
minister exceeded that of the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien, but very
few people have served their country, the House of Commons
and the government as faithfully as he has. I think it is important
for new members in this House to see that not only ambition, but
experience, knowledge and dedication are also rewarded.
(1705)
A great man once said: He who wants to be a leader must be at
the service of others. We would like to congratulate the Right
Hon. Jean Chrétien who has become our leader.
[English]
Third, I want to especially thank the electors of Calgary
Southwest for giving me the opportunity to represent them in
this House.
I know from months of town hall meetings, surveys and door
knocking that our electors have definite hopes and aspirations
for this Parliament. They hope against hope that we will be able
to control federal spending and taxation. They hope that we, the
members of this Parliament, will be free to represent their
interests even if that conflicts with our party line. They hope that
we will be capable of giving to all Canadians a fresh and
vigorous vision of a new federalism capable of carrying us into
the 21st century.
I feel, as I am sure all members feel, an enormous sense of
responsibility that we do not frustrate those hopes and
aspirations.
I realize-and many of us as new members have been
reminded of this on numerous occasions already-that much of
the conduct of this Chamber is frequently bound by precedent.
However, there is a sense in which the 35th Parliament should
consider itself a House beyond precedent.
The reduction of the representation of a traditional federal
party in this House from 152 seats to 2 seats is unprecedented in
the history of federal politics although this fact does not seem to
have registered yet on the member for Sherbrooke. The election
of over 200 new members has already been referred to and is
also unprecedented. The ideological and geographical
alignment of the political parties in this House is also
unprecedented.
In other words, in electing this House Canadians themselves
have broken with precedent. Therefore we believe it would be
fitting that this House also break with precedent in some
important areas, especially in the conduct of its own business.
46
For example, our Reform group does not intend to conduct
itself as a traditional opposition party. We feel ourselves bound
to rigorously scrutinize everything that the government puts
forward but we do not consider ourselves bound to oppose
everything that the government puts forward.
In scrutinizing the speech from the throne we will seek to
identify and give credit to the measures we consider good. We
will also seek to identify and expose those measures that we
consider weak or ill-advised but when we do the latter we will
feel an obligation not simply to criticize or oppose but to offer
constructive alternatives.
We think of this House, which is beyond precedent, as a
three-cornered House. There is the government, the Official
Opposition whose members wish to take their province out of
Canada, and Her Majesty's constructive alternative.
In keeping with this positioning, our principal contribution to
the throne speech debate will be threefold. We will analyse the
government's program from a variety or perspectives: fiscal,
economic and social. We will offer proposals for improving the
government's legislative program in the interests of all
Canadians and we will put forward a subamendment designed to
improve the government's program. The passage of our
subamendment should not be viewed as an expression of
non-confidence but as a constructive addition which
government members themselves could support.
Allow me then to speak for just a moment on the most
commendable feature of the speech from the throne, its greatest
weakness and a proposed improvement.
(1710 )
We believe that the most commendable feature of the speech
from the throne is its promise to enhance the credibility of
Parliament. However the objective of any parliamentary reform
in our judgment should be to create a freer Parliament, not just a
more efficient one, a Parliament where members are free to
express and vote the positions of their constituents even when it
conflicts with party lines.
Parliamentary reform of course, including this type of reform,
has been promised before. Hopefully this government intends to
act on its promises. The public is tired of the hollow eloquence
of words and longs for the eloquence of deeds.
For example, nothing would enhance the credibility of
Parliament more than the institution of genuinely free votes.
What we and many Canadians would like to see is for the Prime
Minister to rise in his place today or tomorrow and clearly
declare to you, Mr. Speaker, the following policy as a policy of
his government: That the government will not consider the
defeat of a government motion, including a spending measure,
to constitute an expression of non-confidence in the
government unless it is immediately followed by the passage of
a formal non-confidence vote.
That takes about 30 seconds to say. I say to the Prime Minister
if he were to do that he would be known as the liberator of
Parliament no matter what.
We hope over time that this House and even the media will
come to see cross-over voting, the number of times that a
member crosses over party lines in the interest of constituents,
not as a sign of party weakness or dissension but as a sign of the
strength of genuine democracy in this Chamber.
At the beginning of this session we want to commend the
government's commitment as contained in the speech from the
throne to enhance the credibility of Parliament. We think that is
one of the strongest features of its program if it follows through
on it.
Allow me to turn to the greatest weakness of the government's
legislative program and the area that we feel is most in need of
improvement. All members are aware of the fiscal legacy which
the previous Conservative administration left to the people of
Canada and to the 35th Parliament. The distinguishing features
of that legacy are, and this is the bottom line of the fiscal regime
of the government that preceded this government, a record
federal deficit for 1992-93 of $40.5 billion and a total federal
debt as of noon yesterday of $500 billion.
I say to hon. members that the greatest challenge facing this
Parliament, whether their commitments are constitutional,
social or to jobs, is to control federal overspending. I frankly
expected that challenge to be acknowledged and addressed more
forcefully and directly in the government's legislative program,
not just in a budget two or three months hence.
Traditional throne speeches, and this speech is very
traditional, always listed things that governments proposed to
do. However the throne speech of a government that is $500
billion in debt ought to contain a new section listing the things
that government proposes to stop doing. This speech contains no
such section. Perhaps the Minister of Finance was not given
equal time in its preparation. It would be vastly improved if it
did and if it included such items as the following: a specific
commitment to stop the payment of premature and excessive
pensions to parliamentarians; a commitment to stop subsidizing
crown corporations to the tune of $6 billion per year
accompanied by a schedule for the gradual elimination of such
subsidies; a commitment to reduce non-salary overheads of
government departments and agencies by at least 15 per cent; a
commitment to stop paying OAS and other income transfers to
high income households; a commitment to stop regional
development programs that simply do not work; and a
commitment to identify and eliminate all unnecessary
government functions.
47
(1715 )
To remedy this weakness in the government's legislative
program, I ask this House to consider restricting its spending in
the fiscal year 1994-95 to less than $153 billion by adding a
simple spending cap to the government's legislative program.
Members familiar with the government's financial statements
will know that the federal government is currently projected to
spend $162 billion in 1994-95. The spending cap we propose
represents a 6 per cent reduction in that amount. How such a
reduction should be made can be the subject of the budget debate
and speech. The point of adding the spending cap to the
government's legislative program now is to send a signal to
investors and taxpayers that in the very first days of this session
members on both sides of the House are deadly serious about
reducing federal spending.
The subamendment I will propose is an expression of
non-confidence in the spending patterns established by the
previous government. Is there any member of this House, with
perhaps one or two exceptions, who could not vote for that? This
amendment or subamendment is not an expression of
non-confidence in the government's legislative program. It is a
simple improvement which says: Whatever legislative program
this House adopts we must not spend more than $153 billion on
its implementation in 1994-95. I invite all members of the
House including government members to support this spending
cap.
In conclusion, yesterday members honoured an ancient
parliamentary tradition by following you, Mr. Speaker, to the
other place and by listening to the speech from the throne and by
claiming all the ancient rights of the Commons in the name of
the people. The most important of these ancient rights, indeed
the first function of the early British Parliaments, and the first
function was not a legislative function, the only function of the
original Parliaments was to constrain the spending of the crown.
I implore the members of this House to reassert this right of
the Commons, not simply in symbolism or in words but by
legislative action, by crowning the speech from the throne with a
spending cap.
I move:
That the amendment of the leader of the opposition be amended by adding
immediately after the words ``federal administration'' the following words:
particularly the need to restore public confidence in the ability of this House to
control the federal deficit and overspending and to limit the government's spending
in the fiscal year 1994-95 to less than $153 billion.
(1720)
[Translation]
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, let me first of all congratulate you on your election as
Speaker of the House of Commons. Certainly, your experience
in Parliament and your qualities of heart and mind contributed to
your being chosen by your peers. I am sure that you will assume
your responsibilities with great skill and competence and you
can certainly count on my support in the performance of your
duties.
I would also like to take the opportunity, as is the custom, to
congratulate the movers of the motion in reply to the Speech
from the Throne. In their own way, they each reflect what
Canada is. With their respective knowledge and abilities, they
are both a credit to their constituents and have begun a career in
the Parliament of Canada in fine style, and I wish to commend
them both.
I would also like to take the opportunity to congratulate the
Leader of the Opposition, who is not only a friend and a
classmate but also a fellow parliamentarian, who in this last
federal election had a very important personal success at the
polls. Without a doubt, he won part of Quebec opinion over to
his party, the Bloc Quebecois, and at any rate his personal
success exceeds what we would have wanted to see in Quebec.
In his new responsibilities as a member of the Parliament of
Canada, I wish him the wisdom not only to meet his
responsibilities to those who sent him here, but also to discharge
the role that he must assume as Leader of the Opposition, which
goes far beyond his own aspirations and what he would like to do
here in the Canadian Parliament. I do not know how he can
reconcile this twofold mandate, but I still wish him much
success in this task.
I would also like to congratulate the leader of the Reform
Party.
[English]
I think it is remarkable to see, at the occasion of the federal
election, a party which began as a regional party reflecting the
legitimate aspirations of the people of a region more or less
becoming a national party. I would like to say to its leader at the
very beginning of this new Parliament that we used to have
representation by three national parties here in the House of
Commons that respected the fabric of our institution and of our
country, that fought vigorously from time to time for their
respective interests but always understood and fought for a
bilingual Canada.
I was very pleased to hear the Reform Party leader speaking in
French in his first speech in the House of Commons. I think his
48
party, which in its creation was regional, might have by his
leadership the possibility of becoming a true national party. In
doing so it would be in the interest of the unity of Canada and the
continuity of a strong and united Canada from sea to sea to sea.
(1725)
[Translation]
Finally, I want to congratulate all those who have been elected
in the last election. Our responsibilities as parliamentarians are
obviously significant but the most difficult test to pass is
sometimes, in fact always, the election test. And everyone here
deserves to be congratulated for having passed this test. I for one
would like to thank my constituents from
Papineau-Saint-Michel who, for the ninth time, have given me
their trust and have allowed me to sit again in the Parliament of
Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Ouellet: Let me tell you where I stand in relation to the
Leader of the Opposition, who speaks with conviction but whose
argument in this debate I cannot accept. While he wants to build
a new country, I want to improve mine. It appears to me that his
approach is as sincere as mine. Like me, he comes from a
Quebec rural area; he is from Lac-Saint-Jean, I am from
Saint-Pascal-Kamouraska, in the Lower St. Lawrence region.
My father was a country doctor, my grandfather a farmer. I
studied in French. In this country of mine, I gained many times
the trust and respect of a majority of people who do not speak my
language, who do not share my culture and whose traditions are
not the same as mine.
Although part of the minority, I was able to work and assume
responsibilities without any difficulty in this country. The
Leader of the Opposition himself once assumed very important
responsibilities within a Canadian government. He himself
agreed to represent his country, that is, Canada, overseas. He
was even called ``Excellency'' and he did not complain. This is
to say that this country is a country of great tolerance,
compassion and opportunities for everyone who wants to take
advantage of what it has to offer.
The Leader of the Opposition is a clever speaker. Listening to
his argument, I have noticed that he knows how to skip details
and caricature the facts.
There is no doubt that when he referred to the Meech Lake
Accord and to the Charlottetown Agreement, he not once
reminded us that the Parti québécois, which is the head office of
the Bloc Quebecois, did not want to see the Meech Lake Accord
nor the Charlottetown Agreement passed. At no time. I accept
that some people may wish that all possible powers be granted to
a State, a country separated and independent from Canada, but,
please, do not make us believe that the Meech Lake Accord or
the Charlottetown Agreement would have satisfied the Bloc
Quebecois or the Parti Quebecois.
(1730)
So do not accuse those who might have been against the
Meech Lake Accord of being traitors to Quebec. Many things
have been said about the Prime Minister who had reservations
and objections regarding certain aspects of the Meech Lake
Accord.
Why would it be more serious for the Prime Minister, Mr.
Chrétien, who was an ordinary Canadian at the time, to oppose
Meech? Why would he be less of a Quebecer than Mr. Parizeau,
who was also against the accord?
In fact, it is obvious that we will never agree in this political
debate. As the Leader of the Opposition reminded us, for thirty
years some people have been desperately trying to convince
Quebecers that they would be better off if they separated from
the rest of Canada.
