Stéphane Dion, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, has reiterated that a cross Canada referendum is not out of the question. In a telephone press conference, Mr. Dion said no means of consultation had been ruled out. He did say that the government did not want a referendum with all the trauma it would entail.We will remember that, on Wednesday morning, the Deputy Prime Minister completely ruled out the possibility and did not answer my question yesterday afternoon during question period.
My question is for the Prime Minister. I would like to know from the Prime Minister, because it is he who set match to kindling by raising the possibility of a cross Canada referendum in the throne speech, and because even his ministers are confused by his remarks-two of his ministers are contradicting each other-, whether he would be kind enough to clarify the issue once and for all so we can get on with other things and tell us, yes or no, whether he intends to hold a cross Canada referendum on the future of Quebec?
(1420)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister expressed what we are all thinking, which is that we do not want another referendum. No one wants a referendum.
I hope the hon. Leader of the Opposition does not want a referendum and that he subscribes to the theory of Jacques Parizeau, who, on the night of the referendum, was going to tell Quebecers and Canadians that the result was irreversible, that democracy had spoken, that the page had to be turned and that everyone should rally behind the choice made. We are rallying behind the choice Quebecers made, we are going to stay in Canada.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, needless to say the Leader of the Opposition is rallying and does not want a cross Canada referendum, because it is up to Quebecers to decide their future.
The official opposition feels it is up to Quebecers to decide their future, does the Prime Minister share this opinion?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am of the same opinion as the Premier of Quebec, who is asking people to attend to public finances, to work to create jobs. This is what Quebecers want at the moment. This is what the speech from the throne proposed.
We proposed that we create jobs, especially for young people. We have proposed a program to improve the federation. I hope the Leader of the Opposition will take the time at least to read this part of the throne speech. It seems he read the word ``referendum'' in the throne speech, when it was not there.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first, is the Prime Minister aware that he is the one who wrote the throne speech and not the Leader of the Opposition?
Second, all Canadian political observers, without exception, have raised the matter of the cross Canada referendum as a threat hanging over Quebec. I did not invent it, all the observers pointed that out.
Is the Prime Minister aware that his double talk and his thinly veiled threats to Quebec are today preventing us from moving on to other things, as he claims he wants? He is the one in the way.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have just said that the throne speech focussed on the real problems of Quebecers and all Canadians, that we spoke of job creation, that we challenged business to come up with jobs now that the Minister of Finance and this government have managed to clean up public finances. Those are the real problems.
If the member is talking about the referendum threat, the matter is very clear: let him tell us that there will be no referendum in Quebec, and political stability will return, jobs will come back to Quebec and prosperity will reign anew in the city of Montreal.
Does the Prime Minister confirm that his new constitutional position is based on the Charlottetown accord, but with something missing?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, improving federal-provincial relations is a matter of public administration. We decided to improve the situation.
I had the opportunity to discuss the matter with the premiers, during our trip to Asia for instance, and everyone agrees that the time has come to improve the federation. This is a plan that we put
forward unilaterally. We will hold a federal-provincial conference, which I hope the premier of Quebec will attend. We will review all the possibilities and find a solution that will allow us to restore Canada's political stability, thereby promoting economic growth.
(1425)
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can the Prime Minister believe for one moment that his timid constitutional proposals can meet Quebecers' expectations, when the Charlottetown accord-whose content the Prime Minister is obviously trying to water down in order to respond and make his proposals acceptable to the rest of Canada-was rejected by a majority of Canadians and Quebecers?
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are working and will be working with the provinces to ameliorate the federation for the 21st century. We put forward, on our own initiative, some propositions that seem to have been quite well received by the premiers and the provinces.
I hope the Government of Quebec will look objectively at these propositions which are aimed at making the federation work better. In doing so, everybody will benefit from these initiatives, particularly the people of Quebec.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, they clap now but let me tell them about the delivery that it has been; drifting targets that leave the deficit at $30 billion-no clapping now-an 8 per cent drop in disposable income-no clapping now. There is no prospect for tax relief, despair instead of hope and a near defeat in the Quebec referendum. Applause, please. None, Mr. Speaker.
How can the Prime Minister have the nerve to claim victory? No clapping now. How can he claim victory when $50 billion a year is going to pay just interest on the national debt. The average Canadian paycheque is $200 less a month than it was in 1989 and the prospect of tax relief is absolutely nowhere in sight. What kind of victory is that?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, two years ago in this House the hon. member was complaining about the level of interest rates in Canada compared to the United States. The level of interest rates between Canada and the United States today for the short term is exactly the same.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): For every point in reduction in the interest rates, the treasury is saving $1.7 billion a year. The finances of the country have improved tremendously. That is the judgment of the market. Of course, it will never be enough for the Reform Party because it wants to get rid of medicare and the social network that protects Canadians. We have a balanced approach.
We can run the affairs of the nation and at the same time make sure that people are not going into the streets as a result of a government that does not care for them.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that he is bragging about low interest rates with the recession that we are going through. There is nothing to be gained in that reply.
Yesterday the Prime Minister said that he has broken the back of the deficit. That is not true.
Some hon. members: More, more.
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, again comes the clapping and the arrogance. They have not broken the back of the deficit. They have broken the back of the Canadian taxpayers who are leading the battle in making ends meet. The best way to create real, sustainable jobs is to lower taxes. The best way to do that is to eliminate the deficit.
When will the Prime Minister and his finance minister announce a firm date for balancing the budget and give Canadians much needed tax relief?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has done very well so far.
Some hon. members: Bravo.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Mr. Speaker, the rest of the answer has been given by the whole caucus.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, speaking of hands being put together, by waving the white flag with that hand, the Prime Minister is declaring that he is surrendering the war on the deficit and government overspending. He is condemning Canadians to many more years of insecurity and mediocrity.
(1430)
When is the Prime Minister going to get his hands on the throat of the deficit, rather than on the taxpayers?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the deficit is being handled in a very gentle way.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[Translation]
On December 29, because of human error, an Air Canada flight was intercepted by South Korean combat aircraft. Experts blame an overworked crew and the degradation of service and equipment for the incident.
Could the Minister of Transport tell us whether air deregulation may have been the cause of the problems experienced during the flight in question, which could have had tragic consequences for the air travellers?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that we have full confidence in Air Canada's safety systems.
We are looking into the matter which occurred some six weeks ago. It appears that the problem which arose was, in fact, not related to the Department of Transport but an error in a clerk's typing of one code which led to a mistake in Japan. That is what we are looking into at the present time. That is all the information I can give him at this time.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, here is my supplementary question.
Can the minister give us any formal assurances, other than his words, that no one will ever type in a wrong code again and that the security of Canadians will never be compromized in the future?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, certainly I can give the hon. member the assurance that the safety systems of Air Canada are among the very best in the world. We are doing everything possible to make sure that standard of safety is maintained.
I can assure him also that this matter will be looked into by the department and that in due course we will have further information to give him.
I would like to make sure that the House fully understands that the safety system for Canadian airlines and the Canadian air transport system are of the world's highest level.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Who is responsible for job creation? The government or the private sector?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I made it clear yesterday that the role of the government is to prepare a climate for the private sector to invest. That is exactly what we have done.
A big problem for the business community was that the interest rate spread between Canada and the United States was too wide. This has been completely eliminated and it is a big achievement for all of us.
It was reported this morning that the economy has created 579,000 new jobs since we formed the government. For a failure that is not bad.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, now the Prime Minister wants businesses to create more jobs, not the government. I am trying to find out if in fact he still believes in the infrastructure program.
The way to create jobs is to lower taxes so taxpayers and businesses have more disposable income. To lower taxes there must be a balanced budget. The government is adding to the debt, not reducing it. Funding must not be decreased the way this government has done with its social and health transfer and education.
The government should look at the way it is handling everything to do with the economy and let the private sector grow and create the jobs it should create. The government has not done its part. The government must look at the debt and look at its budget and present a balanced budget.
When will the government present a balanced budget?
(1435 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since the government has taken office the deficit has gone from 6 per cent of GDP, which it was, to 5 per cent. This year it will be at 4 per cent. We will hit our target next year at 3 per cent and the year after we have set the new target of 2 per cent, which we will hit.
That is one of the best records of any of the industrialized countries, certainly one of the best records of any of the G-7 countries, and it ought to be recognized.
The hon. member wants to talk about commitments. Before Christmas the hon. member said that his party would present a budget before the government brought down its budget. It has five
days. When is the Reform Party going to present its budget? When is it going to stop blowing smoke?
Will the Minister of Finance reassure the elderly by confirming that their pension will not be determined by using the family income criterion?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to meet these associations a week ago. I told them that it was my intention to meet with them again after the budget to discuss the need to ensure the long term viability of old age pensions, that is old age security and the guaranteed income supplement.
I also took this opportunity to assure them, as did the Prime Minister in the House yesterday, that, as regards old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, those who are already retired will not be affected. Our goal is to make sure that the plan still exists for younger generations.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister leaves an element of doubt as to whether pensions will indeed be based on family income. Can the minister at least tell Canadians that retirement age will not be raised from 65 to 67 years?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, during the meeting of provincial finance ministers, we agreed with our Quebec counterpart to hold public hearings on the Quebec pension plan and the Canada pension plan.
One option is to push retirement age to 67 years. I said that this was definitely not my preferred choice, but it is an option that was put forward by some provinces and we have to look at it. But again, I want to make it clear that it is certainly not this government's first choice.
It seems that President Clinton has agreed to pass a bill on Cuba that could seriously harm Canadian companies with investment and trade interests in Cuba. I would like to ask the minister what avenues he is pursuing to make sure we are protecting Canadian interests.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his congratulatory comments.
While the government joins the United States in condemning the Cuban action in shooting down two civilian planes, we are disappointed by what is resulting in the Helms-Burton bill. We are disappointed by the effect it will have on Canadians and business people from other countries in terms of access to the United States for these business people as well as the potential of lawsuits against them.
We have yet to get the details of the legal text of the bill. We hope to get that later in the day. When we do, we will be looking at it in terms of the options for action the government can take. In terms of NAFTA, in terms of the trade obligations the United States has with respect to that, we want to make sure they uphold their part of that agreement. We want to make sure Canadians continue to have access in the United States and are able within Canadian law to continue to deal in a business fashion with Cuba and other countries.
(1440)
We will take action on that after we have looked at the options before us.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I address my supplementary to the Prime Minister.
The leaders of Canada and the United States have always had a good relationship. Indeed, the Prime Minister has often spoken about the warm relationship he has with President Clinton.
Given that warm relationship and given that this is such a hot issue which is before us right now, can the Prime Minister tell this House if he has called President Clinton on this issue in order to protect Canadian interests and if so, what were the discussions regarding this issue?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to answer the question.
The hon. member is quite right. We have a number of different relationships with the United States. Fortunately for us many of them are done in a very co-operative fashion. We want to maintain the opportunity to continue a very good and fruitful dialogue with the government and the people of the United States.
On the specific issue dealing with the Helms-Burton bills, the Minister for International Trade has said it is one item on which we have strong disagreements with the approach being taken. I can assure the hon. member that a number of representations have been
made at a variety of levels to ensure that the United States government knows of our objections.
Does the Minister of Justice acknowledge that having legal advisers from his department representing both the crown and the defence in the investigation of senior officers places the department in a conflict of interest situation, a point that has been raised by chief commissioner Judge Létourneau?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, from the outset in this as in any other commission of inquiry, the possibility of conflict has been acknowledged. Whenever government lawyers act for government institutions as well as individuals, that possibility can arise.
Equally from the outset, we have made provisions for such conflicts. To date 13 individuals have been invited to retain their own separate counsel at the expense of the government and that has been done. In addition to that, additional safeguards have been put in place to ensure that any person who is interviewed as a witness or who is brought before the commission is given the opportunity to have separate representation if their interest is different from that of the government.
I can inform the hon. member and the House that earlier this week my deputy minister met with one of the commissioners, Commissioner Létourneau, and discussed this matter in detail. We are now preparing a written response to the letter we received last week on this subject. I am confident that procedures can be devised to address this difficulty while maintaining the responsibility that this department has to represent the government in the inquiry.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Justice acknowledge that the sole purpose of using lawyers from his department to defend senior officers was to protect those officers at the expense of the lower ranks who were represented by their own lawyers, and continue to be so represented?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker, and I say that there is no foundation on the facts for that allegation. It is simply unfair.
Our interest from the outset has been to ensure that the facts come out before the commission. The Minister of National Defence created the commission for that purpose. I repeat that the Department of Justice throughout has made it possible for anyone who is in a different position from ours to have separate representation. We will continue in that regard. If the hon. member is aware of any instance in which that principle is not honoured, I would ask her to let me know so that we can deal with it immediately.
Bell Canada's supplemental pension plan was placed with Confederation Life Insurance. At least one Bell director was also a director of Confederation Life. When Confederation Life collapsed, the same director did not notify Bell of the difficulties.