Now I want to remind the members across the way, not those
sitting at both ends but those in the middle, that during all that
time they have been able to benefit from our democratic system,
of the Canadian federal system, to express their point of view, to
put forward their arguments in the greatest respect of democracy
and of individual opinion.
It is an exceptional situation that does not exist in every
country in the world. A few moments ago, I heard the Leader of
the Opposition make a comment. The only reason I am
mentioning this is because he himself talked about it, and I will
be careful since I do not want the media to quote me incorrectly.
He said that a number of Central European and East European
countries had gained their independence, their national
sovereignty, so why would it not be Quebec's turn to do the
same. He knows full well the answer to that question.
In my capacity as Minister of Foreign Affairs, I had the
opportunity to discuss with representatives from all those East
European and Central European countries at the Conference on
Security and Cooperation in Europe. How many of those
people-whether they be from Croatia, from Georgia or from
other regions of Europe that just became independent-how
many of those people would give up their newly-gained
independence to become citizens of the province of Quebec in
Canada? They would be very happy to be Canadians.
The Leader of the Opposition has the habit of always going
back to the 1981 referendum to claim that it is our Prime
Minister who, at that time, had-and I can quote him since I took
notes-``led the assault against Quebec''. Why would he have
led the assault against Quebec? The hon. member for
Saint-Maurice was simply defending Canada. He was not
against Quebec, he was for Canada. Today, many people
consider it important and useful to defend Canada.
The Leader of the Opposition makes another error when he
tells us that Quebecers will finally have the opportunity to vote
for the status quo or for sovereignty in the next referendum. He
does not recognize the reality of Canadian federalism when he
talks about the status quo. Canadian federalism evolves
49
constantly; it is transformed by decisions made by both federal
and provincial governments.
(1735)
Over the years, the Government of Quebec has obtained a
series of powers enabling it to take on full responsibility for
areas under its jurisdiction, and in the past, legislative
agreements were often used to give Quebec responsibilities
which the other provinces did not have. My point is that the
reference to rigid federalism is entirely inaccurate, and I think it
is unworthy of the Leader of the Opposition, who favours a
sound and structured debate, to say that the federalism we want
is status quo federalism.
Finally, let me say that when the Leader of the Opposition
starts speaking on behalf of Quebec, he is somewhat
exaggerating his mandate and his role. He does not speak for
Quebec. He may speak for Quebecers but he does not speak for
Quebec.
Just now, he was saying that fifty members of the Bloc
quebecois were elected because there was a political and
economic crisis and it was therefore the Bloc's mission to try
and deal with the recession and later on to deal with the political
crisis through sovereignty.
I think he should at least realize this: If he and his fifty or so
members were elected because of the economic situation and the
political situation, he will have to admit there are people in
Quebec who voted for him because of the economic situation
and who did not vote for him for his political option.
The votes he got, if what he said earlier is still true, came from
people who were fed up with Tory mismanagement, wanted to
get rid of the former Conservative government and voted for
him instead of for us.
However, in the process they did not give him the power to
speak up for sovereignty and Quebec's independence. They gave
him a mandate to discuss economic questions.
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Incredible.
Mr. Ouellet: The hon. member may think that sounds
incredible, but I would like to say, in concluding, that I realize
the Leader of the Opposition has certain responsibilities in this
House and that he must act accordingly. I admit that during his
speech he spoke at length about economic issues, and I agree
that when the Leader of the Opposition talks about the economy,
when he talks about unemployment and when he talks about
social measures, he is doing what he is supposed to do as the
Leader of the Opposition, of what is referred to as Her Majesty's
Loyal Opposition.
However, when he switches to his role as a supporter of
Quebec's independence, he is no longer playing his part as
leader of the opposition in a Canadian parliamentary system,
under our Canadian Constitution. When he supports secession
for Quebec, he is going far beyond the normal role of a leader of
the opposition, whose aspirations are to become prime minister
of the legitimate government, not to become the head of an
independent State.
(1740)
I do not see how he will manage to reconcile these two roles. I
know that he takes 100 per cent of the salary of the opposition
leader as well as 100 per cent of all the benefits that go with the
job. I can tell him that in his speech, today, he earned only 75 per
cent of his salary.
In closing, I would like to say that the debate we must have
with the Canadian population regarding the future of Quebec is a
very important one. During the hearings of the
Bélanger-Campeau Commission, we hardly touched on the
problems. The Leader of the Opposition referred to a document
dealing with duplication. I must remind him, as he knows for
sure, that this document was not prepared by the
Bélanger-Campeau Commission, it was submitted to it. It was
discussed by the Commission, but not commissioned by it. It
was commissioned by Mr. Claude Morin for some students and
faculties of the school of public administration (ENAP) in
Quebec. Clearly, this is not a document you can consider to be
thorough.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
when I heard the Minister of Foreign Affairs a while ago
comment at length the speech of my leader, the Leader of the
Opposition, I thought I was in the twilight zone. It was as though
the minister had never lived through the last 15 or 20 years in
Quebec and in Canada. It was as though the member for
Papineau-Saint-Michel and his leader had never participated
in the night of the long knives or the Meech failure. I also was
led to believe that the member for Papineau-Saint-Michel had
never worked for the Bélanger-Campeau Commission, that he
had not understood the overwhelming message of the men and
women of Quebec who testified in front of that commission. It
was as though the reply of September 24, 1991, that of
Beaudoin-Dobbie and of Beaudoin-Edwards, the July 7th
Agreement, as well as the Charlottetown Agreement, rejected
with a massive majority by Quebecers, had never existed. In one
word, I thought I was on another planet.
When I heard the member for Papineau-Saint-Michel
question the legitimacy of the vote expressed by Quebecers and
the legitimacy of the Bloc Quebecois as the Official Opposition,
that helped me understand how the member viewed democracy.
If the existence of the Bloc Quebecois has but one merit, Mr.
Speaker, it is certainly that of having launched the debate on the
future of Quebec and of Canada and that was our first objective.
50
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would urge the member for
Papineau-Saint-Michel to be a bit more democratic in the
future when he speaks about the Bloc Quebecois and about its
role as the Official Opposition.
Mr. Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the member
and to remind him that I am not questioning the legitimacy of the
Leader of the Opposition in this Parliament. I congratulated him
for being elected and bringing with him fifty or so members.
What I said is that, once here, he cannot claim that he won
strictly on the strength of his separatist platform. In this respect,
I quoted his own speech in which he said that he came here
because there was a problem with the economy. People voted for
him and for BQ candidates not because of their political
message but because of the economic situation. What I do not
like is for the Leader of the Opposition to claim, as he just did in
his remarks, that the referendum debate has started.
(1745)
If he wants to have a referendum debate here in this House, he
might have the opportunity to do so. But above all, what is really
important is for him to have a real dialogue on the ins and outs of
such a process, and that is what I urge him to do.
Bélanger-Campeau did not conduct such an in depth study. I sat
on that commission and I saw how those who appeared in front
of it and those who were leading the debate were all of the same
mind and going in the same direction.
As a matter of fact, all those supposedly non-aligned people
are now joining the ranks of the Parti Quebecois, starting with
Mr. Campeau and his cohorts. We now know that all those who
then claimed to be non-aligned were indeed biased.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse): Mr. Speaker, would
the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel be so kind as to
clear up a point for me? Ever since the Liberal convention when
the hon. member for Saint-Maurice became leader of the
Liberal Party, it has been quite clear that from then on we would
not hear a single word on the Constitution. That policy was
confirmed after the demise of the Charlottetown Accord in
English-speaking Canada and in Quebec. It was stated again
during the election campaign that we would not hear any more
about the Constitution. The economy would be the only topic for
discussion.
But except for the few civilities that are in order, the
Constitution was the only theme of the hon. member's speech.
Are we to infer that the Cabinet is divided over this issue and
that you are going to vote for the amendment moved by the hon.
member for Calgary Southwest and leader of the Reform Party
to the effect that there should be more free votes in this House? I
get the impression that you would feel more comfortable that
way.
Mr. Ouellet: I welcome the hon. member's response to my
comments. He speaks just like all other people in Quebec who
resent Quebecers being told they stand to gain from being part of
Canada. Each and every time we tell Quebecers there are
benefits for them in being part of the Canadian federation, the
proponents of Quebec independence always try to delude people
into believing that our comments are inappropriate and
inconsistent. Mr. Speaker, an enlightened debate on the
consequences an independent Quebec would have is certainly in
order.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Ouellet: I am delighted to see those members applaud. I
am glad they sit in this House because their contacts with other
members will help them do away with parochialism, widen their
horizons and understand that there is a place in Canada, and a
good one at that, for Quebecers who want to be part of this
country and be respected in it.
Mr. Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I seek your guidance. Do I
have the floor for a comment or for my speech?
The Deputy Speaker: There are two minutes left in the
question and comment period.
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu): I will be pleased to use
them to say a few words to the hon. minister who has just
spoken. He says we do not speak for the men and women of
Quebec, I wonder whose interest he has at heart?
When he says that we have benefitted a lot from federalism,
he fails to mention that we had to fight the system in order to get
what we got. Remember the fight of Jean Lesage. Remember the
fight of Mr. Johnson, the real one, Daniel. Remember the fight
of Mr. Bertrand-
(1750)
The Deputy Speaker: The time for questions and comments
has now expired. I think that the hon. member for Richelieu is
next.
[English]
I would like to thank members for not voting against me
yesterday when my election was proposed. I have not worn this
gown for 15 years; I am glad to see that it still fits. I want you to
know that to get anywhere here you need to have names like my
colleague's and mine.
[Translation]
More seriously, I will no doubt make mistakes over the weeks
and months to come that will entail some problems and I would
like to ask members from all sides to be patient.
The hon. member for Richelieu has the floor.
51
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to congratulate you on your election and to congratulate
also the Speaker and the Deputy Chairman of the Committees
of the Whole for their appointment. As our leader has already
done, I want to assure you that you do have our full trust,
support and collaboration and that you have my personal
support.
I would also like to take this opportunity, as this is my first
speech, to congratulate the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien, Prime
Minister, my leader, the Leader of the Opposition, and the leader
of the Reform Party for their election and to extend those
congratulations to all the members present here tonight.
Before I begin my speech, I would like to complete my
comment since I am lucky enough to speak right after the
question period following the speech of the hon. minister. I
would like to remind him of all the great battles we fought
against federalism just to obtain a few crumbs. Let him
remember also that federalism gave us the War Measures Act
and the 1982 Constitution, signed without Quebec's consent. I
can still see the Prime Minister and you sitting in front of the
Parliament with the Queen of England in 1982 and celebrating
the exclusion of Quebec from the Constitution; Quebecers
remember also and maybe that is one reason why there are so
many of us representing the Bloc Quebecois here.
That is what you did. In 1982, you were with the Prime
Minister celebrating the exclusion of Quebec. Would you have
done so if another province had declined to sign the
Constitution? Never! Quebecers did not forget and they wanted
to show you so clearly by their votes.
Mr. Speaker, I would like first of all to sincerely thank my
constituents in the riding of Richelieu who have once again
placed their confidence in me in the election of October 25.
The riding of Richelieu, which I am proud to represent here, is
typical of Quebec as a whole. For one thing, over 65 per cent of
my constituents voted for the Bloc Quebecois. Moreover, these
people are going through very harsh economic times.
The riding is characterized by an active agricultural life,
dynamic industries, the presence of members of the Abenaki
Nation, seaport operations and burgeoning cultural activities.
There are towns like Sorel, whose history goes back 350 years,
and Nicolet, with its Museum of Religions. I could also mention
the beautiful farmlands of St-Ours, Ste-Victoire, St-Robert,
St-Aimé, Baie-du-Febvre, Ste-Gertrude and parts of the lovely
towns of Bécancour, La Visitation, St-Zéphirin, Précieux Sang
and Nicolet. There are also the commercial fishermen in
Pierreville and St-François, the big iron and steel companies in
Sorel and Tracy and the high technology companies of the
Bécancour industrial park, the biggest industrial park in Quebec
and the whole of Canada. Unfortunately, as elsewhere in
Quebec, the region is struggling with an unusually high
unemployment rate and some serious social problems, like
poverty and dropping out of school.
On September 4, 1984, I was elected for the first time as a
member of this House. The mandate my constituents gave me
was clear: I was supposed to strive to bring about real change
and fight for their interests. During the debate on the first
Speech from the Throne of the conservative government, I
denounced the waste and chaos resulting from 15 years of liberal
power. Pierre Trudeau's team, of which today's Prime Minister
was one of the main actors, left Canada a huge debt, inconsistent
policies and constitutional squabbles that were almost
institutionalized.