(1445 )
Are the director's fiduciary obligations under such circumstances to protect the employees' pension funds or to remain silent?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the heart of the matter the hon. member brings up is an issue of corporate governance. The issue of corporate governance is one that the Minister of Industry is looking at in his department. They have released a series of papers. The Senate banking committee is looking at the issue of corporate governance. The studies will form part of my own white paper on the financial institution legislation.
To refer to the actual incident the hon. member brings up, I will not give him a legal opinion as I am certainly not a lawyer and as a matter of fact, he is a lawyer. However, I can say generally speaking that the fiduciary responsibilities of financial institution executives are taken very seriously. Where a conflict occurs, they can of course abstain from voting on those matters.
no-Howe Sound is giving a seminar on just that subject. He should remember to bring a new pen because we only do our budgets in black ink. Please come.
In today's Sun there is an article that states: ``Finance Minister Paul Martin is working on a bribe to persuade the four Atlantic provinces to harmonize''-
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. member to please just use the title of the minister rather than his name.
Mr. Solberg: Mr. Speaker, the quote states: ``The finance minister is working on a bribe to persuade the four Atlantic provinces to harmonize their sales taxes with the GST''. If harmonization is so great, then obviously he ought to be able to sell it on its own merits.
Is the finance minister seriously going to go ahead with a proposal that is so bad he cannot sell it on its own merits and he actually has to bribe the provinces to go along?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the arguments in favour of harmonization are overwhelming. Consumer associations across the country argue in favour of harmonization. Small and medium size business argue in favour of harmonization. The Canadian Tax Foundation argue in favour of harmonization.
In this day when what we are trying to do is to find new vehicles for the delivery of government services, what we want to do is rationalize them. Surely to heaven the ability of the federal and provincial governments to co-operate is not something that should be denigrated but something members opposite should be applauding. The only thing I would say on that basis is that a number of provinces understand the benefits of harmonization. I do not think that it speaks well of the Reform Party to say that any provincial government would allow itself to be bribed. It is an insult to the people of their provinces.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the member for York South-Weston when referring to the Prime Minister recently said: ``He made a promise; we all made promises. We went door to door to scrap the GST and if we do not keep that promise it will be very difficult for Liberal MPs to go into an election knocking on the same doors asking support once again from people they lied to in the last election campaign''.
Will the minister fulfil his and his colleagues' promises not to disguise, not to fudge, not to tinker with, but to eliminate the GST? That was his promise.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me simply quote from page 22 of the red book:
A Liberal government will replace the GST with a system that generates equivalent revenues, is fairer to consumers and to small business, minimizes disruption to small business, and promotes federal-provincial fiscal co-operation and harmonization.That is exactly what we intend to do.
(1450)
[Translation]
Will the Prime Minister again commit to honouring his word and will he proceed with the necessary amendments in keeping with his campaign promises?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the House has already voted on a bill of this nature concerning an amendment to the Criminal Code. That part of our commitment we have made good on. Now what remains is the legislation to which the hon. member refers. It is part of our promises and we hope to find the time to adopt it some day.
We have already kept one of our promises and now there is just the second one, but we have two and a half years to go.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister not ashamed, as the leading citizen of this country, to go back on a promise and thus to perpetuate discrimination against the gays and lesbians of this country? This is disgraceful, and we have the right to expect the Prime Minister to keep his word.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no question here. He has only to read the red book and to tell us when an election will be held, and on that date it will be known whether or not we have adopted the bill.
The government said in its throne speech: ``Canadians, no matter where they live, will have their say in the future of the country''.
I ask the Prime Minister: What precisely did he have in mind when the government made that commitment?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are many ways for Canadians to express their views.
There will be a federal-provincial meeting of the first ministers. The people will be represented at that meeting by the Prime Minister of Canada and the premiers. There are also organizations which are expressing their views at this time by sending briefs to the government. They are meeting with their members of Parliament. We are receiving briefs from many people on that subject.
At this moment we have put forward a plan of amelioration of the federation. We want to discuss that with the first ministers. That is exactly what we have in mind for the time being.
I hope the Reform Party will approve the plan we have of offering some clarification, some devolution of powers, some improvement in the relations between the federal and provincial governments. I do not see why that is not good enough for the hon. member for the time being.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, apparently when the Prime Minister meant that Canadians would be able to express their views, he meant only the 11 first ministers of the country. Nothing has changed.
Yesterday when the hon. member for Beaver River was asking about this, the Deputy Prime Minister responded: ``We believe that Canadians do not want more constitutional wrangling''. If that is the case, I would like to ask the Prime Minister why did the government propose in the throne speech to constitutionalize the distinct society notion, to change the amending formula of the Constitution? Why is it proposing to reopen the wounds of Meech Lake, Charlottetown and the patriation of 1982?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have always said that we hope this will be constitutionalized. We said that when we had votes in the House of Commons on that. We have always said that is what we wanted to do.
In order to have the reality of Canadian life that Quebec is a distinct society in the Constitution we need seven provinces to approve it. I hope that the hon. member would support that. For changing the amending formula, I have always been in favour of a veto for the regions and this was expressed in a bill in the House of Commons and you voted against it. It was a formula that was accepted by all the provinces at the time of the Victoria discussion. There is nothing new. It is something that was acceptable even to the Socred government of Alberta which you are the grandson of. There are many ways to consult with the public. There is one that will come soon. That will be the day a lot of these guys will disappear, when we have a general election.
(1455)
Recently Canada and the United States signed a softwood lumber deal that will secure Canada's access to U.S. markets for five years. Why did Canada enter into this agreement with the United States rather than take the softwood dispute to the NAFTA panel, a panel process that Canada has won on all previous occasions?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the problem was that between the last dispute and this one, the law changed in the United States.
According to the rules of NAFTA and NAFTA panels, the NAFTA panel only has to determine whether or not a country in the agreement follows its own laws. Because of the change in the law, it created a great state of uncertainty about our ability to succeed in a further countervail measure if we should challenge it through a NAFTA panel.
We dealt with the provinces and with the industry in each of the provinces across the country and were able to come up with a good solution. It is different for the different provinces but is one they all subscribe to. It is one we were able to bring together under an overall Canada umbrella to work as a team with the provinces and with industry to come up with a solution that gives them secure access to the United States market for the next five years. This is something that has never been achieved before without any countervail measure.
We have secured a better access for very substantial volumes of our lumber to the United States market very similar to what we have had over the last two or three years.
Mr. Pierre Roy was fired by CSIS for informing his superiors that a mole in the service of the former Soviet Union had been working there for 20 years. The review committee said Mr. Roy had a case and asked for the investigation to be reopened. The mole, however, is still working for CSIS.
Would the Solicitor General agree it is astonishing, to say the least, that Mr. Roy was fired and the mole was protected, despite these troubling allegations?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have been assured by the director of CSIS that there is no mole within the service as alleged by my hon. friend. This matter has been looked into thoroughly by the Security and Intelligence Review Committee. Its recommendations have been taken into account.
With respect to his reference to a former CSIS contract employee, this involves the internal management of the service. I cannot go into his relationship for privacy reasons.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General received those assurances from the same people who told us there was no Heritage Front case, no Grant Bristow case, there had been no infiltration of the Reform Party and no file on Preston Manning.
Since these questions cannot be resolved by magic, and considering the Heritage Front, the file that was opened on Preston Manning and these new allegations about the existence of a mole within the service, a mole who is still there today, will the minister finally agree to order a full-scale public inquiry on the Canadian Security Intelligence Service?
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): They had a mole of their own, Claude Morin.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, people suggested I mention Claude Morin, but I am a little hesitant to do so.
I want it to be quite clear that I was advised by the director of CSIS that there is no mole in the service. The service remains vigilant in this respect, and I repeat that the SIRC has investigated the matter and is unable to confirm the allegations of my hon. friend.
(1500)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the hon. member will have to wait for the budget to find out budget measures.
I am in the process and will continue to have lengthy, important discussions with the minister responsible. In the end we are talking about the preservation of a major Canadian institution. We are also talking about the ways in which a country exercises its cultural sovereignty. That is very important to this side of the House.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, then let me ask the heritage minister about this.
Canadians really are sick and tired of the never ending tax and spend mentality to which this minister and most the Liberals in the House adhere. Surely she has realized by now that Canadians are not prepared to put up with this special tax.
Has the minister recommended to the finance minister that she not continue to pick the taxpayers' pockets at the expense of the security of Canadians? Because the money all comes out of one pot.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to the hon. member that when it comes to the security of Canadians it is not only of concern to this party in terms of physical security. We also want to secure our long term future. Part of securing that long term future means ensuring that we have strong public broadcasting available in every part of the country to help build the links we need to bind us into the 21st century.
The year over year grain exports until mid-February this year are only 15.1 million tonnes compared to 21.4 million tonnes for the same period last year.
During the intervening year the government imposed its privatization and deregulation solutions to solve grain export problems.
Since grain exports have plummeted and demurrage charges have soared with ships waiting what, if anything, is the new minister proposing to do in order to keep us on target for exports of $20 billion by the end of this century, which was his government's target?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his kind words.
Certainly the concern about the grain shipments from the prairies is a very important part of the Transport Canada portfolio.
However, a number of factors come into play when considering grain exports. Weather is one of the more difficult ones at this time of year.
We are lucky to have virtually unprecedented prices for Canadian grain overseas and we will do everything we can within the transport system to make sure that deliveries are made as effectively as possible so we can take advantage of that market.
The work that has been done to make sure we have a more competitive transportation system is very much key and central to having a system in place year by year which will be able to deliver our products to markets effectively wherever they may be overseas.
I can assure him I look forward to working with him to make sure those goals are achieved.
As the minister knows, serious concerns have been raised about security and law enforcement at our ports, specifically, the port of Vancouver under the new marine police.
Can the Minister of Transport assure British Columbians and all Canadians that the security of our ports will not be compromised?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the security at our ports is a major concern to me, the Solicitor General of Canada, the Minister of Justice and every member of the government.
We want to ensure that in the transfer to local port authorities the policing function is at a level which is as effective as previously, if not more so. We will be working as best we can to make sure that the level of security at the ports of Canada, particularly the major ports, is just as high as it has ever been or in fact augmented.
I can assure him that this will be the case in Vancouver and elsewhere.
However, I must also point out that as local authorities take more control they may have variations in the existing system which we will have to consider. I want the whole House to understand that the level of security will be maintained.
(1505)
The Speaker: This brings question period to a conclusion.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): First of all, Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member on his appointment as his party's House leader. And now for the specifics.
[English]
Today we will continue with the address debate. Tomorrow, in light of the ruling which I understand was given by the Chair on the point of order saying that my motion is in order, I will proceed with it. This is the motion regarding the organization of the business of the session. On the day after this motion is disposed of our plan is to return to the address debate.
Hon. members will have noticed on the Order Paper two new government bills, one in the name of the Minister of Justice and one in the name of the Minister of Labour. There will be discussions among the representatives of the parties with regard to fitting these bills into the schedule.
Finally, as we know, the Minister of Finance will present the budget on Wednesday and therefore we intend to commence the budget debate on Thursday morning.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup had the floor. My dear colleague, you still have about 11 minutes left.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to resume the debate after question period.
When the first part of my speech was interrupted, I was talking about what is most important according to my constituents, namely what the government is going to do in the coming months.
I was referring to something that is very important to both Quebecers and Canadians, in that people must feel respected as citizens of a country, whether it is Quebec or Canada. And that is something that Quebecers obviously do not find in the throne speech. When told that the decision on their future may well be made by all Canadians, they are obviously very unhappy about this; they do not identify with that part of the throne speech.
The speech contains another, more concrete part that is more difficult to address, but I think it is essential to do so. My fellow citizens everywhere have criticized the Prime Minister for his behaviour in assaulting Bill Clennett. I think it is not too late for the Prime Minister to apologize to Mr. Clennett, because his action had a very negative impact on all young Canadians. I am talking about the children who talked about that incident and asked their parents whether such actions were acceptable. I think it is unacceptable. We are replying to the throne speech, but at the same time there is something in this that I find unacceptable.
Another demand made by an increasing number of people across Canada is to simplify the system in which we live, so that we can properly assess government effectiveness.
(1510)
We should have more clearly defined jurisdictions, and a simpler fiscal system, to make it easy to see whether or not everyone is doing his share. In order to move beyond phrases like ``make the rich pay'', we need to be able to determine if indeed we are all pulling our weight in this society of ours. Are the tools available to all taxpayers to claim, for instance, every tax deduction they are entitled to? Do companies, the wealthy, and ordinary people have an equal chance of using the tax legislation to their best advantage? Do they have access to all deductions? As matters stand, the answer is no. It is pretty obvious that only the wealthy and big companies can afford to hire tax experts to find every last loophole in the tax legislation, not the common man. Nothing in the speech from the throne indicates that the government is prepared to head that way. I think this is a change the government should consider.
I shall call this eliminating the expert bonus. That is when a company can afford to hire a tax expert to find the tiniest loophole in the Income Tax Act, enabling this company or an individual with a large income to get a better deal than someone else, who does not have as good an income. It is somehow similar to the systematic hunting down of UI abusers. Of course we must make sure that everyone obeys the law, but we must make sure that governments have the same kind of requirements for big companies, those that were once referred to as corporate welfare bums. There is a need to guarantee a degree of fairness in this regard, and there is no indication of anything of the sort in the speech from the throne.
Another paragraph of this speech caught my eye because I watch so closely over the interests of my riding, which is located in a rural area. It reads: ``The government is committed to the economic renewal of rural Canada.'' It is very well to mention rural Canada in the speech from the throne. I think it is a good idea to call the attention of the House to this issue, but at the same time, several of the government's initiatives adversely affect rural Canada. How can the government advocate at the same time the development of rural Canada and the pursuit of its current UI reform, which will systematically penalize rural areas across Canada, fostering the off-farm migration of the young people when the rural communities need them to take over in time. There is an inconsistency in all this that is unacceptable.
We will also be able to judge the government on how it will review the mandate of Canada Post. A committee has been set up by the minister to hold hearings in six Canadian cities. In the next year, we will be able to see whether the government truly takes into account the needs of rural areas and whether it ensures that the CPC not only delivers the mail but also contributes to the economic development of every region in Quebec and in Canada. These will be good tests that will show whether the government really cares about rural development.
How can rural development be reconciled with the current exercise, which consists in closing Canada employment centres right across the country and centralizing operations in every region? The government is recreating small centralized units in very large regions. This means that many Canadians who previously enjoyed more accessible services will no longer do so. It also means that there will be fewer opportunities for workers to adjust and to get adequate counselling. In my opinion, these measures are unacceptable and they also contradict the will expressed in the speech from the throne. There is no connection; the government fails to reach its objectives.
I want to mention another point in the speech from the throne. I was very surprised when I read it. I find it interesting to see a reference to aboriginal people, they are recognized; however, nowhere is there any mention of the Quebec people. The government wants to ignore the wish expressed by many Quebecers, close to 50 per cent of them, at the last referendum. If Quebecers were asked whether they form a people, a vast majority of them would say yes.
Had the government wanted to send a clear signal that it got the message, it would have done so in the speech from the throne. It would have clearly indicated that it recognizes Quebecers as a people. But there is no such mention in the speech. Obviously, this government-perhaps because it does not know what really goes
on in Quebec-did not manage to get the message sent by millions of people. It could have said things differently in its speech from the throne.
(1515)
To conclude, I would like to say that the touchstone of a good throne speech is the feeling of confidence in the future it inspires in citizens. Do they think the government has put forward adequate measures to settle current problems?
Employment is the great issue on everybody's mind. Everybody seems to think that, over the last 10 to 15 years, we have set up a system in which very productive people can manage. But at the same time we have deliberately chosen to toss aside people who may be overtaken by new technological requirements and those who have experienced in their life an unfortunate event that prevents them from re-entering the labour market. This is a shameful waste of human resources.
If there is one clear message which the throne speech ought to have got across to give a flicker of hope, it is the message that workers will get a real chance to find a job. The throne speech should have given them that hope. Yet, not a word is to be found in the throne speech about people who are 40, 45 or 50 years old, about workers who have been displaced by technological change, about people who have been working for 5, 10, 15 or 20 years for the same company and find themselves unexpectedly unemployed overnight.
What is the government going to do for them? There is not a single word about the help they might be given. There is no hope for the future to be found in the throne speech, and it does not meet at all the needs of Quebecers and of Canadians. It needs to be amended in the way suggested by the Leader of the Opposition. I hope this House will consider the amendment moved by the Bloc.
How can a government be so short on creativity after only two years in power? Is it because the men and women who are part of the government lack the necessary skills? I do not think that is the case. There are men and women on both sides of the House who have all the necessary qualifications to do the job. There is a more fundamental reason. It is because Canada is an ungovernable country. As long as it does not decide on a fundamental structural change, as long as it does not accept to set up a new relationship between its components, it will go on trying to tinker with old plumbing instead of dealing with structural problems.
On this side, we have taken due note of the message for Quebecers and Canadians contained in the referendum results. We have been told: ``We are not ready yet''. We accept the result and that it would take 50 per cent plus 1 to have a majority, which result has not been reached. We have acknowledged the result. On the other hand, there is a very clear message sent to Canada and Quebec: a significant change is needed. This change lies in the recognition that there are two peoples in Canada and that we in Quebec must have all the powers we need to be able to develop and in order to have a partnership between the two countries, not an tangled mess like the one that is proposed in the speech from the throne.
If we were to implement what is proposed in the speech from the throne in constitutional matters, we would find ourselves in an even more complicated situation. Ten years from now, it would be worse than it is now. We should have gotten out of the rut. That is what the government has not managed to do and what it would have the opportunity to do if it decided to change its position in order that Quebecers and Canadians can finally see a reflection of themselves in the government now representing them.
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me the floor. I wish to put a few questions to the hon. member. He spoke in particular of the referendum results in Quebec.
(1520)
Of course, we lost the referendum with 49,4 per cent of the vote. The government, the Prime Minister, keep on repeating that we should accept our defeat, and the Canadien government recognizes that we have lost.
If the Canadian government recognizes that we lost the referendum, should it not also recognize that with 51,4 per cent of the vote, Quebecers would have had a legitimate victory?
There is another striking example. Would the province of Newfoundland, having decided to join the Canadian confederation in a referendum, also be free to leave it in another referendum? Would that not be logic? I wonder why there are these great debates to say that you need 60, 65 or 70 per cent of the vote to leave the Canadian confederation. It looks completely ludicrous to me. You need 50 per cent plus one. This is the democratic rule we work with. This is our culture and democracy as we know it.
I would ask the hon. member to elaborate a bit on the matter because the Liberal government seems to be hard-of-hearing on this issue.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for Longueuil. Of course, it slipped out of my mind, but since we have known each other for a long time I hope you will accept my apologies. It will not happen again.
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting question, because the Speech from the Throne is full of contradictions. For instance, there is one sentence I would like to quote that is along the same lines and bears out what the hon. member for Longueuil just said. It says:
On October 30, the people of Quebec voted in a referendum to stay in Canada.If the government says in the Speech from the Throne that we voted to stay in Canada on October 30, on the basis of the close results we had, to me this means that if the outcome had been reversed, the government should have said: ``The people of Quebec voted in a referendum to create the nation of Quebec'' and then acted accordingly as the Government of Canada.
That would have made sense, but it is very difficult to make sense of the current statements and positions of the Prime Minister and his Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. It is the old double standard. We win if it is 50 per cent, but for you to win, it has to be 60 per cent. This is a complete denial of a democratic system that has been the pride of Quebec and Canada.
It is pretty hard to make sense of all this. I think the Government of Canada should confirm that the next time Quebecers vote on the national question, the results will be recorded and will be binding as they were in 1980 and in 1995, with this difference that Quebecers will decided to create the nation of Quebec.
I think there is an increasing body of evidence that the only way we can resolve this question in Canada is to ensure that Quebecers will be in a position to establish, from nation to nation, as equals, a relationship and a partnership that is mutually advantageous for Quebecers and Canadians. This will be possible once Quebecers have voted again.
Meanwhile, the Government of Canada should remove the implication in the Throne Speech that it will keep Quebecers in a straightjacket by calling a pan-Canadian referendum.
We must know what the government's intentions are as soon as possible, so that it will be clear to Quebecers and Canadians that the government will abide by the choice made by Quebecers.
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, because, in my opinion, he went to the heart of the matter.
He just said that we are two founding nations. I think everybody recognizes that, but I cannot understand how we can have two nations and only one country.
(1525)
We, Quebecers, we want our own country. The throne speech mentions only one country. In view of the fact that there are two nations, I would like my colleagues opposite to understand the right we have to demand our own country.
We all went to the Senate to listen to the speech. The atmosphere was quiet and peaceful. Some were happily resting, others even fell asleep during such an important speech. For my part, I was standing and I could not help thinking: ``How will it be received by my fellow citizens in Matapédia-Matane who are watching on television? They always have good questions for me.''
Even though they might be unemployed, people in Matapédia-Matane will not allow their children to be bought by offers of free trips across Canada during the summer holidays, at public expense. It is nice to travel and to show our young people how vast, great and beautiful Canada is. Indeed, it is. But if their father is out of work, and their mother cannot feed them, they are not interested in travelling across Canada, for the time being, at least.
In my area, people have taken to the streets; women are worried, the elderly are too. I would ask my colleague whether he found in the throne speech concrete steps dealing with our young people, farmers, the elderly and the unemployed.
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, my colleague's comment brought to mind one thing we could change in the present system, since we can propose changes.
When I went to the Senate to listen to the throne speech, I realized something that we could call absurd nowadays. Why is the throne speech delivered in the other place, where members are not elected and where elected members are not even allowed in?
It is all very technical and symbolic, but at the same time, the following change could really improve things. Why would the next throne speech not be given in the House of Commons, right here, where we would invite senators to join us if the Senate is not abolished by then? Would that not be more respectful of democracy?
Senators are real good people, they have been chosen for multiple reasons, often for their political opinions, but in the end, when the image of the people listening to the throne speech is broadcasted on TV, everybody can see the many empty benches. As for the decorum of the Supreme Court justices, I wonder if that is in line with the democracy we all have to respect. I think we could propose some changes concerning decorum and protocol. Next time, if there is a throne speech here and if I am present at the time, I hope we can hear it in the House and we can invite the senators. I think that would be a way of supporting democracy.
Personally, I also believe there are substantial savings to be made as regards the non-elected House but we could discuss that more thoroughly at the time of the next budget speech.
My colleague's other remark deals with the references in the throne speech to young people, farmers and senior citizens. Regarding young people, there is a reference to employment within the federal administration. Yesterday, the Minister of Human Resources Development said that the text was not properly worded and that we should read jobs within the whole of Canada. We are going to wait and see what the reality will be, because the throne speech talks about jobs only where it deals with the public service. In areas where employment centres were closed, or in an area like
my riding where the experimental farm of La Pocatière was closed, there are no departments where students could work.
Therefore, it is not necessarily a measure which will do a great deal in areas where the need for jobs is the greatest; on the contrary, it will widen the gap between an area like the national capital and other regions of the country. This does not make much sense.
(1530)
Turning to farmers, there is not much for them in the speech. There is the paragraph I was referring to earlier which deals with rural Canada, but specific measures which will help the farmers of Quebec and Canada face the future, face the new international agreements, will have to be assessed when they come out, because there is nothing concrete in the speech.
The sentence of the throne speech which is the most worrisome deals with senior citizens and talks about measures to sustain Canada's elderly benefit system for the future. The sustainability aspect does not mean that we will preserve the quality of life of our senior citizens. It does not mean that we will maintain what we have developed over the past 20 years. It means there will be cuts, that there will be less security for older people, and I invite them to be extremely vigilant and make every possible representation to make sure that these measures will not have a negative impact on their quality of life. There is no doubt that opposition will have a role to play in this regard.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by reiterating, for the benefit of the opposition critics, my commitment to creating a spirit of co-operation between the opposition and the government as far as foreign affairs are concerned.
During the debate on Haiti yesterday, I could not help but notice the open-mindedness and absence of partisanship in their speeches. I am convinced that we can rely on their co-operation, in the best tradition of our Parliament, to further the interests of Canada as a whole on issues of major consequence for the representation of Canada abroad.
[English]
A throne speech is not just an agenda for a government. It is an agenda for an entire society. It seeks to articulate an agenda by which we can make commitments, responses and actions required as we face new conditions and new developments.
The throne speech we received this week is a positive agenda. It is trying to take today's issues and meet them with a sense of confidence, aware of difficulties, aware of hazards, aware of all the dangers out there, but at the same time ensuring that we face those dangers, not hide from them.
It is in contrast to all those who work upon fear, who cling to yesterday's solutions, who refuse to confront challenges as they exist and who instead try to find ways to exploit and develop people's sense of insecurity and anxiety.
The throne speech is about a renewal of this country, renewing a spirit within, renewing ourselves and renewing what the country can represent. It is not a prescription to run and hide.
One thing that is important to impress as part of the throne speech is the very important international dimension this agenda has.
No one can escape from the major impacts and influences of the world we live in. Jobs in a competitive economy and globalization are affected every day in every way. There must be international co-operation and understanding to make sure that we work together to create the climate and initiatives for employment.
Our financial system is a totally global one. We must find ways to break rules and establish conventions to ensure that it works in an orderly, fair and just way. Our own democratic way of life can also be threatened by instability beyond our borders and by the denial of rights of other people. These can soon haunt and reflect on ourselves.
We have a system of health in which viruses can travel across borders without any interference and all of a sudden we are faced with a need for massive international action.