(1755)
If I interchanged the names of the parties today in this House,
I could make almost the same speech as I did in 1984, after the
Speech from the Throne.
We had hoped that things would change for Quebecers and the
people of Richelieu, but they have not. The Conservatives too
left Quebecers with an enormous debt, inconsistent policies and
a constitutional disaster.
Unemployment is still alarming and is forcing thousands of
Canadians into inactivity. More than ever before, businesses
have problems upgrading their facilities. Like never before,
farmers will have to face the new GATT realities. Our youth are
lacking resources to start businesses. The gap between the poor
and the rich is constantly widening.
The people of Richelieu also share with other Quebecers the
huge legacy that was left by the old federal parties: a $46 billion
deficit and a $500 billion debt. Think about it: that represents a
$100 000 one-family house for 5 million Canadian families.
The people of my riding must also deal with the overlapping
between Ottawa and Quebec programs in the areas of
professional training, health, education, environment,
communications and assistance to businesses. Another concrete
example of Quebecers paying twice is the Nicolet Police
Institute, in my riding.
For instance, a municipality such as Tracy, which is located in
my riding, wants to have one of its police officers specially
trained in criminal investigations and has to send him to the
Nicolet Police Institute, but the municipality must pay for the
cost of that training. On the other hand, for other municipalities
throughout Canada, there is the Canadian Police College.
These municipalities also send their police officers for
training in specialized fields like criminal investigations, but in
their case, the federal government pays for all the costs of the
programs. Quebecers pay 100 per cent of the specialized
training for their police officers and also 25 per cent for the cost
of the Canadian Police College, since we represent 25 per cent of
the Canadian population. That is a concrete example of
overlapping which I see every day in my riding.
52
Would it not be more normal that 25 per cent of the money
paid to the Canadian Police College be given to the Nicolet
Police Institute, so that it could offer free training to police
officers who wish to specialize, the way it is in the rest of
Canada? Here is a good example of costly duplication for
Quebec.
Let me now give you, Mr. Speaker, some of my views on the
throne speech presented by the Liberals. There is not much there
to reassure me. I see no clear indication that the liberal
government intends to deal with the real problems. I believe
they will be much the same as the Conservatives.
What I gathered from that speech is that they are going to try
and solve the problems of my constituents and Quebec people in
general with the same, ineffective means used by previous
governments.
What do they propose to deal with these problems? A National
Forum on Health, when health is a provincial matter. Another
forum to deal with foreign policy.
I could not possibly avoid mentioning the report of the Deputy
Prime Minister regarding the new Secretariat for the North
American Commission on Environment. We expected a clear
decision which would have confirmed the role of Montreal as
the centre for the environment, but that is not what the Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of Environment did. She asked a
private company to prepare a report.
(1800)
We all know what type of mandates the Tories gave their
friends who contributed to the election fund. Same solution,
same procedure. I want them to know we will be on the look-out
and we will remind the Liberal Party of its commitment in this
matter. I am eager to see what the price of those consultations
will be.
Let me remind my colleagues across the way that the Auditor
General's report is very clear on this. By the way, what were they
all doing yesterday, in the beautiful city of Ottawa, after the
Speech from the Throne? They were squandering money. And
what did the Liberals do, after promising to curtail expenses?
Dressed in tuxedos and ball gowns, they attended the ball of Her
Majesty's representative. While the poor in my riding, in
Manitoba and in Newfoundland sat in front of their TV set all
day hoping for something real to come out of the Speech from
the Throne, they went dancing. These poor people learned
almost nothing from the speech; they learned though that you
were going to the ball.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Plamondon: Did the poor people find a cause for hope?
No! But no expense was too great for the others-caviar, wine,
champagne; one hundred dollars per person maybe,
approximately $100,000 for a party for 900, at a time when
people are starving. That is what you did yesterday. What
surprised me most of all was to see the Reform Party members
join in. You said when you arrived here that you would cut
everywhere. You told the shoeshiner, who barely earns $20,000
a year: ``That's too much! We are sending you back on the dole''.
But you had no problem with last night's party. They want to cut
the shoeshiner. They want to eliminate his job. They were even
ready to discuss the price of a club sandwich in Parliament. Yet,
they were all dancing about at the Governor's party. Members of
the Bloc, however, kept their word and refused to be part of
those unacceptable expenditures.
Our party has made the economic recovery one of its
priorities. The Speech from the Throne does little to give back
hope to the unemployed in my riding and to all those young
people who want to work. The infrastructure program
announced by the Liberals will bring no solution to structural
unemployment. It will not allow workers to acquire the new
qualifications they need to get tomorrow's jobs. Quite the
contrary! It is to be expected that as soon as the work is finished,
the workers will once more be unemployed.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, our party wants to do its part to
eliminate the Canadian debt. The Liberal government
systematically refuses to go to the roots of the public finance
problem and submit to a rigorous review each and every federal
department and organization, in order to cut the fat, as my leader
said earlier. And we all know that there is still a lot of fat to cut. I
mentioned the Governor General's ball earlier. Again this week,
we saw how millions of dollars were spent by several federal
departments to produce videos depicting the life of officers of
the Canadian forces and on windsurfing safely. These are real
examples of wasting of public funds and members of this House,
including those who put on their patent leather shoes to go
dancing at the Governor General's ball last evening, will have to
work hard to eliminate such waste.
It should be noted that the Liberal government has in no way
committed itself to reform the tax system in an equitable way
and to challenge tax shelters such as family trusts. It is
unacceptable that wealthy families be allowed to hide their
fortune from the tax man while the burden of the middle class is
constantly increasing. The Bloc Quebecois will fight in this
place in order that any reform of taxation and social programs,
in particular those for the poorest in our society, is done
according to the principles of equity.
(1805)
I must say that I am also extremely concerned by the desire of
the Liberal government to update, as it says, and to restructure
social programs. After posturing as the defenders of social
programs during the last electoral campaign, now the Liberals
are threatening to do an about face and to slash the social safety
net protecting Quebecers and Canadians.
53
The Bloc Quebecois will not allow such a reform to be carried
out at the expense of the most vulnerable members of our
society, the very same who are the first ones to be affected by the
present economic situation.
Finally, the Speech from the Throne ignored altogether the
Liberal promise not to cut transfer payments to the provinces.
The Liberal government will have to deal with a block of
members committed to preventing it from carrying out its fiscal
reform on the back of the provinces, which have been doing
more than their share for a number of years.
On the strength of the mandate given to us by Quebec voters,
we are determined to talk in this House about real people and
their problems. During the coming months, my colleagues and I
will show the many failures of the Canadian federal system. We
will do so at every opportunity.
We will talk about the slow death of Quebec regions, the
victims of Ottawa's paralysing centralism keeping people in the
regions in a state of dependency.
We will be talking about economic recovery and industrial
development policies that cannot get off the ground and are
ineffective because they have fallen victim to all of the illogical
government programs. We will be talking about the millions of
dollars wasted left and right without any apparent logic and
especially without any input from the people directly involved.
We will be talking about this country that is buckling under
the weight of the debt load and that is incapable of achieving the
necessary consensus to see things through. We will show that the
sorry state of Canada's public finances is attributable not only to
the actions of governments, but first and foremost, to a federal
system which can only result in a stalemate.
We will be talking about this country struggling with the
inconsistency and confusion of overlapping programs. In fact,
there are more than 50 job training programs and sub-programs,
not to mention matching programs set up by the provinces,
particularly in Quebec.
We will expose this system which unfairly allocates job
creation funds and fails to give Quebec its rightful share.
The Bloc Quebecois will speak at great length in the days and
weeks to come about the real problems. For the first and
undoubtedly, I hope, the last time in the history of Canada, a
political party that embodies hope for true change for Quebecers
will be present in this House.
Setting aside arbitrariness and partisanship, the Bloc
Québécois is here to say what the old federal parties have always
prevented Quebec from saying.
Try as they may to escape reality, the Prime Minister and his
colleagues will have 54 members of the Bloc Quebecois sitting
across the floor who, as they were mandated by their voters in
Quebec, will raise the real issues, flush out the real causes and
put forward real solutions.
Firmly, but also respectfully, honestly and with no hard
feelings whatsoever, we will explain to our colleagues from the
rest of Canada what our vision for the future of Quebec is, a
vision of a sovereign Quebec fully equipped with the tools
essential to its development.
Contrary to what the Liberal government seems to think, for
us, to talk about the Constitution has little to do with philosophy.
It deals with concrete things like eliminating costly overlaps and
waste. We, in the Bloc Quebecois, insist that decisions be made
by the people who will suffer the consequences. And that is
exactly what we will do, in accordance with the mandate
received from our voters, in the riding of Richelieu and
throughout Quebec, to defend the interests of the people of
Quebec.
I wish to thank once again the people of my riding for their
show of confidence and I want them to know how proud I am to
serve them here, in Ottawa.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I listened carefully to what our colleague from
Richelieu said, and I wish to congratulate him on his re-election
to the House of Commons. We have known each other for a very
long time, he and I, and we sat together on several committees,
interparliamentary bodies and so on.
(1810)
I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I was rather surprised by
what our colleague opposite said. He just said that since his
arrival in 1984 or almost since then, he has found that the federal
system was not working and, to quote him, that there was a lot of
waste.
Nevertheless, a few years later, while he was still a member of
the Conservative government, his present leader, when he got
elected as a minister-he was a minister even before he was
elected as the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, as I recall-some
$25 million in promises had been made for a byelection in
Lac-Saint-Jean, Mr. Speaker.
An hon. member: To buy the voters.
Mr. Boudria: May I conclude that the member is now
apologizing in a way for that by-election his leader won when he
came to this House a few years later? Even more, given his
denunciation today, how did he manage to be re-elected under
the Progressive Conservative banner in 1988 before coming so
late to this conversion which he just explained to us today?
Mr. Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague
for his question. I am happy to see him back in the House. I have
had the honour and pleasure of travelling with him onbusiness
trips for the IAFSP, the International Assembly of French--
54
Speaking Parliamentarians. I believe we did sit, full of hope, as
Conservatives, with this difference that we saw the light.
I can assure you that one party or the other, it amounts to the
same thing. In what situation were the Liberals, in 1984? They
were rejected by the entire Canadian population, from Halifax to
Vancouver. Why was that? Because they had put Canada almost
$200 billion into debt. They had completely given up the
management of the country. They were voted out of office. What
did the Conservatives do? We chose to believe. I did, I believed
in the ``beau risque'', in Quebec joining the Confederation
enthusiastically and with dignity. I too believed in that ``beau
risque''. I came to this place and, together with capable people
like the present Leader of the Opposition, we did our best to play
fair.
What happened under the Conservative government from
1984 to 1993? The national debt grew from $200 billion to $400
billion, has now reached $500 billion. There were constitutional
issues then and there are still constitutional issues today. There
was overlapping and there are still problems in that area.
Now, the same people who were voted out of office in
1984-the government leader and the minister who spoke
earlier-are back. Why were they voted out? Because they did
not know how to manage the country, they had put it into debt.
How will the Liberal Party be remembered in the history of
Canada? It will be remembered as the party that ruined Canada,
and you all bear that responsibility when you are elected under
the Liberal banner. Let us not forget that this is the party that
voted the Clark government out of office saying: ``With us, there
will be no tax increases.'' Joe Clark had promised to bring the
deficit down from $13 billion to $10 billion. Yet the Liberals
allowed it to rise to $38 billion. They are the first to blame. The
Conservatives too tried to get the deficit under control. They too
failed.
The bottom line is that the problem rests not with the party in
office, but with the system. That is want we want to work on.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
direct this question to my colleague from Richelieu.
I listened attentively to his comments and particularly to the
comments of his leader. I listened attentively, as well, to the
comments from the government benches. It was interesting that
all these comments had a lot to say about the wallet and very
little to say about the heart.
(1815)
I have spent all my adult life with this debate in Quebec and
Quebec's place in Confederation. We are going to be revisiting it
again, but I can assure my hon. colleague that he will be getting
an honest debate and whatever happens, win, lose or draw, we
are going to be neighbours. At least he will have an honest
debate. He will get it from us and I hope from the government.
In your comments you mentioned that Montreal would be a
natural site for the NAFTA environmental secretariat. Could
you tell me the names of the other Canadian cities that are in the
running and why you think Montreal is the favoured city?
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I want to remind the hon. members that
they must address their questions to the Chair. The hon. member
for Richelieu has the floor.
Mr. Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the last
question: it was during the conference on the ozone layer, which
was held in Montreal under the chairmanship of the mayor of
that city. It was agreed then that, if a secretariat was to be
established, it would be in Montreal where the international
conference was being held. It is in that sense that a commitment
was made and it is in that sense that I was reminding the
government of that commitment. I was surprised to see the
Deputy Prime Minister trying to attract this centre in her own
riding, through a study done by a private business and a small
contract awarded to someone. This is commonly known as
patronage and it is in that sense that I raised this issue.
Earlier you said that we have also been talking for 30 years
about debates and the presence of the province of Quebec. We
agree with you that a debate must take place and we are
convinced that, given their position, the new members of the
Reform Party will make a great contribution to this debate. We
want to have this debate precisely to arrive at some form of
mutual respect between the two founding nations of this
country, as well a new economic union based on the existence of
two sovereign States.
[English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the hon. member for Richelieu with reference to
one of his remarks. In his enthusiasm he may not have meant
what he said but he indicated that all the Reform members were
in attendance at the Governor General's last night. Possibly the
hon. member would like to refer to that remark and correct it for
Hansard.
[Translation]
Mr. Plamondon: Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, we are also
former Conservative members, if my memory does not fail me.
The hon. member will know that I have never said that I would
not go to the Governor General's. I really think that it was an
excessive expenditure. In a time of recession, the cocktail party
we had at the House, after the Throne Speech, was sufficient. I
think that we are exaggerating when, in a year of recession, we
spend another $100 a head for such a party, while the poor are
having a rough time. That is why I said that. Nonetheless, I
55
highly respect the Governor General who represents Her Most
Gracious Majesty, whom we all like.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to congratulate my colleague from Richelieu for his
excellent depiction of the situation of Quebec within Canada. It
is true that every time Quebec gained something, it was after
fighting against the outdated and inefficient system we are in.
Canada is no longer the place that federalists describe but it is a
failure that Quebecers will soon want to dissociate themselves
from.
To the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel, I say that
had the Quebecers wanted to vote for federalism, they would
have voted for you.
(1820)
And I will add for the benefit of my colleagues from the
Liberal Party that while they were dancing at the Governor
General's ball, I am sure that they were thinking of cutting
health programs.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry but I must interrupt the hon.
member. I think that your colleague is allowed to reply. You
have 30 seconds.
Mr. Plamondon: I will just thank the hon. member for
Drummond, with whom I had the honour of dining last night, for
what she just said. While people were at the Governor General's
ball, we had supper in a humble restaurant in Ottawa with the
hon. member for Charlesbourg. It so happens that we talked
about Her Gracious Majesty, saying that perhaps the House
should have sent her a telegram of sympathy when she fell from
her horse and unfortunately fractured her finger. Being
completely conditioned by his job, the hon. member for
Charlevoix, a veterinarian, pointed out to me that he was also
glad that the horse-
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Environment and Deputy Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, I would like first of all to congratulate you at the outset
of your mandate. I would like also to congratulate all my
colleagues here on both sides of this House and tell opposition
members that it is my hope that we will be strong adversaries but
never enemies.
Like millions of my fellow Canadians, I was not born in
Canada. As a young man, I came from very far, indeed from
halfway around the world, to give my family and my children a
wide range of opportunities that I could not enjoy myself. The
island where I was born, Mauritius as it is officially known, was
then a British colony and we had to exile ourselves in South
Africa or Europe to get postsecondary education.
After having completed most of my postsecondary studies, I
chose Canada as my country of adoption. Canada is as large as
Mauritius is tiny. Its tropical climate gives Mauritius almost
perpetual sunny and hot weather. But except for the
geographical contrasts, the tiny island of Mauritius and the large
Canada share striking similarities. Like Canada a former French
colony, Mauritius would later be subjected to conquest and
colonization by the British. Like Canada, it has kept the heritage
of the languages and the cultures of both founding countries. In
both cases, Parliament is bilingual, Common Law exists
alongside the Civil Code, and the French language lived on and
even thrived under the British regime and afterwards.
I was fortunate enough in my tender years to grow up in both
the English and the French cultures and to benefit from both. I
have always known from experience that it is possible to
appreciate at the same time Molière, Victor Hugo or our own
Gilles Vigneault, on the one hand, and Shelley, Shakespeare or
writers of our time like Hemingway, Margaret Atwood or
Michener, on the other.
My own experience in my family, with friends or in a number
of occasions in my life have taught me that languages and
cultures, far from dividing us, can be a valuable means through
which people can meet, share ideas and be united in the same
spirit. I speak three languages, since Creole is now recognized
as an official language, but I would have dearly liked to get to
know many more languages and cultures when I was young.
Just like Canada today, although English and French are
dominant there, Mauritius is a genuine meeting point for all the
most diverse religions and races.
(1825)
The most fortunate similarity with this small country and the
very large one that Canada is could very well be their sense of
peaceful democracy, where individual liberties and human
rights are highly valued and represent a most precious asset.
When I first set foot in Canada, I felt at home right away, I felt
comfortable and secure in this most democratic country. After
living for a few years in British Columbia, I chose to move to
Quebec 30 years ago.
I had the opportunity, during my career, to visit Canada coast
to coast, to discover small and big lakes, cities, towns, and rural
areas. I also had the chance during my life to visit many different
parts of the world. I have seen the sun rise on the Zambezi, and
set in Southern Australia.
The more I visit other countries, the more I appreciate other
lifestyles and living conditions, and the more I appreciate
Canada, its climate of profound peace and liberty, its profound
democracy.
56
[English]
This is why today is a very special day for me. It is an
especially moving occasion for me, my first address in the
Parliament of Canada. That I, who has come from so far away,
indeed like many of my colleagues here in this House, should
have the opportunity and privilege of taking a direct part in the
political life of our country, is itself an eloquent testimony to the
values of openness and generosity which characterize the
Canadian spirit and way of life.
It is difficult for me to conceive that in theory this country
could break up, not because of profound divergences as to the
values, equity or democratic ideals that we share, but mainly
because of language and culture.
It is indeed astounding to me to believe that we English
speaking and French speaking Canadians who for close to two
and a half centuries have shared geography and history, have
shared the rigours and also the beauty of this vast land, but
above all have contributed to building a common weal of shared
values and experiences, a common way of life, a system of
democratic politics and justice where fundamental freedoms
have always flourished, could choose to tear up our common
heritage because some of us live in French and some of us live in
English.
[Translation]
I deeply respect the Quebecers who chose to be represented by
a majority of members from a party advocating Quebec
independence. However, while respecting that choice, I firmly
believe that it will bring about results quite different from those
targeted by my colleagues of the Bloc Quebecois as their
primary goal.
In fact, their very presence here is, in my opinion, the most
vivid and eloquent testimony of the greatness and the
democratic value of Canada. How many countries in the world
would have been so democratic as to welcome with complete
freedom, in a peaceful and serene manner, in their main
Parliament, parties which might destabilize them, if not
dismantle them? The members of the Bloc Quebecois are the
most striking evidence of the democratic value, the openness
and the profound freedom of Canada.
(1830)
[English]
As we enter the 21st century I am proud to belong to a party
whose mandate in this critical juncture in our history is to
restore the confidence of Canadians in our political system, to
restore in them hope for the future, to govern in truth, fairness
and integrity and above all to preserve the Canadian federation
and its shared geography and values from sea to sea.
If Canadians have now reached a level of such deep cynicism
and mistrust in our own institutions and in our collective
capacity to change our lives for the better, if so many of my
compatriots in Quebec are turning inwardly toward the
parochial panacea of separatism, it is because our institutions
have failed them in their justifiable expectations.
As the one truly national party represented in this House, our
responsibility is an onerous one: to preserve the integrity of this
country by showing Canadians that their institutions can indeed
change their lives for the better.
In laying the foundation for the Liberal government's
mandate and program, the throne speech confirms our electoral
commitments to redirect Canada toward the path of recovery
and job creation, after several years of economic recession and
consequent unemployment.
However it calls for far more. It calls for the restoration of
integrity, honesty and responsible management in the conduct of
our affairs. It calls for the government to set an example, both
real and symbolic, of the kind of restraint and discipline that it
asks of others. It calls for the renewal of hope for our young
people, so dynamic, increasingly well qualified, yet for a very
large number of them, despairing of that first job which will be
the start of a meaningful career. It calls especially for our
seniors and the disadvantaged in our society for the maintenance
of our social safety net created and nurtured by Liberal
governments over the decades.
It will mean a new approach to unemployment and welfare
support systems that through training and other positive and
constructive programs will give hope and dignity to the
unemployed and their families. It will mean a more decisive
place for women and minorities. I am so proud there are so many
women and minority representatives in our ranks. It certainly
means the recognition of the aspirations of our first peoples in
the objective of taking charge of their own ways of life within
Canada.
Importantly it reconfirms the status of our two official
languages as the precious expression of our foundation and
evolution as a fair country. In ``Creating Opportunity'', the
Liberal electoral program, our party has set the course toward a
sustainable society, a goal we should all endorse regardless of
party affiliation.
No longer can we accept a society of waste where unbridled
consumerism results in the unnecessary degradation of
ecosystems and the natural resources that are the springboard
and sustenance of life and living. No longer can we tolerate the
despoliation of the ample resources with which we have been
blessed and for which we are trustees.
[Translation]
We must change our way of life and our way of producing and
start respecting the integrity of the ecosystems and their
capacity to maintain and renew themselves. In a world which is
more conscious of global equity, of the need to distribute more
equitably the wealth between rich and poor countries, we cannot
57
continue to consume energy and resources as frenetically as we
have been doing in North America for the past fifty years.
If we still want to be taken seriously at the international level
as sustainable development champions, we must set the example
here, in this country, as a society that integrates its
environmental concerns and objectives with its government
objectives and methods. I am delighted about all the measures
our government intends to take to integrate environmental
concerns within a sound management process for our country.
(1835)
During the last two years, I had the privilege of working very
closely with the Algonquins from Barrière Lake on a three-party
agreement concerning an integrated resource management
project in La Verendrye Park. This dynamic initiative, the first
of its kind in Canada, not only reinforced my environmental
beliefs, but proved once again that it is possible to reconcile the
protection of our ecosystems with our ways of thinking and
doing things. May I say how much we could learn on this issue
from our First Nations.
[English]
The respect and love the Algonquins of Barriere Lake and
certain other First Nations show for mother earth is a touching
lesson for us all. It is one I find especially moving and inspiring.
[Translation]
Among the most precious resources for which we are
responsible are the largest water reserves in the world. The
renowned Canadian scientist Joseph MacInnis told me the other
day that, during a recent conversation, the distinguished
chairman of National Geographic, Gilbert Grosvenor, let him
know that water would be the first and foremost priority of his
internationally acclaimed publication during the 21st century.
[English]
We are blessed with the enjoyment of the greatest freshwater
system in the universe: the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence basin.
It constitutes 80 per cent of the total freshwater reserves in
North America and 20 per cent of the world's reserves.
Water is a goal of our new age, of the 21st century and beyond.
To provide an idea of the magnitude of our dependence on the
Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence water, we draw from the
ecosystem each day, on both sides of the border, 655 billion
gallons of water. That is equivalent to 2.5 trillion litres. If we
were to store this water in jumbo tank cars, it would be
equivalent to 19 million tank cars of 34,000 gallons each. These
tank cars, if tied together, would stretch over 237,000 miles.
That is the equivalent of 9.5 times the circumference of the
world at the equator.
I have heard it suggested in scientific and environmental
circles that the Great Lakes basin may become the population
magnet of the 21st century. With the west and southwest of the
continent drying up, with the groundwater table close to
exhaustion in certain areas, a large migration of people
northward toward the essential and crucial resource that is water
is a distinct possibility for the future.
Needless to say, we will have to do better in our stewardship
of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence if we are to accommodate
the large numbers of fellow citizens who may choose in future to
take advantage of this unmatched resource.
We will have to do considerably better than today. The record
shows that in 1990 we were dumping into the Great Lakes seven
million gallons of oil, 80,000 pounds of lead, not to mention
1,900 pounds of PCBs and 1,000 pounds of mercury.
We must strive to build this new sustainable society around a
clean industry strategy which would include a binational clean
strategy for the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence basin where the
bulk of our population lives and works.