(1535 )
Even now we can visit the Internet where hate literature, propaganda and the violence of words can be screened across electronic communications to reach the minds of our young people within seconds.
Canada is intellectually, indelibly and forever a part of an international system. As part of that system we must be deeply concerned about the rise of the counter culture playing on people's doubts and insecurities in languages increasingly shrill, against enemies finding someone to oppose. It fragments society when there is an urgent need to strengthen it.
I listened with shock and dismay to the member for Matapédia when he said: ``As a founding people we deserve our own country''. How often have we heard that around the world in recent generations, where one culture or language group has demanded its own country? As a result, there has been war, conflict and even worse by that very same attitude that was expressed a few minutes ago. It is shocking and awful to hear this in the House of Commons when we as a country have worked so hard to build on diversity, tolerance and openness to give all people a fair and equal chance.
The charter of rights gives everybody a fair degree of opportunity, liberty and rights. No country in the world has a greater sense of liberty. The reality is that it is being denied. This sense of liberty is something we can hold up as a model to the world. We can show the rest of the world that we know how to be tolerant to make different languages and cultures work together. We are the prototype of the 21st century. We are a nation state that understands that in order to accommodate and work in a global economy we must build on the strength of that diversity.
With all my heart and passion I oppose the kind of attitude we heard from the member opposite and what he represents. That does not represent the best and finest of this country. Part of the international dimension is to oppose that view.
[Translation]
Canadians understand that it is in our best interest to develop a more open relationship with foreign countries. We must ensure that young Canadians will be able to export Canadian know-how, Canadian expertise and Canadian culture. Youth employment programs give young Canadians numerous opportunities to develop their skills, be it only through job experience in the third world or by working for the advancement of human rights. These are opportunities that are open to young Canadians.
[English]
That is what the international dimension is all about. It is wrong to retreat into isolationism and separatism. It is why it is so important that we as Canadians stand as a model that we can advance round the world.
Philosopher George Steiner said not too long ago that life in many parts of the world is becoming a series of dangerous reversions in the face of rapid change. I understand that. It is one of the callings of Canadians to fight against that reversion, fight against that inward look and fragmentation and work in the world with a much more broad and expansionary view.
We see it in the incidents Canada is facing today relating to what is happening in Cuba. Americans are justifiably angered that a small civilian aircraft was shot down. We have supported their efforts to go to the United Nations and ICAO.
It is equally wrong to pass legislation that in itself contravenes international rules and practices to unilaterally affect individuals and companies in another country against basic treaties and conventions that have been signed and against the expressed desire of the United States government to have a new set of rules of investment to make sure there is openness and fair trading. It is wrong to introduce that kind of legislation in order to correct the other possibility. That is why we object so strongly to it.
(1540 )
Flagrant unilateralism, great or small, cannot be tolerated. We must have a world of rule, of law. We must have a world governed by a set of standards we can all adhere to. That is what we Canadians have to stand up for internationally.
The answer in Canada is to build bridges, not walls. That is the Canadian way and has been for many generations. It is what I believe Canadians want us to express as a government: to help people reach out, to help build those bridges, to bring a partnership between government and people, to do it domestically, to bring a partnership of business and labour together to help create jobs for young people, to build partnerships and bridges between the regions of the country so we can share in our diversity, to build bridges and partnerships between different generations and different ages. The fundamental role of this national government is to help build those bridges, not to bring up the walls as others in the House seem to espouse.
I have been struck, since taking on the responsibility of foreign minister, with how constant and ongoing the expectation is of people around the world that this is what Canadians will provide. They recognize that over the years we have been able to acquire and adopt an important and significant role. People around the world look to Canadians for solutions, for good ideas and for leadership.
Let us consider the kind of initiative we debated in the House last night. We are being asked by the world community to take leadership in Haiti. Why? We are a country of two founding peoples with two languages and are able to bring together the strength of our two great cultures to offer an opportunity to the world.
What an enormous, incredible, important and significant contribution we have to make as a country as we now stand. Those who want to break it apart, to separate it and fragment it are certainly making a serious mistake. As former Prime Minister Trudeau said in the U.S. Congress many years ago, it would be a crime against humanity to have Canada separate simply because of what we have to offer to the international world.
An American himself, Adelai Stevenson, one of those kinder and gentler Americans, in a speech he made in Canada said that Canada has never claimed the status of a major power but it has been influential beyond its means because it is a patient, level headed poise in the world. We can ride out convulsions. He said the rest of the world needed the built in gyroscope that Canadians seem to acquire when dealing in world affairs.
Forty years later the world is still in great convulsion. We face storms of our own time. I think if Adelai Stevenson were alive today he would agree that the gyroscope, the special skill and aptitude of Canadians is still working.
We seek to be an activist, a partner nation encouraging global systems of security and human improvement, helping to shape rules and procedures, advancing the cause of human rights and strengthening the ties of trade so we can help people grow and prosper. The throne speech indicates those spheres of action where we can make a difference.
We have to set priorities in our foreign policy. If we have a priority for everything then there is no priority. The first priority is to ensure the fundamental defence and protection of Canadian interests both here and abroad. The fundamental responsibility of government is to make sure Canadians have the best representation possible and I can guarantee they will receive that from this government.
However, security goes beyond simply the protection of one's own boundaries and interests. So much in the world today is now bound up in the much broader global scope. The best way we can defend our interests as a country is to defend them in our international institutions and forums, to build those rules and institutions that allow Canadians to get the kind of protection they need.
Since taking on this responsibility, I have said that I am deeply concerned about the state of affairs of the United Nations and the fundamental need to reform its finances, its institutions and its outreach to ensure it can become an institution that enables us to provide a way of life and a way of mediating conflicts, responding to poverty and defending rights around the world.
(1545)
[Translation]
Our peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia, Croatia and Haiti must be maintained. Beyond the military action, we want to help rebuild their civilian society.
I think a new concept of safety has now emerged, including personal safety and social, environmental and economic security.
We may not be a great power, but have been favoured by our position. Our two official languages, French and English, our diversified population, our expertise as a trading nation and our respect for democratic values enable us to play a crucial role as a link, for instance, between Europe and America.
In my opinion, Canada might be able act as a bridge to help reopen the transatlantic dialogue between Europe and North America. We can build new partnerships in terms of financial, technical and training assistance for Canadian and European youth.
That is why I pointed out the fact that the European Commission had decided to strengthen the links between Europe and America.
[English]
At the same time, our security as Canadians is also deeply and inextricably tied to the way we deal with the problem of arms in this world. Canada has a long and historic tradition of working against the build up of arms and to secure disarmament and arms control. We must work effectively for the policing of the comprehensive test ban treaty and include a ban on the ghastly cheap weapons that haunt every countryside of warfare with the awful land mines that are dismembering thousands of people around the world today.
Security also depends on good law and good regulation. The throne speech clearly enunciated our commitment to fulfil the mandate of the law of the sea to protect the increasingly scarce resources, to cherish the sea as the sustainer of life and not as a waste pit.
We also need to temper and balance the workings of the international marketplace with proper rules and standards, which is perhaps the most serious and important dialogue that members of Parliament will have. We have discovered in our own domestic economies and societies that there has to be a good framework of law to make the marketplace work. We need the same framework internationally. We need to be sure that the disputes are properly handled. We need to clearly demonstrate the practices that will ensure basic standards of rights for people within that framework.
That is why the throne speech made a very strong commitment to making a real difference as a country in developing new labour standards, particularly as they apply to the exploitation of children.
[Translation]
Regarding human rights, Canada can play a leading role. Children's rights high are among this government's priorities. We are currently seeking an international consensus to curb child labour.
[English]
In addressing this very important issue, I believe we can begin to move to protect and promote children's rights, as we debated in this House on a resolution I sponsored almost eight years ago, but we must first ensure that there are proper rules, laws and covenants that can ensure that children's rights are protected. This means working at the multilateral level, the commission of human rights in Geneva and through the ILO, and taking the lead in negotiating a protocol on the abolition of child sex trades in this country.
We also have to ensure that those countries which are facing problems of child labour have the means and capacity to respond and change. We have recently given a major donation of $700,000 to the International Labour Organization so it can be helpful in developing these new standards.
We also have to work bilaterally, as we are now in Africa working with 15 countries on that continent to establish programs for the education of girls. Education is the alternative to exploitive labour. Where we can make a real difference as Canadians is to help those young children receive the education they deserve.
(1550 )
We also need to look at the voluntary actions of Canadians and at the codes of conduct for businesses building on a consumer oriented approach like the Rugmark. We need to have an outreach among Canadians to ensure they understand that a purchase of an article created through the travails of a young child is contributing to that exploitation.
I look forward to the views and suggestions of members of Parliament on this very important priority. It will take a full consensus, not just internationally but within Canada, to make this an effort that can demonstrate just how important and how effective Canada can be.
I also suggest we take an important leadership role, working with like minded countries, to promote a reduction in the demand for arms. We must begin by tying economic and international development to the spending on military weapons and armaments to ensure there is a proper ratio between the two. This will enable us to provide a bonus system for those countries that are willing to reduce their arms expenditures. By providing that kind of consensus internationally, we can make a difference.
There are many other areas we can talk about, but the most important one, which does not have a substance, a policy or a program, is just basically the Canadian way of doing things. Call it creative realism, as Lester Pearson, our Nobel prize winner, once called it, building consensus, developing alliances or forming acts of careful conciliation. It is a way of ensuring that the values by which we live do not become ideologies, do not become hard and rigid, but in fact we find ways of building bridges between people so that various values and interests which compete can also find co-operation.
One must believe that one cannot have everything that one wants to have. We must search for overarching ways of providing connections and liaisons between people. To do that we must substantially engage Canadians in this new search for our international dimension. The new technologies of communication have outpaced the traditional meeting places of committees and councils. It is probably an overstatement, but the fact is fax machines helped circumvent the Soviet dictatorships that tried to reimpose the old suffering.
Each month millions of people add to the new networks of the web to get worldwide information. As I speak today, students in my own city of Winnipeg have an Internet connection to Pacific rim countries talking about their common problems. There is a young teacher from New Brunswick who is now connecting with groups in Scotland to find out ways of training young people.
The opportunity the Internet provides is a form of electronic peacekeeping. It brings ideas, information and research and development around the world in an instantaneous way. One place Canada can make a difference is in the grand field of international communication and helping to build that consensus with the means that we have.
I believe that if we take a look at the area of national life that is so much affected by our international dimensions, no area is untouched or uncovered. That is why in this throne speech we go out of our way to make sure that foreign policy is not just a closed door exercise, some esoteric discipline taken behind the area with whispers or by elites, but becomes the grand engagement of all Canadians. In particular, we want to reach out to young Canadians because they will be the true citizens of this new global world as we move into the 21st century. It is not just a matter of the policy and the programs, it is also bringing it about.
I welcomed the expressions last evening from members of the opposition wanting to work in this Parliament, wanting to make it a place for global dialogue and a place where Canadians believe they have the opportunity to make a difference with their views, their ideas and their suggestions so that we can truly give them a sense that they are engaged as world citizens in the 21st century.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when the minister talks about building something together, I am with him. When he talks about a consensus, I am also with him. When he talks about building bridges, everyone agrees with this.
(1555)
But I would remind him that, since Mr. Lesage, we have been trying to build such bridges year after year. One after the other, the Liberal Party in Quebec, the Union Nationale, the Parti Quebecois tried to negotiate in the best of faith, and without bias as even the Liberals then in power met with failure. When Jean Lesage coined the phrase ``Masters in our own house'', he knew what he was talking about.
The minister referred to Mr. Trudeau earlier. If I understood correctly, he was saying that Mr. Trudeau kind of brought people together at some point. I am sorry, but if there is someone who isolated Quebec, it is Mr. Trudeau himself. So how can you tell me that Mr. Trudeau tried to bring Quebec into the fold.
The minister said earlier that he was insulted by the fact that I was referring to two peoples. I must repay him in kind by saying that he in turn has insulted the people of Matapédia-Matane, 64 per cent of whom voted for an independent Quebec. Sixty-four per cent of the people in my riding said yes so that we can have our
own country. That is a lot of people, and not only the member for Matapédia-Matane.
On another point, as I said earlier, there are many unemployed people in my riding. It is the minister himself who put forward the proposed employment insurance reform. In my riding, they called this poverty insurance. They say, and I think they are right, that the fund comes from employee and employer premiums. How can they take money from people who are hard-pressed to earn $20,000, $22,000 or $23,000 a year?
Our forestry workers work with chain saws in the heat of summer from five in the morning until late in the evening. It is back-breaking work. Those who have never done such work should try it.
I therefore make a suggestion to the minister who, I think, was behind this employment insurance: Since there will be a $5 billion surplus in this fund next year, why not distribute it among the regions to create jobs instead of unemployment?
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): Mr. Speaker, first I want to tell the hon. member that he is not the only person interested in partnership. I have been a member of this House for many years and I work very hard to develop a partnership in Canada.