(1840)
[Translation]
I cannot help but wonder how Joliette, Marquette and de la
Salle would feel if they saw some of us renounce the great
legacy of wide-open spaces that they left us. I hope that during
the present term we will find a way to convince the Bloc
Quebecois members and their followers that this great Canadian
legacy which we built together is made up of too many common
values and is the result of too many common efforts to be
forsaken so lightly.
[English]
I close my first address to this House in praying that Canada
and Canadian unity shall prevail and that it shall flourish into
the 21st century and beyond and that our great traditions and
values of democracy, peace and freedom will continue to mark
our lives together.
Long live Canada. May Quebec and its immensely proud and
rich heritage and contribution be always a vibrant and crucial
part of it.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[Translation]
M. René Laurin (Joliette): Madam Speaker, I am proud to be
given the opportunity to comment on the remarks made by the
hon. member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, and to correct a
few historical facts.
58
The hon. member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis reminded
us that Mauritius and Canada had had a similar history, telling us
how important it is for him that Canada preserves-as Mauritius
did-its reputation as a land of freedom. However, one should
remember that before joining the Canadian Federation, Quebec
was also a land of freedom, a land of belief, a land of
respect-respect for the established order, for men and women,
for the family, for the fundamental and traditional values that
had made Quebecers-whose ancestors were French-a noble
people, proud of its origins.
When Quebecers decided to join the Canadian Federation,
they did not do so because they believed they would give
themselves new fundamental values they did not have yet;
Quebecers decided to join the Canadian Federation because they
wanted to develop their own values and to share them with
another people, the English Canadians.
Today, when Quebecers are thinking of another way of living,
they do not do so because they have something against their
partners of 1867 or because they despise English-speaking
people; they do so because they now fear the system they had
accepted to be part of since that time. They think that system
may deprive them from now on of their right to speak, their
fundamental values, their traditions and their culture. They are
concerned that the Canadian Federation will no more enable
them to maintain this heritage they received not from the
Canadian Federation but from their forefathers long before the
Canadian Federation.
(1845)
Why is it that the hon. member believes that if Quebec should
become sovereign all of a sudden, he would lose all his rights?
Why does he think that if it became sovereign tomorrow,
Quebec would not enjoy those same privileges? Does he believe
that the Canadian Federation is the only guardian of the
fundamental rights of Quebec and that without that federation,
without those fundamental values, Quebec does not have a
future anymore? I would like the hon. member for
Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis to make some further comments on
that, because I do not think that those values were given to
Quebecers by virtue of the Canadian Federation. Those were
values that they already enjoyed before they entered
Confederation.
Mr. Lincoln: I do not know how the hon. member could
conclude that I said Quebecers had no basic freedoms and no
sense of family or values. I never said that. The point I made was
that we have been together for nearly two and half centuries. We
decided of our own free will, the French-speaking population
and the English-speaking population, to join together in the
Canadian federation. And the same thing happened when
Saskatchewan and British Columbia and others joined the
Canadian federation. This does not mean there were no basic
freedoms before. However, together we have built a country that
is the envy of many nations because of its sense of freedom and
democracy, which is particularly true given your presence here.
That we can be here, like this, is tremendous. I think it is very
exciting to have colleagues from all over the world, who enjoy
every freedom here, and that I myself, who was born elsewhere,
am here as a Canadian and a Quebecer and proud of it and, as
part of the Canadian system, am able to enjoy a measure of
freedom that is the envy of the other countries of this world.
I am not saying that if it happens to be the democratic choice
of some Quebecers not to go their own way, that basic freedoms
would crumble. I never said that. I never even mentioned it. My
point was that what we have here, what we have built here
together is something that is far greater and has far more scope
than would be the case if we were to retreat behind our walls and
do something that will deny the reality of people like the hon.
member for Beauséjour who is also a francophone and wants to
belong to this great francophone family within Canada.
That is why we must continue to defend the vision of those
pioneers who looked well beyond the borders of Quebec. The St.
Lawrence is the epitome of Quebec's culture and history. But
why would Quebecers not be entitled to the Great Lakes as well?
And why would Canadians living on the Great Lakes not be
entitled to the St. Lawrence? That is my theory. Freedoms will
continue to exist, both in Quebec and elsewhere, but I hope they
will exist within a much broader and more exciting context than
Canada. That is why I intend to fight very hard to defend those
freedoms.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Madam Speaker, I
knew the hon. member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, when he
was in the National Assembly. I met him in Lac-Mégantic, a
town not very far from my riding. I talked with him then and I
was under the impression that he cared a great deal for Quebec.
He was Minister of the Environment. That is why I was very
disappointed by his speech where, despite the fact that he has
been Minister of the Environment in Quebec and should make
environment his priority, he barely talked about it.
(1850)
What I would like to ask to the hon. member for
Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, who is parliamentary secretary to
the Minister of the Environment, is whether he will push to have
the North American Commission on Environmental
Co-operation, created under NAFTA, in Montreal? It was
agreed during the Rio Summit, with the Mayor of Montreal, that
his city would be a centre for the environment.
59
Mr. Lincoln: Madam Speaker, with all due respect for the
member with whom I have had excellent relations at times, I
think his mind must have been wandering when I read my speech
because half of it was about the environment.
I spoke about protecting the ecosystem, about adopting a
different way of life, about our water resources. I am sorry if he
did not listen. I will gladly send him a copy of my speech if he
wants one.
As regards your second question, you know our party is
totally democratic. There is a caucus, there are democratic
procedures.
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Madam Speaker, I
would like to first of all in my remarks congratulate you on your
appointment. I wish you well. Having served in the House with
you for one term, you can be assured of my personal support and
my party's support. We will do all that we can to assist you in the
chair.
I would also like to congratulate the other Speakers and the
Speaker of the House who won the election the other day. I think
it is indicative that this Parliament will be different from any
other we have seen in Canadian history. Who would have
thought when there were only two names left on the ballot, even
those of us who are not mathematicians and who thought it was
all over on the fifth ballot, that we would come back for another
vote.
I discovered in the newspaper yesterday that I had single
handedly delivered the speakership to Mr. Gilbert Parent. I was
interested and surprised to read that. I was asked if I in fact had
done that by coercing my caucus into making sure he was voted
for and whether my persuasive tactics and characteristics were
put into play.
I would like to put on the record right now that had I gone into
the persuasion mode it would have been over in three ballots. We
would not have had to stay here for six ballots. Congratulations.
You have a certainly exciting but large job ahead of you. Please
be assured of our support for you and all other Speakers.
Second, I would like to express my sincere thanks to the
constituents of Beaver River. As you know I served in this House
as the member of Parliament for Beaver River since March
1989. I spent almost all of the last term here. Our campaign
slogan for 1993 was ``Let's do it again Beaver River''. Of course
we had a unique chance to make Canadian history again by
re-electing a Reform member of Parliament.
I would just like like to say that my job as the member of
Parliament for Beaver River is that of one of servant. The
constituents there saw fit to elect me again as their member of
Parliament. I am proud and I am humbled to be their MP again. I
was certainly pleased to see that my mandate went from 50 per
cent in 1989 to just a shade under 60 per cent in 1993. We should
all be aware that all we had was one vote on ballot day and it is
not by our merit certainly that any one of us is here tonight.
Those people put their faith in us. We know for sure they want to
see things done differently.
Let me just say again thank you to the people of Beaver River,
a wonderful microcosm of Canada, albeit chilly tonight there, a
marvellous farming, oil and natural resources community.
Agriculture and oil are the two biggest industries in Beaver
River. Unfortunately neither word appears once in the throne
speech under my scrutiny.
Something is lacking. We will work together to make sure that
these things are addressed very specifically because they are
huge industries and resources in my constituency as well as in
many others across the country.
(1855 )
I would also like to congratulate the Prime Minister and many
other members of this House on their re-election. It is pretty
exciting to have been re-elected to this House of Commons. As
we know, there were some pretty big changes. There are some
new faces here, but I welcome back those of you who were
re-elected. I would also like to congratulate those who have
been elected for the first time. It is pretty exciting to see this
many new faces here. I am pleased.
When I left here when the House disbanded in June many
people whom I served with in the last Parliament were very
friendly to me and I appreciated that. They said: ``Deborah, see
what you can do when you leave this place, now that we are
recessing at the end of June, to find yourself some friends''.
Madam Speaker, I stand before you again tonight to tell you
that I have found some friends, both personal and professional. I
would like to tell you that I got married this summer. I married
Lewis Larson on August 7.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Miss Grey: We said at our wedding that one has a greater
chance of being struck by lightning after the age of 40 than of
getting married for the first time. So we are making Canadian
history all the way. It was wonderful.
What I appreciate in a partner is when I can go home at night
and just get so much personal support. That one person is
certainly important and the most important, but I was told to
find some friends. I did my very best and it looks pretty good
from my viewpoint. I went from a caucus of one to one of a
caucus and I like this a whole lot better. It is pretty exciting.
Thank you again for the support you have shown for us so far
in the House. We look forward to working with everyone.
I want to pay tribute right now to the hon. member for
Kamloops. It is interesting and life is ironic. I warmed exactly
his seat and he warmed exactly mine. For now we have made a
60
complete switch in seats and I like this a lot too. I hope he
appreciates the seat which I kept warm for him for several years
as well.
On to the throne speech. Let us look at some of the things that
went right in the throne speech and some of the things that have
gone wrong. Maybe there are some weaknesses in it. Far be it for
me to stand here and be terribly critical.
We are all here, I believe, for one reason regardless of our
political affiliation or the way we are trying to come at this. I
think we all believe that we want this country to be a better place
no matter what we think of it. We are here for that reason only
because it is not fun commuting to Ottawa.
From this throne speech we realize that probably the main
concern of all Canadians is that of economic insecurity.
Certainly that is the real focus of this throne speech. People in
this country realize that they are frustrated with high taxes. They
fear for social programs or the lack of a real job.
The economic insecurity troubling Canadians certainly
results from many factors both national and international.
Granted, there is perhaps little we can do at the international
level but there are many ways by which we can determine to
move this country ahead economically within Canada's borders.
The way we exercise that potential influence through our taxing
and spending policies is all important.
Unfortunately for Canadians, for the past 20 years we have
perhaps had too much government. Governments, both Liberal
and Conservative, have spent too much, taxed too much and
owed too much.
Let us not bicker. Considering the hon. members on the other
side of the House with whom I sat, I remember well the back and
forth volleys. The Conservatives said the Liberals left them the
debt.
I do not want to see that happen again. Some of my friends
over here will talk about those Conservatives. People do not
care. What people are concerned about is that we dig ourselves
out of this debt hole and they do not want to concern themselves
with the fact of whomever it was who got us into it. We want to
get out of this debt hole and we will do our best on this side of the
House to make sure that we put policies into practice and
support this government when it brings in legislation so that we
can start digging ourselves out and not worry about who dug us
in. Let us dig ourselves out. That is the focus we need to take.
We must break the cycle of spending more, borrowing more
and taxing more. What a refreshing change if we would be able
to stand here as parliamentarians and say that we believe in
spending less and borrowing less so that down the road we will
be guaranteed that we will be taxed less. I think the Canadian
public would support that wholeheartedly.
We are aware that the annual deficit now exceeds 5 per cent of
the GDP. This government has promised to lower it to 3 per cent
during the life of this Parliament.
(1900)
That is noble and we will applaud that, but let us make sure
that it is only the first step because 3 per cent of the GDP is still
well up, $20 billion or $25 billion of an annual deficit. We will
be digging ourselves continuously into that debt hole if we just
function at that level.
Let us say for step one for this government it is 3 per cent of
GDP but let it only be step one or phase one. Let us move rapidly
toward a balanced budget so that we can break even with our
arrears payments and then start making the actual payments on
the mortgage.
We have spoken long and loud about this debt quagmire and
we want to make sure that the Canadian public sees something in
us in this 35th Parliament that we would be able to make some
suggestions.
I am so glad to know that we have some economic specialists
in my caucus now. I will leave that to them. It is marvellous
because I have been able to turn that job over to them. I will let
them deal with specifics about numbers and philosophies in
terms of economics but let me say that we need to reform the
economics of this country. The Minister of Finance is well
aware of it and many of the Liberal backbenchers that I know
and have spoken with are concerned about it as well.