[English]
Part of the problem, as I said in my speeches, is looking at this in isolation. There are many members of the House who have gone into their own regions. When the Meech Lake accord came in front of the House, it was not exactly the most popular proposal in my constituency in Winnipeg, but it was presented as a way of reaching out and forming a partnership. I voted for it and so did my friend from Winnipeg Transcona. It was done even though public opinion at the time in western Canada was very much against it. However, I believed it was a way of building a bridge.
I do not need to be lectured by this hon. member about what it takes to try to build bridges. I have not given up on that. I still believe in this country. I still believe in building bridges. I still believe there is an enormous advantage for all of us in working together, not only for ourselves as I said in my speech, but for the rest of the world. If we can prove that it can happen, that we do not have to separate and form little countries around small groups of people, that we can find strength in diversity and build those bridges, then it is a model this world desperately needs and desperately cries out for.
(1600)
The hon. member talks about employment insurance. Perhaps one of the reasons people in his riding did not respond is that I am not sure he told them what was in the bill. He did not tell them that in the employment insurance bill was an absolute guarantee of income for low income Canadians. For the first time in the history of that act the people he is talking about are now guaranteed a basic income, something we have been talking about in this House for 30 or 40 years.
I bet the hon. member did not have anything to say about that. He did not talk about the fact that hundreds of millions of dollars are going to be reinvested to find jobs. I have never heard a Bloc member credit the fact that what we are saying to the poor people in his riding and everywhere else is that the best way out of poverty is to have a job. And the best way to get a job is to make sure that one has the opportunity to have that job is to reinvest in skills, to reinvest in developing that job, to reinvest in changing the economy; in other words, to be really ready to face change and not hide from it, not fear it, not exploit it, but to face change-
[Translation]
We must face the need to adjust the economy, for the benefit of all Canadians.
[English]
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the minister's presentation. I was particularly interested in his comments when he was talking about Canada's place in the world and the importance of rules based organizations to look after Canada's interests. I certainly agree with him on that point.
Canada has been a world leader in trying to develop trade rules ever since the second world war and has been successful in pushing for a settlement of the latest Uruguay round of the GATT agreement. That is to our credit. As an exporting country it is certainly of interest to us. It is important that we have a rules based organization to rely on in areas of trade disputes.
We have had trade disputes with the United States on softwood lumber where we have won panel decisions three times. Is it not time to test those new organizations such as the World Trade Organization and ask them to make a ruling? I feel we have a very strong case. Instead of accepting caps on exports, such as we did on wheat and softwood lumber, is it not time to test the strength of those organizations that both ourselves, the United States and 120 other member countries have signed?
I would ask the minister to give consideration to asking a wider body for a ruling on this, rather than having the trade frictions that exist between Canada and the United States on these issues?
The Speaker: I ask the hon. minister to give a very brief answer if it is possible.
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): Yes, Mr. Speaker. First I thank the hon. member for focusing on that point. I believe
one of the most serious priorities we face is to establish the validity and legitimacy of many of these organizations.
As I said earlier in my speech, what I find disturbing about the present debate in the United States on the Helms-Burton bill is that the United States has been a great advocate at the OECD, for example, for developing a multilateral set of rules on investment. Now it has brought in domestic legislation which fully contradicts that whole notion of having a free market of investment based on an international set of rules.
Sometimes it is difficult to make changes as we are still working in a world of nation states. We have to use our powers of persuasion as much as we can. At the same time the hon. member has a useful suggestion to make. If the rules are there we should begin using them. That means we also have to accept the fact that people are going to use the rules against us and we must be prepared to abide by that as well.
I have talked to the hon. member's colleague about how we can bring these matters before the committee and have a really good dialogue about them so that we can begin to see where there is agreement in this Parliament. If we have Parliament agreeing, it strengthens the hand of the government to pursue these kinds of actions.
(1605 )
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the Reform Party for allowing me to take 10 minutes of their time. I asked yesterday that the NDP be allowed to speak after the three official parties in this House had spoken. We were not successful in that.
Afterward, the Reform Party offered me this spot. I appreciate it but, of course, we still feel that on matters of major importance we should be allowed that role. We will be seeking it in the future. In the meantime, I am appreciative of the opportunity being granted to me at this time.
I am also appreciative, by coincidence, that I happen to be speaking just after the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It was a surprise. Without being too much distracted from what I planned to say, I want to say that I listened carefully to the minister's spirited defence of multilateralism. That is both within the tradition of the Liberal Party and within the tradition of a broader Canadian consensus.
It is also within the tradition of Canadian foreign policy that at times we realize the limits to multilateralism, that we have to act on our own on occasion and show leadership. Certainly that is what I was trying to do when the government brought in the legislation to implement the WTO.
The NDP moved amendments that would have done two things. First, it would have prohibited the importation of goods produced by child labour pursuant to the ILO definition. Second, it would have called on the government to report on a regular basis what it was doing to build a social clause into the WTO.
I understand that the minister does not feel that Canada can act unilaterally on child labour, that he wants to build a consensus. There is also a role for regulation in the WTO. Maybe that follows the consensus.
Certainly there is a role for the Canadian government to report back to Parliament, on a regular basis, what it is doing in order to create that very thing. You could say that the social clause that we wanted you to report on and which you voted against at that time is the very kind of thing you now want to create.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I simply want to remind everyone to please direct comments through the Chair to the minister or whoever.
Mr. Blaikie: My apologies, Mr. Speaker. I want to talk about a couple of things. First is the whole question of national unity.
Canada is threatened on two fronts having to do with unity. First is the ongoing problem with respect to how we accommodate the obvious need in Quebec for its cultural distinctiveness and desire for more autonomy to be recognized within the Canadian context.
The second one-they are related-is the pressure on the Canadian social contract that was built up in the post-war world. The pressure on that social contract is a result, partly, of an ideological trend against seeing government as a positive force in the economy and in society.
Also partly ideological-some people call it globalization-are the pressures from so-called competition and the debt, which is a result in large part of that globalization and our inability to maintain our revenue base.
All these things are putting pressure on the kind of Canada that Quebecers voted to stay in in a substantial way in 1980. Two things have to happen in my judgment. We need to find a way of taking into account Quebec's cultural distinctiveness and need for more autonomy within the Canadian context and we need to build, to recover, to maintain a kind of social democratic Canada. There was a social democratic consensus in the country about what kind of country we wanted. To the extent that that has been eroding it has created a Canada about which not just Quebecers but also many other Canadians are anxious and wondering about the future. I say that those are the two fronts on which the government must work.
(1610)
The failure to meet Quebec's needs is being exploited by people who were separatists all along. But it has also made separatists out of people who were not. We need to recognize that. It is an ongoing
failure the government must address. I do not have any long or brilliant suggestions to make as to how it ought to do that today.
However, I do want to put on the record something which has bothered me for a long time. Along with a handful of other MPs, including the member for Winnipeg South Centre, I was here in 1981 when we repatriated the Constitution. We, who were not from Quebec, by voting for that repatriation package, in no way intended to deliver an insult or any humiliation to Quebec. We were in the House with 75 MPs from Quebec, 74 from the Liberal Party at that time. Those of us from outside Quebec were assured over and over again by all our Quebec colleagues in the House that this was not an insult to Quebec, that there was support for this in Quebec. For anyone in Quebec to suggest that those of us outside of Quebec were engaged in some kind of nefarious activity against Quebec at the time is quite unfair and inaccurate.
What is true is that most of us from outside Quebec for a number of years in the House and elsewhere have been constantly reduced to spectators in a debate that is really taking place between Quebecers themselves, whether it is Mr. Levesque and Mr. Trudeau or Mr. Bouchard and the current Prime Minister. I think Canadians outside of Quebec are tired of being spectators to this debate taking place in one part of their country about the future of the whole country.
Although I do not necessarily know the details, in that sense I applaud the notion that somehow next time round the whole country will be involved in what transpires with respect to Quebec.
I want to say a bit about jobs. The Prime Minister has challenged the private sector to create jobs. He said that the government had done its part and now it is up to the private sector to do its job.
I do not think the government has done its job with respect to job creation. It says it is getting the fundamentals right. I am not sure that the fundamentals are as fundamental as it thinks they are. However, let us take it for a minute that the fundamentals are right. The government still has not addressed other fundamental issues such as the fact that the world trading system, the global economy the minister spoke about is siphoning off jobs from the so-called industrialized world into other lower wage economies and labour markets.
Unless we set ourselves against that trend we are going to continue to have a very difficult problem generating the kind of employment we want in the country. It is not about creating any old job. It is partly a question of creating jobs that pay Canadians enough so that the middle class of the country, and others who aspire to be so, can continue to dream the kind of dreams we dreamt in the past and to live the kind of life we dreamt of in the past, albeit within some diminished expectations related not to the economy but to the environment and the need for us to realize the limits of the planet when it comes to growth, but not the limits to justice.
I am prepared to recognize limits to the environment when it comes to economic growth but not limits to justice. It seems to me there is not that kind of effort on the part of the government. I know that is a big project but I do not see progress. I see too much acceptance of the way things are on the other side of the House and not enough resistance. I know the resistance was there when they were in opposition and particularly when the member for Winnipeg South Centre was on the opposition benches. I hope he has not given up on resisting those trends.
I have some concrete suggestions in terms of job creation. I do not think the corporate sector is going to meet the Prime Minister's challenge. In order to be challenged one must be a moral agent.
(1615 )
In order to accept the challenge of another human being one must be a human being. In order to accept the moral challenge implicit in the Prime Minister's challenge, one must have a particular mind set. The mind set that our corporate elite and corporate sector have now is by definition amoral. I might want sometimes to say even immoral, but it is at least amoral. They do not recognize the economy is a moral sphere at all, which is why I do not think this challenge will be picked up. I hope it is. There may be some companies that are exceptions but we continue to see company after company whose profit margins are in good shape laying off employees, or as my colleague from Kamloops recently said, casting off employees.
The other day the member for Kamloops unveiled something he is promoting which we are promoting with him, a Canadian code of corporate citizenship. This tries to instil in the Canadian business community some sense of its responsibility to the community, but that is very hard to do in a world of free trade and globalization which basically says there are no borders, there are no communities, it is all just one big marketplace.
We are fighting the very kind of mindset that has been enshrined in these agreements when we try to do this, when the government is trying to do it or when the NDP is trying to do it or when anybody is trying to do it. We are tilting against a windmill when it comes to talking about responsibility in a world trading system, in a global economy which basically pooh-poohs that kind of thing.
The government should be looking at ways it can encourage corporations to create jobs. There are all kinds of tax breaks that discourage job creation and mitigate against the preservation of employment. We have tax breaks for research and development and technologies that eliminate jobs.
The banks have taken advantage of tax credits to introduce their automatic teller systems. We have tax breaks that favour mergers which lead to layoffs. We have tax breaks that favour greater RRSP
investment outside of the country which creates jobs outside the country.
Instead we need to get rid of those tax breaks. Let us have a tax on overtime. I have people in my riding who have to work overtime at the CNR and there are hundreds of people laid off there who would be dying to get back in there and work. They cannot get back in there but the CNR and other corporations like it are allowed to make people work overtime who do not want to work overtime.
Why do we not have a tax on overtime? Why do we not have taxes and other incentives to make family friendly schedules, benefit requirements that do not discriminate against part time workers to allow people to work part time rather than full time and still have benefits? There are many things we can do like that to create jobs without challenging the global economy. I hope next week we see some of that in the budget.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments and questions I would like to put to the member for Winnipeg Transcona. First, he talked about always working for Canadian unity. I would simply remind him that an NDP member scuttled the Meech Lake accord.
I do not know what the NDP did to prevent its members from blocking the Meech Lake accord. Perhaps he could give us an answer. This is a sensitive question for an NDP member.
The government talks a lot about dialogue with the provinces in the speech from the throne. I would like to ask the hon. member for example what he thinks of the government's behaviour since October 30 and its statements, which are rather sources of provocation for Quebec.
What, for example, does he think of the Minister of Indian Affairs, who said that the Government of Quebec intended to use the army to clear native peoples out of Quebec after it became sovereign. Is this confrontation or dialogue? What does he think about Quebec being divisible? If Quebec is divisible, it could also take part of Ontario or New Brunswick. I would like to know what he thinks of that.
I would also like to know what he thinks of the fact that the speech from the throne intimates that the offers are like those in the Charlottetown accord, that the vision is the same or less than that of Charlottetown. It is less than Charlottetown. It is an affront to Quebec.
(1620)
In my opinion, this is no dialogue. It is not an offer that can be easily accepted. It is, rather, a confrontation, because we turned down the Charlottetown accord in Quebec, because it did not provide enough for Quebec. English Canada turned it down, because it gave Quebec too much. I would like to ask him about this as well.