Second, in terms of economics, what must we do with the
pension plan for members of Parliament? I stand before you and
before this House as the only member of my entire caucus who
qualifies for a member of Parliament pension at this point. I
speak wholeheartedly about this as well as with serious
conviction that we just do not talk about it and try to make it look
good on the outside. We should see substantive reforms in the
MP pension plan that are really going to make a difference and
not just say that we have made changes in it. Let us make sure
that it is brought more in line with the private sector and that it is
not such a completely enriched situation where no other
Canadian citizen would qualify for such a ridiculously
extravagant pension.
This process was introduced in 1952, the year I was born. It
has been increasingly enriched far too much and almost in fact
corrupted. Could we use that word? People in this situation will
get into a program which is not actuarially sound. It is three or
four times what every other pension plan is.
Let us work together on that. People do not want their
members of Parliament to be poorly paid. We learned that in the
campaign. People do not want their members of Parliament to
sort of be put out to pasture and not looked after, but let us make
sure that it is brought into line actuarially so that we are not
doing anything any more extravagant than that for other
Canadian citizens. I do believe that the Canadian public would
go for that.
61
I am sure that caucus would agree with my suggestion
concerning these changes when they are brought forward and
we look at the meat of the legislation. Please let us not tinker
with the MP pension system just so it looks good. Let us
actually make some substantive changes so that we can say that
this was the government and these were the opposition
parties-all of them in this House-that said they were going
to change this and that will make a difference in the politics
of this country.
What about reforming this place? Does Parliament need to be
reformed? Yes it does. Of course you and I, Madam Speaker, sat
in the last House and watched the use of closure and limiting
debate literally dozens of times. Let me again assure my friends
with whom I visited in the lobby the last time on this side that I
am going to be watching and making suggestions. I know that
many people now on the government side are going to be
concerned about that and give really good guidance to make sure
that closure and time allotment and all these things are not
slapped in.
Let us make sure that the behaviour and decorum in this
House change. The 34th Parliament and the 35th election issued
an incredible warning from the Canadian public to all those who
would run as members of Parliament. It was this: ``If you people
do not behave the way any of us would behave in our
boardrooms, if you people do not behave the way we would
behave in our classrooms or in our private lives then we will do
something about it''. They did so.
We should not ever think for a minute, those of us who sit here
cosy today, that they will not do it to us too if we do not make
sure that we clean up the behaviour and the decorum in this
House.
Let me say I appreciate that in the first couple of days we have
not had these spats. Let us make sure that whatever it is we feel
so passionately about we still treat each other with that dignity
and respect that every one of us deserved in our private lives and
that we deserve as well in our public lives.
(1905)
There is a phantom in the Ottawa scene and it lives in this
Chamber probably more than it lives anywhere else in this town
or across this country and that is that it is so easy to become part
of this group where we say: ``We are here, we made it, some of
us are back again and some of us are new here''. There is
something that is seeping through Parliament and that is perhaps
that ego is number one. Let me remind all of us, myself
included, that ego did not get us here, but it can get us out of here
faster than anything we know of.
Let us make sure that we realize what our position is here and
that is as a servant. We should not just say it so it sounds good,
but say it so we believe firmly that we are employees of the
people who voted us in and sent us here. I believe that ego set a
precedent in this place long, long ago and as my leader
mentioned earlier, we will do things in this House to break
precedent and I am excited about that.
Let us break the precedent of ego. Let us make sure that when
we have new parties here, so many new members here and a new
Speaker here that we break that phantom of Ottawa which has
permeated this place and chase it out once and for all. Would we
make an impression on the Canadian public? You bet we would.
What a refreshing change that would be. Beware of the phantom
of Ottawa that permeates this Chamber. Let us make sure that we
behave in such a way that we are servants. We have an
opportunity now like no other Parliament has ever had to have a
fresh start and clean it out and make sure that we are going to
make a more efficient, democratic and freer Parliament.
Let us make sure that if we talk about free votes in this House
of Commons that they are free and not just that they sound free.
In the last Parliament we had a few free votes and unfortunately
the public saw on TV just a particular member. What I got to see
was the whole thing where the whip or somebody would come
around and try to convince someone: ``Oh, no, you don't want to
do that''. Let us make sure that if we talk free votes then we
really act on free votes. That will free this place up and chase
that phantom out faster than anything else. I think the Canadian
public would really notice that.
What about members of Parliament who get here and are safe
for the whole term with a majority government? May we trust
the people who put us here to be our board of directors so that
they would be able to call us home as shareholders if we are not
doing our job? I introduced and I am reintroducing my private
member's bill on MP recall. Let us make sure that this
Parliament is opened up. The phantom of job security here is so
tight that nobody could chase us out. No executive director of a
company would be allowed to be completely safe. Let us make
sure that we open ourselves up.
I am glad to second our subamendment which will be voted on
tomorrow. We cannot afford to not support a subamendment
which caps the finances. We cannot afford to let parliamentary
reform just slip out of our hands and talk about it so nicely and
yet it did not really happen. What a sad legacy at the very
beginning of this 35th Parliament if we were to just give up by
default right at the beginning.
I want to finish now and conclude my remarks by just giving
us all a word of encouragement, regardless of what party we are
with and what our political philosophies. I have a tribute to the
late Senator Stan Waters who knew many people in this House
and who was certainly a good friend of mine. He was my only
political ally here in 1990. Stan always said that whenever one is
going ahead some place one must keep on marching no matter
what deters one from that.
62
It is not just for my party here in the House, but for every
party, regardless of political stripe. Let us all get one sight in our
mind and that is to make this a better Canada and make it a place
where we are proud to go back on the streets or back to our
constituencies and say: ``I am a member of Parliament and I am
proud of that''. What a change that would be. Keep on marching.
(1910)
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough): Madam Speaker, I too
wish to congratulate you on your election. I am proud to
represent the riding of Peterborough.
[English]
I do not know how many members, like me, are relishing this
evening. I have been observing what has been happening over
the last two or three days. Members will notice that the light
seems to have changed. The mood has become quieter and the
debate, in the middle of this discussion about the tragic
economic problems we have and about the future of this great
country, has become much more personal.
We have begun to exchange information about our ridings so
that we can learn a little about where we come from. We have
begun to exchange information about ourselves. The hon.
member for Beaver River told us about her recent marriage, for
example.
It seems to me perhaps it is on occasions like this and not
when the media gallery is full that some of the key things of a
Parliament like this are actually done.
My riding of Peterborough is often thought of as a microcosm
of the province of Ontario, a bit in the way that Lac-Saint-Jean
is a microcosm or special place in the province of Quebec. It is a
riding that has been very hard hit by the recession. It is a riding
that has great cultural and economic strengths and so it is a
riding that has a great deal of hope. I would like members
opposite, in particular, to know that.
As for myself, as quite a number of people indicated today, I
am also an immigrant. I was not born in Canada. In fact my
family is from Wales. Hon. members might be interested to
know that the Welsh language is much older than French or
English. It is at least 3,000 years old and has changed very little
even though it is very vital today. Its culture is very strong. Six
hundred thousand people speak the language in a tiny country.
They are very proud of their heritage. I am very proud of that
heritage just as I am very proud to be a Canadian and to represent
Peterborough.
The debate today is about the revitalization of our economy
and the future of Canada. I would like all members to know that
even in this deep recession when the people of Peterborough are
really hurting their mandate to me was to revitalize the economy
within an even stronger Canada. That is what I intend to do.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Madam
Speaker, I heard with interest the comments of our hon.
colleague from Beaver River. I remember the days in the last
session when I was sitting on the other side of the House and the
several times we had an opportunity to speak to each other on an
informal basis as members do.
I would not want Canadians to think it is only with the advent
of this Parliament that members have been friendly to each other
across party lines. They have had the opportunity of knowing
and assisting each other notwithstanding that they may have
disagreed on policy or otherwise.
I want to congratulate the hon. member on her recent
marriage. I wish her and her husband the best.
(1915 )
I have a question for the hon. member about the issues of
recall and that of free votes. I am a fervent believer in increasing
the number of free votes. Indeed the mother of Parliaments has
considerably more free votes than we do. Government bills are
often defeated by government members and the government
does not fall automatically or an election is not called. We have
twisted that convention very badly out of shape in Canada
throughout the years.
By increasing the free votes we also increase, in my opinion,
the influence of those who lobby parliamentarians. Quite often
the fraternity we have, for lack of a better word, keeps us
together and to a degree fends off the influence of lobbyists.
Would the member not agree with me that together with
increasing free votes we have to increase the rules governing
lobbyists and the registration of lobbyists in Canada?
Finally I would like to ask our colleague as well about recall
and to give an opinion on that. Her and I are going to have to
disagree on that one. I believe I was elected to make decisions on
behalf of my constituents. I am to stand before them at the next
election having had their opinions in mind all of the time. I must
stand not just on one issue but on my overall performance as an
MP and let them judge me at the next election. After all, I
probably voted against the majority of my constituents on such
things as abortion, and probably similarly on such things as
capital punishment, and I was returned here with a relatively
comfortable majority.
I believe very much in the Edmund Burke philosophy in that
regard, that once elected you are a member for your
constituency and for the country as a whole. You must stand on
your record. If you do not do that you will always only represent
the majority and never the minority within your own
constituency.
63
Miss Grey: Madam Speaker, in the time we have remaining
let me thank my friend from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell for
his comments and make mention briefly of free votes.
There is a great possibility that would open it up to the
lobbyists so let us make sure, as my hon. friend said, that we
tighten up some of the regulations. Maybe we should go one step
further and not give government funding to lobby groups. We
might be surprised how the number falls off if such a thing
happened.
The member and I also appeared on a TV show some time last
year about the pensions of members of Parliament and we
disagreed on that as well. I somehow think my side might win in
that regard, being with the Canadian public. Nonetheless I
respect his view.
Regarding recall it is easy to say: ``My people sent me here. I
am doing what I am doing because they gave me a mandate''. Let
us remember the reason we are here is three-pronged. First of
all, is the mandate theory that I am here to do what I think is best.
Second, is the delegation model where people would say: ``Go
do what you like. We put our faith in you and we will see you
again at election time''. Probably the healthiest of all three
would be the idea of trusteeship: ``You as constituents put faith
in me as your member of Parliament. I will go and do the best job
I can do, but I will make sure that I continue from time to time to
get a reading in the riding. I would be the trustee''. That does not
mean I could disappear to Ottawa and say: ``They gave me the
mandate so I can do as I please''.
We need to be very careful in that regard. It is important we
put our faith in the common sense of the people who voted for us
and say that member of Parliament recall is something. If I lay
that open and lay myself open in front of my constituents it
seems to ease the tension and they see that at least we are
willing.
(1920 )
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):
Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for
Lachine-Lac-Saint Louis for his excellent speech this
afternoon and also the hon. member for Beaver River, who I can
say is a very kind person. She wrote me an excellent letter last
winter when I was in the hospital, as many members on both
sides of this House did. I appreciate that very much.
Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate you on taking the
chair. I think it becomes you very well. I will likely have an
opportunity to congratulate the Speaker in person. I would also
like to congratulate the other two officers of the chair.
When I was sitting here this afternoon listening to the debate
on whether we are going to separate this country or whether we
are not, I found it rather depressing. As a result I threw away
most of my notes. Therefore, what I am going to say tonight is
from the heart. That is not to say that my notes were not.
When we think of what it took in human work and human
effort, in negotiation and flexibility of human nature to get this
nation of Canada where it is today, I think all of us in this House
and indeed across this country should exercise that flexibility
and make up our minds that there is a bridge that can be built
between human beings as well as across a river. Mental bridges
or regional bridges in Canada, whether it be east, west, central
Canada, Ontario, Quebec or Atlantic Canada versus central
Canada, or whatever, are part of the uniqueness of this nation.
As we start off this 35th Parliament it is very important that we
realize and think about where we are going.
At the outset I want to say that I cannot in any way express my
feelings in words as firmly and as sincerely as I would like. No
matter where I am in Canada, I feel at home. I hope there is not
another Canadian from sea to sea to sea who does not feel the
same way.
Whenever I am speaking to development groups, whether
they be chambers of commerce or municipal councils or county
or regional councils or whatever, I always impress upon them
the importance of smiling to people on the street and saying
hello. It is very important to welcome people to your
community. You can do that by breaking the ice.
I believe there is an element developing in Canada where
there is a coolness in one part of the country to people in the
other. First of all we must remember that our ancestors put this
nation together. They put it together through hard work and
determination. Can anyone imagine the work it took to put the
first railroad across this great nation of ours and why it was
done? It was done to weld this country together economically
and, hopefully, socially.