Of course, we in Quebec have said we wanted to destroy Canada. They say the separatists want to destroy Canada. I would like to ask him a question on this as well, because we have no intention of destroying Canada. On the contrary, we have extended an offer of economic and political partnership. I would like him to clarify his remarks somewhat in this regard.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Somehow I have a particular sense that the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona would love to answer all of those questions more extensively but I ask him within the framework of two minutes to summarize his comments.
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I feel obliged to answer the member quite comprehensively but I will take your advice on the matter.
With respect to what the hon. member said about an NDP member of Parliament being the one who destroyed the Meech Lake accord, of course that is not true. There were no NDPs who did that. I presume the member is referring to former NDP MLA in the Manitoba legislature, Elijah Harper, who has since become a Liberal member and who now sits in the House.
With respect to Meech maybe that is not a coincidence because if memory serves, it was the Liberal Party which either talked out of both sides of its mouth on Meech or had people in both camps or had people who were responsible for starting the brush fires that eventually consumed the accord. I am thinking of the leader of the Liberal Party in Manitoba, the Liberal premier of New Brunswick and a number of other people who were first to jump on the anti-Meech bandwagon which then grew.
When the Meech Lake accord was originally arrived at in 1987 there was a great deal of consensus about the importance of the achievement that it represented on all sides of the House. The hon. member should know because he was here that the NDP caucus did not waiver in its support of Meech. From time to time it sought amendments as the pressure grew and might have saved it but certainly does not deserve any way the accusation the member made.
With respect to the status of the Cree in northern Quebec, that is a matter which the PQ government, the new premier and the Bloc Quebecois have to take very seriously. To some extent this whole thing about Quebec has been a bit of a parlour game in this country for a long time but it is not a parlour game anymore.
There is a reality called the aboriginal people in Quebec who inhabit a territory that was not always part of Quebec. They have a case to be made, a case that runs counter to the consensus that
exists in a lot of parties over a lot of time about the nature of Quebec's self-determination.
Aboriginal people have also made the case for their self-determination in the last 10 or 20 years. If push does come to shove and we do have a Quebec that seeks to separate that will be a very ugly situation. Anybody who pretends that is not so is not doing a service to either the Canadian people or to the voters of Quebec.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it seems we have been meeting this way quite often lately, including last night.
I want to express the views of my constituents primarily, what I have heard them talk about when it comes to this throne speech. I have been listening in the House and I have not heard a lot of people referring to the throne speech and yet this is the throne speech that we are talking about. I want to direct myself at that and keep on that topic.
I think Canadians have been looking forward to this. This is the mid-term of the government. There has been great anticipation as to when things are going to get started and when something will actually be done.
(1625)
All of us as members of Parliament have been listening to our constituents tell us they are concerned. They are passed concern. They are outright worried about what is happening to the country. Whether it is town hall meetings or whether it is when we are door knocking or whether it is TV phone-in shows or whatever, the message is loud and clear: they are unhappy and concerned about a number of things.
I will talk about how they were dealt with or not dealt with in the throne speech. I will start with official opposition status. Obviously there is a concern that a regional party represents all parts of Canada when it is from one province and conduct only the concerns of one province. There is an outright repulsion by this whole idea. This is not good for anybody in the country. I trust the party in power realizes that as well.
The people are ahead of the politicians, as they so often are. I sat in a seminar with over 500 farmers. In that room there were more people with more common sense and more entrepreneurship than I have found anywhere in Ottawa among bureaucrats or politicians. They are ahead of us. They know what is happening and they are saying: ``The message must come from us to government through you guys. You must carry the message that way''. They do not see that happening.
I am sure when they look at the throne speech they will only have their outright concern brought forward even more dramatically. The people are saying the are concerned about jobs, about the security of their jobs, their hope for the future. Band-aid solutions are not the answer. Infrastructure programs, government make work programs are not the answer.
We need to get creative. We need to look at things like a total reform of the tax system. That will certainly cause a whole change, a light at the end of the tunnel for business and for individuals. We will see something happening. That is what people are demanding, not a government run by a bunch of bureaucrats.
Canadians are concerned about their pensions. They hear that from ministers. They hear that from provincial politicians. They hear that from everyone. Their pensions might be threatened. That is real, not something they are imagining. They are hearing it.
We need a plan. As representatives of the people we have come up with a plan similar to one Chile adopted 11 years ago in which people are responsible for themselves. They do not count on UI or on government because government has failed miserably in these areas. We need to look at these and give people some hope, some light, but the throne speech did not do that.
Canadians are concerned about health care. They want a plan. They want to know where it is going. They feel threatened. Lines are getting longer. Service is poor. Why is that? There is no long term vision to get a national standard and then let the provinces handle the administration of it. We know that is a major part of Canadian society and we need a vision.
When I was elected the debt was $489 billion. Now it is $577 billion. When we go back to the polls it will be $600 billion plus. That is a lack of vision. We are not doing the job here and that is the message we are getting. The $50 billion in interest payments is destroying our social programs. That is what is destroying us.
In the province I come from I cannot believe the pride and the whole sense of accomplishment because we have balanced our budget. The people are proud it. They say: ``I did not vote for those rotten-'' whatever the government is, but they are proud of them anyway. There is pride, there is hope and they see light at the end of the tunnel. That is what the federal government has to realize.
(1630 )
We could talk about the criminal justice system. We could talk about the light that is needed in that. We could talk about government waste. We could talk about the other place and the disgust people have for it. We could talk about accountability. Give people the accountability they are asking for.
We need free votes. We need recall. We need to be able to get rid of MPs who do not do their jobs. We need that sort of thing to build the trust, hope and vision for Canadians.
I will touch on the area of foreign affairs in response to the foreign affairs minister. I listened with great interest and I trust we will have the co-operation we have talked about and that in committee there will be meaningful meetings where instead of
partisan politics 15 people can work together for the good of Canada. That is an area in which it can be done.
We want to become a strong middle power. We want to have leadership. In those areas where we can we want to do really well. If it is peacekeeping, then let us be sure we have the very best trained with the best morale. Let us pick and choose the missions and then let us do our best so that the whole world will see us as the best. The pride Canada will gain from that will have great domestic value as well.
Let us talk about diplomacy. We should be the world's leading diplomats. We have the best reputation. We do not have a colonial record. We do not have any kind of aggressive record. We have the best record. Canadians are very shy. We tend to have an inferiority complex when we are outside the country. We must get over that and the government has to lead the way on it.
We need to promote our country because we are a trading nation. We need to lead in demanding and helping with UN reform. The UN is not working. It is a bureaucratic nightmare, one that has become corrupt with time. It is 50 years old. It needs to be reformed dramatically. We should emphasize the details of that.
As an example, we are still fiddling around with Haiti and the mission expires today. It is gone today, yet there is still no agreement. We are still getting changes. The UN is not doing the job set out for it and we must work on that.
I could go on with this vision. I hope I got my message across that it is leadership we need. We need leadership to show the Canadian people that we do have a vision for the country and that we are sincere in what we are doing.
Probably the best quote I picked up in the last three days of the throne speech debate just happens to be from the member for Beaver River: ``Canadians have told us they want a nation where a person's dreams are not hollow, where ambitions can be pursued and ultimately realized. They want a country where people can look to the future with excitement rather than fear, where a mother or father not only hopes but honestly expects that their children's lives will be better than their own. They want a country where every individual feels safe enough to explore, confident enough to innovate, secure enough to take risks. They want an environment where accomplishments are celebrated and setbacks are only temporary. They want a country where people can feel secure in their homes and their communities, where every member of society can live with dignity and where men and women can grow old without fear''.
That summarizes the vision I see for this country. I hope other members share that vision with me.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, listening to the remarks of the member opposite it is no wonder people in society are showing their disrespect for MPs and for government. I am surprised at how the member downgraded the members of Parliament in the House by saying that they are basically not intelligent enough to present good ideas.
(1635 )
To quote John Ralston Saul: ``People become so obsessed by hating government that they forget it is meant to be their government and is the only public powerful force they have purchase on''. He goes on to say: ``My point is that the individual and the government are linked together by an artery. If we act to sever that artery by replacing or opposing a central role for government, we cease to be individuals and revert to the status of subject''.
One of the things we are seeing promoted by the Reform Party is to get government out of everything. I would like the member to be more specific than he was in his remarks. Does he see a role for government at all?
The unemployment insurance program he talked about is very important to this country in terms of ensuring that we do not have the same situation which happened last year when people from Atlantic Canada competed for jobs in London, Ontario because there were no jobs in Atlantic Canada. This country needs a program such as UI, or EI as this government is proposing, which allows people to live in the off season and keeps them in their regions as full time workers in seasonal industries. Those programs are needed.
Could the hon. member tell me specifically what he is saying the role of government should be? Could he be specific in terms of what he is asking us to get out of and to stay in?
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, I can certainly give the member a copy of our 20-20 vision of the new Canada. It would take more time than I have to answer.
Basically what I heard was a fairly elitist attitude and one I would expect from someone who is entrenched in this place with looking at the status quo as being the only way where government has all the answers and people have none of them. That is a total lack of respect for the people of this country. That kind of lack of respect has to be beaten down.
There is no place for government to have the domineering attitude that it knows best. We would expect that. That is why most of us are here. That is why there are 105 people who came here saying the same thing: We demand change for this country.
As far as the whole UI matter is concerned, there is a plan for that. Look at the plan. The plan is to give back to people the responsibility for themselves. When a person is 20 years old, they start contributing 10 per cent of their salary to their own plan, one that the person monitors. That person gives 10 per cent and watches the amount grow month by month. If that person becomes unemployed, the government allows them to take some of the funds out.
That person is not going to abuse that system because it is their system. It is their future.
Those are the kinds of new ideas we need. We can apply this to health care. We can apply this to all other areas. The federal government will always have a role. Its role is to make Canada work and to be the umbrella under which all the units will operate. That is what the provinces are demanding. That is what they want. That is what the Prime Minister is saying he is going to deliver.
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to participate in this important debate.
The throne speech is a blueprint for the federal government. We have reached the midpoint of our first term. Now is the time to evaluate our successes, build on our achievements and prepare for the new challenges we will face.
Today I will focus my remarks on Canada's youth. When I was elected to represent the people of Annapolis Valley-Hants, I made a commitment to work with the local youth. I promised the people of Annapolis Valley-Hants that I would do everything I could to ensure that young people had every opportunity to reach their full potential to learn, adapt and succeed in the job market and in our society. This has continued to be a key priority for me over the last 28 months. I will continue to make this a priority in my work both in Annapolis Valley-Hants and here in Ottawa.
(1640 )
Our future depends on our youth. If we can ensure they are provided with the tools and the opportunities to gain education and experience now, we can help ensure a healthy future for Canada. I was therefore very pleased to see the focus on youth in Tuesday's throne speech.
During our first two years we have introduced a number of important initiatives to help achieve this goal. One such program, Youth Service Canada, has had an extremely positive impact in Annapolis Valley-Hants. I have seen firsthand how local youth have benefited from the Youth Service Canada program.
In April 1995, under this initiative a program entitled ``Hants County youth for youth'' was established with my co-ordinating efforts and with the help of a number of local partners. This project is serving 20 unemployed youth between the ages of 18 and 24. What has made this program so unique is that it is designed by youth for youth.
This group has identified a number of local priorities and areas where they can make a difference in the community. The participants are providing community related work through the development of a youth oriented newsletter, tourism development and the operation of a youth centre. Through Youth Service Canada they are truly making a difference. As a result of their success, this program has been extended with the support of the federal government and our community education partners.
My riding has also been fortunate to host a group of young people involved with Katimavik. This nationally based program which is being funded through Youth Service Canada has allowed young Canadians from all over the country to come together to gain work experience, to travel and to learn about the regions of our wonderful country. I have been truly impressed with just how successful this program has been in terms of building a sense of accomplishment, a sense of self-reliance and self-esteem.
I have also seen firsthand the success of the youth internship program. The youth unemployment rate is far too high and every year thousands of young Canadians cannot find work. At the same time, half of Canada's software product companies were unable to fill jobs in 1994. Seven thousand jobs went unfilled and this is just one sector. In order to help bridge this school to work transition, our government with the co-operation of educators, non-profit organizations and the private sector developed the youth internship program.
In my riding of Annapolis Valley-Hants there are currently two internship programs up and running. In January 1995 our government approved a proposal for the Hants West District School Board. This program involves 80 students between the ages of 16 and 24. The participants are all associated with the adult high school program. They are combining classroom learning with valuable on the job training.
Similarly, an internship proposal was developed by the Kings County District School Board and has recently got under way. This project involves 200 students. Participants are gaining valuable educational skills and training in occupations with job potential.
Clearly, if we want to use the constituency of Annapolis Valley-Hants as an example, we are making a difference for local youth. However, our efforts do not stop there. Our government recognizes that an important part of education and learning is through summer employment. Not only does it provide valuable income to allow students to further their education, but it allows our young people to gain experience they can take into the workforce in later years.