I have the immigration figures here for Canada from 1852 to
1972. It spells a story of immigration to western Canada. It
spells the early days of immigration to-I do not call it central
Canada, I call it by the names of the provinces-Ontario,
Quebec and Atlantic Canada. We have some great heritage in
this country, not only in physical objects but in messages,
philosophies and mentalities that have been passed on to us
through generations.
(1925)
I listened to the hon. leader of the Reform Party this
afternoon. He had some particular views because he comes from
another region of the country. I respect those views. I respect
some of the views that have been put forward by the opposition.
I cannot say that I go along with them, but they have the right to
state them in this institution or anywhere in this country. We
have to get down to a good, honest, in-depth debate on this
nation. We cannot have an ongoing debate in a country as to
64
whether we are going to have national unity or whether we are
not.
There are jobless people across Canada today. They want
jobs. The average people in this country want to put bread on
their tables. They want to have the dignity of being full-fledged
citizens participating in their society. They would much rather
be paying taxes than receiving welfare payments. It is up to us in
this Parliament and in every legislature in Canada to think of
those people, to think of the further advancement of Canada, this
nation that was put together by great people like George Etienne
Cartier, Baldwin and Lafontaine, people who had the flexibility
to meet the other person's mind, have discussion and eventually
agree.
That is going to be the big issue in this Parliament. Are we
Canadians going to sit around, continue to bicker and differ
among ourselves on questions of national unity when if we got
together and had a meeting of minds we would go on to retain
and improve Canada as one of the greatest nations on the face of
the earth? Some people in other parts of the world would give
their back teeth to be here with us today.
We not only have a great obligation to Canadians to provide
jobs, we have a great obligation in this country to create research
and development, to go on with it, to think of people in various
parts of this country. Transportation is very important to this
nation. We have many issues before us today; a $46 billion
deficit in one year, a $500 billion debt in this country.
I beg and plead with all members in this House to get down to
the business that our ancestors would want us to do, and that is
building Canada, which they strained their backs and expended
their energies to do. They had a vision for Canada. Let us not
lose that vision. Canada is one of the most loved nations on the
face of the earth today. Other countries must be wondering what
is going on here. If we are arguing among ourselves, they will
wonder whether we are going to tear it apart or not. I have such a
deep feeling for this nation that I could not help but lay my notes
aside tonight and express these very sincere and in-depth
feelings.
We have a nation here that is not fully developed. Some
people talk as if we are a fully developed nation. Out there we
can create jobs by promoting tourism in this country. Tourism in
Canada is virtually untouched, virtually untapped. We have
some of the greatest scenes in this nation. Remember this. We
have had a tremendous group of statesmen in this House over the
years since these Parliament Buildings were first designed in
1859 and the members here now are in some of those seats. I ask
the members to think about developing the vision, the sincerity
and the dedication to our nation of those people who passed
through these seats ahead of us over the years.
(1930)
I have the list of Prime Ministers here. People think that
Parliament is a raucous place today. Take out Hansard and read
some of the debates on the great free trade of the 1911 election.
Read the debates of the conscription issue in this House in 1917.
It practically tore the country apart. It was a terrible thing on the
social conscience of Canadians.
In the opposition lobby and in the government lobby of that
day, I was told by an older person a few years ago, there was a
bar and the debate went on all night long. Can you imagine what
a spirited debate that was.
That is the kind of history we have here. We are not an old
country. We are a very young country. It is not surprising that we
should be having debates on national unity along the way. I just
want to say this evening that we should think of the railway
building which I mentioned and those people who immigrated to
Canada and their train trips across this nation. After getting off
ships some settled in Montreal. The St. Lawrence seaway
development is one of the finest waterways that any continent
could be blessed with. We can live together. You bet we can live
together and we can thrive together.
If we put our energies into developing Canada and put a vision
into this Parliament, exercise a vision to create jobs, we can
make Canadians happy again right across this country. Canada is
worth retaining. The world knows that. It seems to me that what
we have to do is convince ourselves. We have some great talent
in this country.
I have friends all across the province of Quebec. I have friends
across Atlantic Canada. I have relatives in western Canada
whom I have never seen, as many members may have. I have
been to the territories in the north. This is the way we can build
bridges. We must see our country and we must know our people.
There must be respect for people out there. The only way that we
can expect their respect is if we are not only seen to be but in fact
are working on their behalf and on their betterment for the
future.
There has to be respect for dignity, a respect for people of
different cultures, yes, and a respect for some decency
throughout the world. Hope and dignity should be the landmarks
of this Parliament.
(1935)
I agree with the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell when he said a while ago:
``People think everybody was fighting with one another in past
Parliaments''. Over my years here I have had many very good
friends on both sides of the House. I remain in touch with some
of them today.
The 205 new members in the House have one of the greatest
opportunities going. It is a personal challenge. They too will
make friends back and forth across the floor. They too will find
65
that those people worked just as hard to get elected and have
good ideas for Parliament and for Canada. They will grow to
respect one another.
To every one sitting in the House now I say it is a great
opportunity to be flexible, to develop friends and to establish a
base for helping people across the country. There are people out
there who are hurting. Let us remember that the three main
industries from colonial days that built this nation of Canada
were the fisheries, the forests and agriculture. All three of them
are facing considerable trouble today and we must have a feeling
for the people out there who are fighting to stay alive, to make a
living and to be creative.
Over the years Canada has grown up a great deal. We have
developed into a very responsible nation. I went to Dieppe on
one of the anniversaries of the battle there and I could not
believe what I saw. It was the first time I had seen it. There was a
little narrow beach with tremendous cliffs that had openings in
them all the way up for machine gun turrets and other heavy
artillery. Poor Canadians were sent across the English Channel
to attack Dieppe. One does not need any imagination at all to
question the senior officer or officers who made that decision.
Canada must have greater say in what we do with our Canadians
abroad, whether it be in peacekeeping duties or, hopefully not,
in time of war.
Ten of thousands of young people died in World War I. They
did not have an opportunity to live in this country. They did not
have an opportunity to sit in this Parliament. Within 21 years
there was a second world war that took another cream of the crop
of young people from this nation. They are resting in graves far
from this nation. They fought for Canada. They fought for peace
in the world. They fought for freedom. They wanted a free
world. Today in their memory the least we can do is have some
flexibility and real sound friendship right across the nation for
which they fought and died, were wounded or came home with
horrendous thoughts about what they had experienced.
These are some of my feelings today as I sit here and listen to
the debate. I did not get into the contents of the throne speech
which is a good start, an excellent start. I remember every word
of it as do other members on the government side of the House
and those on the other side. We had the red book and what we
have in the throne speech is part of the red book. There will be
more to come. As parliamentarians we must gain the respect of
Canadians by doing what we said we were going to do. We
cannot win them all. We are not going to come out of it batting
100 per cent, but with the fact that there is a target to aim at we
are going to come out of it far better than if we did not map out
our route in the first place.
(1940)
The very fact that each of us was elected to this House of
Commons shows that we have some special qualities and appeal
to the people who sent us here. I ask the new members to develop
a good rapport with all of us. My mind is open. My handshake
goes out to anyone in this House who wants to discuss an issue
whether or not I totally disagree.
Let us think of one thing. We want to get Canadians employed.
We want to continue this great nation for which our forefathers
fought so hard. They put up with much torment to build our
nation of today.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane): Mr. Speaker, I
listened carefully to the member's remarks and I was rather
moved. He spoke from the heart and I liked it; however, a
country is not built only with a heart but also with reason. He
talked about building bridges. He talked about a railroad from
coast to coast. True enough, but the problem is that in my riding
of Matapédia-Matane, railway travel is a problem. Last year,
we had to apply tremendous pressure to try to improve the
situation.
There was Meech Lake, and some people of good will who
tried to build bridges. Five small conditions, five requests which
Mr. Bourassa called a minimum, and rightly so. Indeed, this
country is vast, huge, but we are two founding nations which do
not feel at home from coast to coast.
You also talked about employment. My riding of
Matapédia-Matane is among the poorest in Canada.
Unemployment rates are astounding. I am going to ask you a
question. You occasionally mentioned forestry and agriculture,
but I did not see one line referring to natural resources, that is to
say mines, energy, water and forestry. Could you explain why?
If you want to build something and, above all, create jobs-
[English]
Mr. Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's
problem with transportation. It was rather ironic I was given a
train pass on the day I was sworn in. I do not have access to a
passenger train.
The hon. member mentioned the two founding peoples. He
will also be aware, as I mentioned in my speech, that people in
the early pioneer days worked together long before
Confederation to bring together those two founding peoples.
Confederation itself was based on protecting the language,
religion and culture of Quebecers. Those were some of the main
reasons for it.
(1945)
The hon. member mentioned high poverty rates. There are
areas of Canada with high poverty rates. I have some in my own
riding. I can relate to that.
We will create jobs. We will create the initiatives to produce
jobs. We are not going to say we will not do something because it
is not in the program. If it falls under jobs and is going to create
jobs then we want it.
66
The hon. member mentioned the throne speech and forests. As
he knows the forestry industry comes under provincial
jurisdiction. There are many members in our caucus who believe
as firmly as I do that we should have federal forestry agreements
as we have had in the past.
We have treated our forest resources very roughly and have
not managed them well. One thing that must happen from here in
is the planting of trees. We have some very good institutions that
develop forest trees. The expertise is there and it is a way to
produce jobs. We can get people to prepare our forests for the
future. We need to take an overall look at our natural resources.
We also need to deal with the provinces on many of them.
That is why in our red book during the election period, and
every day the government will be sitting here, we put a great
deal of emphasis on federal-provincial relations. It is going to
be very important if we are to produce jobs for Canadians and to
have a good rapport with governments of whatever stripe in
whatever province so that we can work with them in protecting
natural resources such as forestry, as the hon. member
mentioned, and build a protection for agriculture, even though
Canada was the only country at the GATT discussions that
believed in supply management. It is the only one left of the 117.
We cannot very well sign an agreement with ourselves.
Canada is the only one left that believes in it. The only way to go
is with high tariffs to protect our supply management system.
We attempted to do that. By and large a pretty good deal came
out of it. Also the other sectors of the economy affected by the
GATT agreement will be big pluses for the country.
I will certainly be glad any time to have a discussion with the
hon. gentleman. I am sure we will find a common basis for
friendship and serious discussion. I invite him to do that. We
will learn to love this place after a while because we will know
we are trying to do things for Canadians, that we are trying to do
things for the people who sent us to Ottawa.
I have known people in years past whose greatest aim was to
get on the front page of the newspaper and on television every
night of the week, but they did not come back very often after the
next election. They spent so much time promoting themselves
that they forgot who sent them to Ottawa to work on their behalf.
I welcome the hon. gentleman in private conversation.
(1950 )
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, I listened to
what the hon. gentleman had to say and I have to tell those in this
House that I was moved by his nationalism and I was deeply
moved by the way he sees his country, Canada. I must say that
this part of the world is indeed a place where it is good to live
and where there are many opportunities. Canada has always
been a democratic country.
However, I think it is time now for Canadians all across the
country to realize that we must go forward and that Quebecers
must now have their own way.
As I said before, I agree with everything the gentleman said
about our part of the world. Let us now think of the possibility of
living side by side in harmony. I think that is possible. That is
why I am now in this House with my colleagues from Quebec
and other parts of Canada, to take a stand and make a decision
for the future, perhaps the best decision for Canada and Quebec.
[Translation]
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, in view of the time,
may I get immediately unanimous consent from the House, as
required by our Standing Orders, to speak a couple minutes after
the time when the House usually adjourns?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the
member for Roberval. Is there unanimous consent for him to go
beyond the normal time limit for the sitting of the House?
[English]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, thank you very
much. In the spirit of the new Parliament-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Excuse me. I apologize
for not appropriately recognizing the member. The hon. member
for Regina-Lumsden, please.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the request for
unanimous consent, in the spirit of co-operation in the new
Parliament and on behalf of the New Democratic Party
members, I would be pleased to provide consent from this part
of the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): There is unanimous
consent.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): First of all, Mr. Speaker, I
wish to thank all my colleagues for giving unanimous consent so
that my first speech before the House will not be interrupted.
It is always extremely intimidating for a new member to speak
for the first time before an assembly such as ours, which is a
product of democracy. I shall be as brief as possible, in keeping
with the spirit of our standing orders.
We are just out of an electoral campaign that took us to every
corner of our ridings. I do not know a single member of this
House, from one side or the other, who did not listen closely to
his or her constituents during that period.