I was pleased therefore to see the commitment in the throne speech to introduce measures to double the number of federal summer student jobs this coming year. However, measures to promote education and employment are not enough. We must build on these programs. I propose that we explore ways to partner these existing programs with the private sector in order to double the benefits for youth and create economic growth. In that regard I will
be exploring new partnerships in my riding of Annapolis Valley-Hants.
(1645)
Last June I had the opportunity to participate in an international symposium on education and the economy at Acadia University. This conference brought business leaders, educators and youth together to discuss new partnerships and ways to forge closer links between education and business.
I will be working with the mayor's committee on youth in the town of Kentville in my province of Nova Scotia. This committee intends to explore new ways to find opportunities for local young people.
In recent years we have seen disturbing statistics with regard to the levels of child poverty in Canada. Canada is consistently rated as the number one country in the world in which to live. We are envied by other countries and yet one in five children still lives in poverty. These children often live extremely disadvantaged lives. They often live in poor housing conditions. They have a greater likelihood of experiencing unemployment in their families and they are more likely to drop out of school.
What is even more telling, however, is that close to 60 per cent of all female single parents live in poverty. In March 1994, I had the opportunity to speak to this issue in the House of Commons. I called on the government to re-evaluate how we tax child support payments in order to ensure more money was reaching the children of separated families. All too often our current child support provisions have produced awards that are varied, unpredictable, sometimes inadequate and often unpaid.
I said in my speech, which I will reiterate now, we must ensure that children are not unfairly targeted by a system that no longer works the way it should. I was pleased to see entrenched in the throne speech a commitment to change the rules governing child support payments. As the governor general stated in his remarks, equality of opportunity is a basic value in Canada and begins with children.
I will touch on the important role young people can play in bringing Canadians together and promoting national unity. Although we sometimes forget, our similarities as Canadians far outnumber our differences. We have a common history and we share a common collective experience. It is important to dispel the regional misconceptions that sometimes divide us. In order to do that we must promote greater dialogue between all of our regions and in particular with the people of Quebec.
I strongly believe the government can play an active role in helping achieve this through the promotion of exchanges among students and young people. In doing so, we can help ensure that future generations will have an opportunity to build ties that are based not solely on national politics but on friendship and on the understanding of our differences and, more important, our many similarities.
This is an idea that I have actively promoted among constituents in my riding. I have been meeting with local educators, business organizations, school groups, government officials, and we are looking at ways of funding and making this idea work. I am pleased to say that one school in my riding, Horton high school, is now preparing to participate in such a venture in Quebec. I believe we have made some important inroads in the last two years. I am also pleased that focus is given to youth in the throne speech.
It is certainly the time to build on our accomplishments and to construct partnerships to ensure that all of our young people have the opportunity to reach their potential and contribute fully to our society.
(1650 )
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak on behalf of the people of Guelph-Wellington in support of the speech from the throne which has begun the second session of the 35th Parliament. I look back on the first session with a sense of accomplishment and I look forward to the second session with hope and anticipation for continuing the jobs and growth agenda begun in October 1993.
The people of Guelph-Wellington witnessed a number of firsts in the past 24 months. For the first time in 20 years their federal government is reducing the deficit. For the first time in history their federal government has reduced the pension plan and benefits for members of Parliament. For the first time in a long while they have a government that does what it says, keeps its promises and is working on their behalf rather than in its own interests.
Over the past 24 months I have participated in the opening of community centres, roads, schools, sports fields and other projects generated because we kept our word on the infrastructure program. It has created a tremendous amount of growth in communities all across Canada.
I congratulated the employees of Nipponia Export, Armtec and Skyjack who have benefited from our Team Canada missions to Asia and South America. We just heard a Reform colleague talk about vision and about what the Prime Minister is doing in that area. For goodness sake, he is going firsthand and leading these missions. How grateful we are to have him.
I worked with small business and the banks in improving relations and increasing dialogue. Our community said no to the former Leader of the Opposition when he travelled abroad promoting separation. Most important, I have seen the beginning of a transformation in the people of Guelph-Wellington. They want to work with the government to create jobs, foster growth and build on opportunity.
The speech from the throne offers good news to the people of Guelph-Wellington. They are concerned about the economy and with the way the federal government spends their money. By meeting our deficit targets we have listened to the constituents of Guelph-Wellington who have told me not to mortgage the future.
We have placed a new emphasis on youth, science and technology and trade. For a community that is home to the finest university in Canada, this is good news indeed. For businesses that produce the finest goods in Canada and are looking for new markets, this is good news. For people concerned about their personal safety, for our children who want a good future and for our seniors concerned about the future of their health care, this a blueprint for their future.
The speech from the throne, like the red book before it, promises to put the interests of my constituents first. It promises not to destroy the very foundations of our country.
Let me remind every member of the House, our parents and grandparents have built the greatest nation on earth. They have done so through our health care system, our social safety net and our work ethic which is second none in the world.
The people in the House who wish to destroy what they built must remember that we are the envy of the world. Canada has been selected as the best nation on earth because we care for one another and we have social programs which protect those most in need and care for those most vulnerable in society.
This session, like the last, will show the people of Guelph-Wellington the real difference between the Liberals and the opposition parties. They already know the fundamental difference is between a party that built this nation and parties that want to destroy it. They also know that our goal is growth, employment and opportunity while theirs is despair, destruction and doom.
Let us look at the Reform Party. No matter how hard they try to smile, Reformers cannot hide their real agenda. Reformers like to say they want to trim the fat. We know they really mean they are going to fire the butcher and close the shop to boot.
(1655 )
They have replaced hope, growth and opportunity with me, myself and I. With Reformers national standards will be replaced with regional disparity. The principles of medicare will be replaced with the principles of money. Who has the most money can get health care.
Reformers look at us as consumers. We look at all Canadians as our neighbours, our friends, people we care about, people we need. We want to offer a hand but they want to give those in need the boot. Reformers see wrong in our federation. They search for bad in our institutions. I take this opportunity to remind them of Pogo's famous saying the next time they look for what is not working: ``We have met the enemy and he is us''.
Every new Parliament sets challenges for itself. We begin in the next few weeks to build on the values that have been established by our parents and grandparents. Our challenge in the second half of our mandate is to continue to protect our seniors, provide a future for our youth, which this throne speech does, and give real meaningful employment to those looking for work. We must remind every Canadian in the process their participation in the future of the country is vital in order for us to grow and prosper in the next century.
My constituents have asked me to work on their behalf to strengthen our nation, to provide them with a future that includes every Canadian from sea to sea. They want to work with all parts of the country, every region, all people, all provinces to build a better country. They know it is harder to create than it is to destroy. They know it is easy to take an axe to cut down but it takes patience, persistence, time and energy to build up.
Our opposition parties want to either break up our nation or destroy the programs that have made it great. There are similarities between the two parties. One, the Bloc, wants to take a great province from the country and the other, Reform, wants to take the heart out of our nation. That is the difference between Liberals and the other parties.
The people of Guelph-Wellington have faith in themselves and in their Canadian family. They reject those that want to destroy, but they welcome opportunity for their future, hardship for the sake of value and change for their betterment.
We have many challenges facing us in the next few months. We must continue to improve our social safety net in order to protect those most in need. We must ensure our public pension system provides protection into the next century. We must always work to keep Canada united and strong.
I began speaking about some of the many accomplishments we have shared in Guelph-Wellington during the past two years. The people of Guelph-Wellington will support our efforts to reduce the deficit. They will welcome programs that create jobs and expand growth and they demand excellence. They do not want me and the government to forget the human element in every single thing we do and every single action we take.
This July marks the 100th anniversary of the election of Wilfrid Laurier as Prime Minister. I end with his words and may they guide us in this second session, all of us: ``I am a Canadian. Canada has been the inspiration of my life. I have had before me as a pillar of
fire by night and a pillar of cloud by day a policy of true Canadianism, of moderation, of conciliation''.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member's comments, particularly her closing comments by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. If I may take a moment I would like to offer some comments by Mackenzie King, who I understand was a Liberal, that may be appropriate for this time in our political history. I may not get this right, but you will understand the context of it. He said: ``When control of our currency and our credit is taken away and usury takes over, then all efforts and hopes of democracy are both useless and futile''.
(1700)
We have a situation in this country where we have lost control of our financial house. We have a debt of over $500 billion. We have interest payments of $50 billion which are continuing to rise.
The point I want to make is that despite all the nice words contained in the throne speech about hope and optimism, despite all the words spoken by hon. members from the government, the fact is that every single discussion, every single decision made in the House is influenced by the severely impaired financial state of the country.
Reformers have been saying that we must begin to restore hope and optimism for people of all ages from students who are trying to get an education and find it a tremendous financial burden, people who are out of work and are living on welfare or no money at all, people who are trying to build careers and raise families. Every decision the government makes is impeded by our financial state. No matter what words we use to offer hope, the fact is that we have to get our financial house in order. It is so important. We cannot even talk about making democratic decisions because we are so influenced by the financial crisis.
What positive steps do we see? How are we going to reach a balanced budget? When are we going to reach a balanced budget? How do we explain to the Canadian people that the $50 billion we are paying in interest is something we have to live with? This $50 billion is taking away from our social programs, our health care, our education payments. It has a hold on us to such an extent that we almost cannot function as a government until we get this financial mess straightened out.
What kind of answer does the government have? There is none in the throne speech. There are a lot of fluffy words but there are no concrete answers.
Mrs. Chamberlain: Mr. Speaker, with due respect to my hon. colleague who I am on committees with and I am friends with, it is hard to begin. The balanced budget that is driving the Reform Party would kill this country if it was done with the speed and haste the Reform Party suggests.
Reformers talk about trampling, taking away programs such as medicare and punishing the poor. The list goes on. The reality is that the government is proving on a daily basis that it is reducing the deficit. The reality is that the deficit by 1997 will be cut in half. The reality is that the government will have chopped $29 billion in a humane and proper way, in a way that will continue to give us medicare, help for the poor, reduce regional disparities.
With all due respect I feel badly that the Reform Party continues to only look at a balanced budget and not think about the human element, to not care about the people.
I would not suggest that the member from the Reform Party as an individual does not care about people. Unfortunately, I feel strongly that for some reason the agenda of the Reform Party of a balanced budget at all and any cost would seriously cut the heart out of Canada.
(1705)
[Translation]
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil): Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the optimism in the words of the member for Guelph-Wellington, they do not represent reality.
In Quebec, for example, reality means 11 per cent unemployment and far more people on welfare because unemployment insurance is harder to get, so there are more people in Quebec not working than in the past. That is reality.
While she is speaking about putting public finances on a healthier footing, I am thinking about the $32.7 billion deficit we will have again this year. Her words are fine, optimistic, encouraging, for those who do not know the real situation. The reality is exactly the opposite. The government has not succeeded in creating jobs. The government has not succeeded in cutting expenditures sufficiently to produce a normal deficit. I feel the hon. member ought to be more realistic in what she has to say, so as not to deceive the public who hear her words.
[English]
Mrs. Chamberlain: Mr. Speaker, Quebec is quite different but Quebec is part of Canada and we are all Canadians, first and foremost.
The former leader of the Bloc has left the party and become premier. He has pledged as his first duty to make sure he looks after the finances of Quebec. We hope that the trust the member and his party put in their leader that that will be done.
The hon. member talks about what we have done. Unemployment has gone down by over 2 per cent since we took office in 1993. We have created over 500,000 jobs. Consider each trade
mission including the last one with $8.1 billion. Each billion dollars in trade is equal to 11,000 jobs.
Youth was referred to in the throne speech. It was mentioned that the government would double the student jobs. That means for Quebec too. We have done a lot and I am proud of it. I thank the member for drawing attention to it.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, going back to the closing words of my colleague from Guelph-Wellington when she was calling for moderation and conciliation, I would like to point out to her that it is rare for moderation and conciliation to go along with the self-affirmation that one's country is the greatest in the world.
Every time politicians and political leaders have said that theirs was the greatest nation in the world, this has been bad news for their citizens, their minorities and their neighbours.
This government was elected on the slogan of ``jobs, jobs, jobs''. It was to solve Canada's problems. After managing to hide the real situation, it found itself faced on October 30 with a Quebec that almost voted for sovereignty. This amazed people all across Canada; 54,000 votes prevented the Quebec referendum from succeeding.
One would have expected this government to be interested in this important issue. That it would have felt fear, that it would have felt responsible, and that it would have therefore made every effort to ensure the situation would not be repeated. As a result, one would have expected sincere and moderate federalists, of whom there are many in Canada, to have demanded that their government seek to convince the people of Quebec to remain within Canada by paying attention to their problems and their needs.
(1710)
So what did this government do? What did it do next? Back in the House, it tabled two feeble measures, worse than minimal, which included a definition of a distinct society which did not even approximate the one in the Meech Lake accord and was not enshrined or even ``enshrineable'' in the Constitution, and a multiple veto which, instead of meeting the expectations of Quebecers, would make these even more difficult to achieve.