A period when-and that is one of the main virtues of
democracy-the voters, our constituents were able to make
themselves heard.
67
(1955)
People were able to express themselves, as is the case every
three of four years; they were able to tell us about their concerns,
their fears, their needs, as well as their concerns and their
objectives.
I was really surprised to hear the people from the riding of
Roberval, whom I knew well since I represented them twice in
the Quebec National Assembly say how disappointed they were
to see that, after nine years of a government whose mandate was
coming to an end, the basic issues of the election campaign were
essentially the same as those of the 1984 campaign. This was
both surprising and disappointing for the people who listen to
us, and it explains in part the lack of confidence and the lack of
interest regarding politicians in our society.
People were disappointed because in the 1984 election
campaign, the Progressive Conservative Party had pledged to
eliminate or reduce the deficit. At that time, politicians
travelled to every riding to ask their fellow Canadians to support
them, and more importantly to promise them that the deficit
would, from then on, be under control. I must point out here that
this deficit was totally generated by the Liberal government.
Job creation was another priority during that election
campaign, the 1984 campaign. Politicians of this country
travelled everywhere to promise Canadians that the problem of
unemployment would be solved, adding that it was unacceptable
for a society such as ours to have an unemployment rate of about
20 per cent in several regions. This was a promise. What is the
situation nine years later? The situation is the same. If anything,
it is worse than before.
During the 1984 campaign, a commitment was also made
whereby the constitutional problems would be solved,
especially for Quebec where this is a very sensitive issue. We
were told that a federalist party sitting in Ottawa would once and
for all solve the constitutional problems and erase the
unspeakable insult made to Quebec in 1982. Earlier this
afternoon, the Leader of the Opposition alluded to this episode.
Quebecers felt they have been betrayed by unspeakable political
acts which took place in Canada in 1982, 1984, 1988, and up to
the present.
After nine years of promises, nine years of hopes, the election
campaign was dominated by the same themes. Our senders debt
not only has not been contained, it has tripled, in spite of all
promises; the rate of unemployment is at least as high as it was
in 1984, or nine years later, in spite of all promises. And last, but
not least, there is a constitutional saga that deserves closer
scrutiny. Years of discussions, exchanges, a deal, the Meech
Lake Agreement, an agreement that essentially could have
satisfied a certain number of Quebecers. For the main part, the
Meech Lake Accord contained conditions which seemed
acceptable to a relatively large segment of the population of
Quebec. But what happened? Meech Lake was rejected. Several
months, several years of discussions, compromises, exchanges,
fragile agreements were rejected, as we have seen, even if they
gave some hope for the future of Canada.
(2000)
Some of our colleagues on the other side, whose ideas I
respect, of course, will say that Canada is a great country, a
country where we should enjoy living, where we should feel
comfortable. But whatever people might say, let us not forget
that, in 1982, this country let us down, and this country rejected
Meech Lake which represented a giant step on the constitutional
scene.
Now we come to another discussion, another compromise, the
Charlottetown Agreement, the substance of which seemed
unacceptable even to Quebecers. Quebecers said no to this
Agreement because it did not take into account their basic
traditional demands, while English Canada rejected it because it
apparently made too many concessions to Quebec.
It is very sad indeed to look at how political negotiations
unfolded under the previous government. Our political
formation was born of the desire of Quebecers to express
themselves through the democratic process, to elect to the
Canadian Parliament men and women who would convey the
message that had been circulating at home for years and which
deserved to be expressed here, to be shared during debates like
this one, to be the core of our exchanges and discussions and,
maybe, eventually, of our mutual understanding.
The Bloc Quebecois has received extraordinary support from
a majority of Quebecers. We are 54 here today, 54 members of
Parliament who have a job to do, who have the mission to see to
it that this message is, for once, given to the federal Parliament
without being filtered or distorted on the way by those who
refuse to say it as it is felt back home.
We are here to make Parliament work. I want to reassure my
colleagues. Many things have been said about the arrival of the
Bloc in Ottawa. Never during the election campaign did we
mention that we intended to paralyse Parliament, to prevent it
from doing its job, to prevent it from dealing with the real
problems facing Canadians. After our first day here, my
colleagues and I are happy to show our interest for this
institution and our profound respect for democracy. We are
happy to tell all those who were worried about our coming here
that we will co-operate. We will help find solutions to the
terrible problems facing our society.
The whole political context that brought us here is set against
a dreadful economic background. The government implemented
a monetary policy that created unemployment, a monetary
policy that was aimed essentially at maintaining a low inflation
rate in Canada without paying any attention to the
unemployment it brought. The economic crisis was made even
worse by the signing of a free trade agreement, when industry
had not been prepared for the deep changes so badly needed in
the context of a broader economy. The free trade agreement was
68
indeed something positive for our future and for the
development of our trade relations.
(2005)
Unfortunately, the difficulties of transition had been
overlooked. It did not cross the government's mind that
companies needed help to face this new context. The monetary
policy and the lack of preparation for a new international trade
context combined to make the situation even more painful for
Canadians than it was in 1984.
It is now incumbent upon this Parliament to settle once and
for all a number of problems that get worse and worse all the
time.
Why are we here? First, we heard the throne speech, the
contents of which we are now discussing. The first topic is a
Parliamentary reform that could eventually lead to more
responsibilities for members. This is certainly commendable.
That approach could prove interesting. We should wait and see
what this reform is all about.
On the other hand, at the same time, you want to enhance the
role of members of this House, yet you refuse to create an
all-party nonpartisan parliamentary committee to analyze,
examine, study, and criticize each spending item of the
government. Instead, you merely mention a few examples of
benefits which could be discarded so that we can appease our
consciences and try to convince Canadians that we have done
what had to be done.
So, a parliamentary reform that is already somewhat
handicapped, I would say, by the fact that the first valid exercise
to which we could have invited the members of this House is
being dismissed by this government, a Speech from the Throne
in which this government did not see fit to reassure the citizens
of this country about the kind of changes that it was ready to
make in the social programs.
It is disturbing to note that, at times, signals are given by
politicians whose decisions are important in these matters and,
at other times, in statements by employers, by people involved
in the economic development, by people who are looking for
solutions to the budget problems of the government, but who can
only identify social programs as the primary target.
Imagine the wonderful country and the brave government that
will solve the debt problem of this country on the backs of those
who suffer the most! Are they going to hit the elderly, or the
unemployed once again? Are they going to hit people on welfare
or health programs? We do not know.
At times, the messages are informal, at other times, they are
more formal in articles that they hasten to deny the next day. At
any rate, when I hear the minister of Canadian
Intergovernmental Affairs, right at the beginning of this
mandate, say to us that they should at least try and cut 20 per
cent in health care programs, I am concerned. It is nothing at all!
Twenty per cent! As if it were the problem to takle first.
(2010)
We are sometimes told that we should make the system more
effective. Naturally, everybody wants to make this system more
effective. But no one ever talked about maintaining or
protecting the financial resources allocated to these programs.
What worries us is that each time issues such as the debt and the
current year deficit of over $40 billion are raised, each time that
these issues are raised, the social programs are inevitably
associated with the repayment of the debt, with the reduction of
the deficit. There is always someone somewhere to suggest that
the money is to be found in the social programs.
Administrative duplications in this country are very
expensive. Hundreds of millions of dollars are wasted in
jurisdictional disputes between the various levels of
government. Today, we have asked-I personally did-the
member opposite if he would make it a priority to address the
issue of manpower. All Quebecers agree with that. Someone is
whispering to me that he said he would. Of course, he said he
would. He always says yes, but sometimes it is ``yes, right
away'', and some other times it is ``yes, probably''. It could be
``yes, certainly'', ``yes, probably'', or ``yes, sometime in the
future''.
The problem is that it is stop and go in an area where the
Minister could make history. All he would have to do is endorse
the consensus among the people involved in Quebec. Seldom
have we seen the unions, the industry, the federalist liberal
government of Quebec, the people responsible for manpower
training, the unemployed, the hundreds of thousands of
unemployed in Quebec, all in agreement. But they are, and what
they are asking the federal government, before it cuts into social
programs, is to save the $250 million wasted on duplicate
services which only create problems.
I thought that the government would leap at a tremendous
opportunity like this one. But the Minister for
Intergovernmental affairs is not sure. Maybe yes, maybe no. It
makes no sense. The government will have to face reality some
day. You are indicating that my time is up, Mr. Speaker, so I will
conclude. The government must face reality, it must listen to
members of this assembly, it must seize the opportunities
available to save money without taking away from those most in
need.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague from the other side
and I take this opportunity to congratulate him on being elected
69
to Parliament. I had the privilege of meeting him at conferences
when we were both members of provincial legislatures; I do not
recall wether it was at the International Assembly of
French-Speaking Parliamentarians or at other forums. In any
case, I am glad to see him here.
I would like to ask him a question which is rather relevant, I
think. A few minutes ago, he said in his remarks that the
minister responsible for federal-provincial issues had said yes
in more ways than one, I won't repeat them all, to initiatives
aimed at avoiding duplication. According to the member, we
have heard it only too often and things have been dragging on for
far too long since the Liberals came to power.
(2015)
Did the member forget that today is the first one of the session
and that there was only one answer and that it was yes? If the
member is not satisfied with a positive answer, can we conclude
that he would have preferred a negative one that would have
boosted his position and allowed him to say that the federal
government is unwilling to do anything for them, thereby
pointing out the failure of federalism? In other words he is
saying to us that a yes is not enough, that things have been going
on for too long. The first day in Parliament, we said yes right
away, but even that took too long. Maybe we should have said
yes before the question was asked? Perhaps that is the solution.
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, I thank my
colleague, to whom I give my regards, for asking for
clarifications. We have indeed met previously in another forum.
There is something we have to understand, and I am happy
that my colleague has asked that question because it might help
other ministers than the minister responsible for
federal-provincial matters. This government has had a problem
since the election and I am glad to be able to tell you how that is
seen from the outside. The government gives the impression that
no one in its ranks is able to take a firm stand. One day they
create a program, for instance the infrastructure program. The
government announces an infrastructure program, which is
interesting enough. They tell us that there may be negotiations,
that there might be developments and that they will give details
later on these aspects; that they will make the criteria known and
that provincial governments will be asked to contribute. The
problem is there is never anything clear.
Regarding duplication, the minister I asked omitted to explain
today a declaration he made yesterday, although a few months
ago he had clearly and firmly announced his intention of dealing
with the question of duplication of responsibilities with Quebec.
Only a few hours ago the same minister declared that the
question of labour agreements has now become less urgent. The
minister said he prefers to wait and examine those questions in
the light of the general review of social programs that has to be
done. That could take up to two years.
Then I tried, unsuccessfully, to find out if the minister would
proceed rapidly. For each minute that passes we lose millions of
dollars. What we want is determination and clear and precise
answers. People watching us are fed up with half-measures.
They want real measures. That is why I was not happy with the
answer. I would have liked some reassurance from the minister.
I would have liked to hear a determined minister saying: ``Yes, I
am glad to announce that every effort is now made to settle the
issue of overlapping jurisdictions and duplication regarding
employment, because every Quebecer wants us to do so''. Just
ask the new premier of Quebec-a liberal and federalist
premier. He will tell you how dissatisfied and disappointed he is
about the way this government is dealing with the matter. That is
the problem.
I told the minister today what we want from the government:
``Just make a decision! Choose an option! Yes or no, will you
make changes in the social programs? Just say so! Yes or no, will
you cut the transfers to the provinces? We want an answer''.
That is what people want to know. They do not want to hear,
according to circumstances, yes or no, a little bit or a lot, not
much and not too much. Make a decision, that is what matters to
us.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Colleagues, I want to take
a moment on this, my first occasion as one of your associate
Speakers, to thank my constituents of Stormont-Dundas for
returning me here to the House of Commons.
[Translation]
I want to thank my constituents of Stormont-Dundas for
their trust and I undertake to do my utmost in their service.
[English]
An inspiration to me in my new functions here in Parliament
in the chair will be a former member for Stormont-Dundas, the
Hon. Lucien Lamoureux, who was the Speaker of this House for
several years.
[Translation]
I congratulate you all and wish you success in this Parliament.
[English]
I congratulate all of you on your election to this 35th
Parliament.
70
Finally, to all of you, my peers, I pledge my full
co-operation.
[Translation]
To you, my peers, I pledge my full co-operation. Thank you.
[English]
It being 8.20 p.m. this House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 8.20 p.m.)