Did this government act responsibly? No. So what happened next? Well, I must say I was very upset when I read about it in the newspapers. The caucus had a meeting in Vancouver. We read that these members, with whom we have worked side by side, talked about only one thing, and that was how to prevent us from achieving sovereignty. It was not about considering our needs, or about recognizing that we are a people. It was all about preventing and scaring us. They found some new saviours from Quebec, other Trudeaus in the making, who raised the issue of partition of the territory.
I repeat, did they try to find a way to convince us, to understand Quebecers? They did not. Sadly, I saw this as a denial, a rejection.
The third step was the speech from the throne, and we are now back in the House. So what about the throne speech? Briefly, it says that as far as the economy is concerned, the government is no longer involved. It says: ``I have done my share. It is now up to the private sector to create jobs''. I do not know where the government found this particular economic principle, but it is all very easy for the government to say what it just said. Just because the government offloads its deficit on the provinces, which in turn have to make cuts that affect the average person, just because the government is lying low and dipping into unemployment insurance contributions, all that does not mean it is putting the economy on a sound footing and it can tell business: ``Mission accomplished. Now it is up to you to create jobs''.
This is so shortsighted it makes me weep, and the same goes for the Team Canada concept and the idea of partnership. In fact, partnership is a wonderful word, and the way we used it during the referendum campaign, and will continue to do so, it means something. In Quebec, for years governments, business and unions representing the grass roots-not just business and government-have been working together to develop the regions. Together, they realized they do not have enough power, in one area in particular, where there is a consensus on the problems that must be solved, and unfortunately, that does not seem to be in the cards, and I am referring to manpower training.
(1715)
First, the government is washing its hands of the matter. Second, what did it say it would do at the administrative level to eliminate overlap? The plan it announced is in fact a centralizing measure. It says that there is only one social, economic and cultural plan in Canada, that is to say a national plan, and that it will delegate, decentralize and privatize as it sees fit, shifting certain things to the private sector, to municipalities, to certain groups or, occasionally, to the provinces.
Does the government take into account what got Canadians all upset on October 30? One third of the speech from the throne deals with national unity. But what does it say? What does the government have to propose to Quebec? Only outrageous things.
What message is the government conveying in the few and insignificant economic measures it managed to come up with, like doubling youth job opportunities? It says it will enhance summer student job programs. Does this address the major problems facing Quebec?
What message is it conveying with regard to the Canada social transfer, which will play even more havoc with the Quebec social system? It talks about standards, standards to be established in co-operation with the majority of the provinces. What is in it for Quebec?
Referring to the labour market, it describes it as a national phenomenon and talks about the need to promote mobility, when we all know that, in terms of employment, the problem for Quebec within Canada has always been the fact that, for obvious reasons, Quebec workers are not as mobile as others and that the labour market is different in Quebec.
On the subject of training, there is a nice line about the government being prepared to withdraw from that area and to decide what would be best and who should take over. Does this mean that the government is getting ready to negotiate with the Quebec government? Perhaps.
It says it is prepared to make a great, unprecedented offer regarding exclusive provincial jurisdictions by not creating any new programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction without the consent of a majority of the provinces, with compensation for those provinces that are not part of the consensus. It talks about infrastructures already transferred to municipal authorities and community-based groups. The federal government decides what is good; it decides what suits the Canadian vision of society.
There is no room, actually less room than ever, for the people of Quebec in this Canadian vision.
(1720)
No wonder they did not try to convince people in Vancouver. But, if they are not trying to convince them, what are they trying to do? They are trying to stop them, to frighten them by carrying a big stick. Are they hoping that Quebecers will back down, that they will suddenly have fewer needs?
It is while listening to the Prime Minister's speech yesterday that I finally understood. I may be off the mark, but when I heard this sentence, I said to myself: ``That is the source of the huge problem that Canada will face if the government does not get back on a path that will allow it to prepare for a future of peace and perhaps prosperity''. I heard the following sentence coming from the Prime Minister's mouth: ``A united Canada is a far nobler enterprise than the narrowing of vision proclaimed by those who would break up this country''. Now everything becomes clear.
There is a great vision, that of Canada, and there is a narrow vision, the one shared by half the people of Quebec. So Quebecers are wrong; they understood nothing. Canada is a nobler enterprise than Quebec? Why? Because it is a bigger country? Then we would be better off as Americans. Because there is not enough ethnic diversity? What about France, Italy, Germany or Israel? In fact, why is Canada still distinct from the U.S.? That is a good question. Because of the Queen? Because of social programs?
I respect Canada, which is a great country. When I was in Quebec during my recent campaign for the leadership of my party, I stressed the need to repeat that Canada is a great country, that we respect Canadians, but that we as Quebecers cannot grow in this Canada. All members of the House, whatever their party, have a responsibility to preserve the future and that future must be based on respect. We might have won on October 30. Our vision and our country would then have been as great and noble as Canada.
Quebecers are a people; they will form a sovereign nation in which all citizens have equal rights. Until then, and there is no doubt in my mind that this day will come, I do hope that the government and our colleagues in opposition will understand that, while they can expect respect from us, they should remember that they must also respect us, our project, and the people of Quebec, for whom we speak.
(1725)
Both federalists as well as sovereignists belong to the people of Quebec. They recognize themselves and will not tolerate contempt, whether directed at themselves or at their wish to control their destiny. After going through a long series of failed attempts and unfulfilled expectations, Quebecers see a deteriorating economy. Young people are losing hope. Quebecers say that the situation cannot go on any longer.
As far as I am concerned, yesterday the Prime Minister once again gave a bad example. I am not pleased to say that, on the contrary. I am not pleased because the Prime Minister, who is a successor of Lester B. Pearson, should be building a future based on peace and harmony, regardless of the democratic choices of Quebecers, and he should strive to reach that goal. I know that moderate federalists hope to convince Quebecers to stay in Canada, but they also strive to ensure that economic, social and cultural development is not impeded the way it is right now.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am a true federalist but I fully agree with the principle that Quebecers are a people, as the hon. member said.
The member for Matapédia-Matane said that because there is a people of Quebec, Canada must be divided. He said that if there is a people, there must be a country. This is simple and logical.
An hon. member: Normally, yes.
Mr. Bryden: Normally, you are right. Let us take the example of Newfoundland. In the forties, Newfoundland was a country and the people of that country decided to join Canada. Newfoundlanders-and I see the hon. member from Newfoundland-are still a people. Therefore, if Newfoundlanders are a people within Canada, why
would the same not be possible for Quebecers? This is my question to the hon. member for Mercier.
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, let me first say that I have good friends from Newfoundland. I often ask them the question: If, in 1949, the population of Newfoundland had been seven million, what would you have done? I will let you guess the answer. This is the first element of my answer.
(1730)
The people of Quebec did not always define themselves as such in Quebec. As you know, our history is a long one. It goes back farther than the history of those we now call English Canadians. That history includes events such as the Conquest and the quelled rebellions of 1837-38, which created conditions such that, for a long time, leaders sought to make arrangements within Confederation and they did so in all honesty. They felt that the way to protect the French-Canadian nation was to do so within Confederation.
But as time went by, as Quebecers developed their culture and as they suffered setbacks-I have already mentioned this in this House-there came a point when a premier of Irish descent, Daniel Johnson Sr., first used the slogan of ``equality or independence'' and explained that, if the French Canadians who live mostly in Quebec were not treated fairly, it would be normal for them to go for political independence. Daniel Johnson Sr. wrote Égalité ou indépendance in 1965.
Since 1965, our history is an endless string of failures, of searching. That, dear colleague, is the answer to your question. I am not saying this because I used to teach history, but because it is a fact. Quebecers have repeatedly tried to gain recognition and to get the tools they need to develop. And it is precisely because they have been unable to reach these goals that the last referendum was held. I do not want to go over Meech or Chalotettown again. It is true. We went through all that, we were deeply hurt, but there are limits to the patience of people who feel helpless and unable to control the means to ensure their development. Successive federal governments chose to treat Quebec only as a province. The people in our province cannot tolerate this situation any longer and want their own country.
[English]
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to your attention that I am sharing my time with the member for Halton-Peel.
[Translation]
There are two issues I would like to focus on in this debate on the throne speech.
The first one deals with the openness shown towards Quebec, and the second one with the way cultural issues are addressed. The two are similar in that they are equally important for the future of our country.
When one listens to Quebecers, it does not take long to understand their concerns, their confusion and even their anger, if I may say so, when faced with the problems the Quebec society has to deal with.
Quebecers are concerned about job insecurity and job loss. They are worried about the way the major social services are deteriorating, whether it is the unemployment insurance program, the health system, education or the social safety net.
(1735)
They are concerned about the future of the regions and the price they will have to pay for the excessive debt incurred by the governments. They complain about the very few tangible effects brought about by the business restructuring and the new high tech industries whose merits they hear so much about. They express their frustration through their strong will to change things.
Quebecers are all the more anxious to change things since they have the talent, the entrepreneurship and the adaptability to catch up with the front runners. They are asking for change so that they can resume their place and take advantage of the social and economic benefits stemming from dynamic growth. Quebecers have had it with double talk, gimmicks, scapegoats and so-called winning questions. They do not like politicians who avoid talking to them about what they cherish most, that is their quality of life and their opportunities.
Faced with these challenges, the Parti Quebecois government, so far, has only come up with a policy resembling the squaring of the circle. On one hand, the supposedly inescapable road to separation from Canada and, on the other hand, the recovery of the Quebec's economy and finances in partnership with that same Canada.
The inherent contradiction in that policy creates a climate of uncertainty that paralyses economic growth in Quebec. Moreover, that policy, which is based on an irreversible break with Canada, causes division among Quebecers. In turn, this division fosters uncertainty. One day, Lucien Bouchard sings the praise of separation and promises yet another referendum, and the next day, he is calls for economic recovery and fiscal consolidation in Quebec which, in turn, require stability and confidence.
We know that it is this squaring of the circle that caused Jacques Parizeau's political demise. We must get out of this dialectic before Quebec itself is destroyed by it.
The speech from the throne offers an alternative to Quebecers, a partnership that affects not only economic and social issues, but also the method of government.
Let us not be mistaken, this speech speaks to Quebecers in a language fraught with consequences; that may be the reason why the opposition rejected it offhandedly, fearing that the message would get across.
Basically, the speech proposes to modernize the Canadian federation, together with the provinces, to meet the needs of the 21st century. It invites the government of Quebec to participate in this process so that Quebec's interests are better served. The message is clear: this adjustment will not be done by increasing the powers of the federal government to the detriment of the provinces. The federal government will limit the use of its spending power, obtain the consent of the provinces and create joint management systems if necessary.
It will withdraw from areas under provincial jurisdiction such as tourism, mining, forestry and recreation and will continue to withdraw from transportation and manpower training. The speech from the throne does, however, propose increased partnerships with the provinces and a common effort to ensure our security by strengthening our economic and social union and preserving the quality of our environment.
These new partnerships are possible without these endless constitutional debates that have taken up so much of our energy. This is possible without the trauma of Quebec's separating. Nothing would be better for eradicating the uncertainty than this new beginning in an atmosphere of confidence and co-operation. This is the opening now available to the people of Quebec.
(1740)
If we wish to work together to create a Canadian society for the 21st century that can serve as a model for the rest of the world, clearly that society cannot be anything but pluralistic, with each part recognizing and respecting the distinct identity of the others. In this we are no different than any other large country in which different languages, ethnic groups and religions live alongside each other.
But we are far advanced over most of these because of the common values of open mindedness, understanding and generosity which have characterized our history and still prevail. Such values are diametrically opposed to the parochialism and intolerance which lead to division, fragmentation and weakness. For these reasons we can rejoice in the fact that the Throne Speech confirms the government of Canada's desire to recognize the distinct character of Quebec society and to have it acknowledged.
I would like to conclude with a few comments on the commitments to the cultural sector expressed in the speech. It can never be repeated too often that cultural creation is essential to our identity. We abound in creative talent and enjoy a widely diverse cultural industry, but there is still need for further development in this area.
Our biggest challenge in the years to come will be to ensure a strong Canadian presence on the information highway. We are already facing competition from foreign products, mainly American. In the future, regulations protecting the Canadian audio-visual market will gradually lose their effectiveness, and our political will will be undermined by American threats of punitive measures. We will have to create our own high-quality products to maintain control over our own space and even better, to export these throughout the world. This strategy has a better chance of success than a protectionist strategy. It will, however, require increased financing for Canadian content.
In addition to fiscal measures encouraging the investment of private capital in our cultural industries, few options open to the Government of Canada will be as effective in their impact on the cultural sector as creating a consolidated fund of audio-visual productions. Thanks to this initiative, the consumer will be able to choose from foreign products, which are always available, and domestic products which, without this new financial support, would never see the light of day. Cable companies and satellite-television distributors already contribute considerable amounts of money as a condition of operating their services. This type of contribution could be used to provide better financing for the production of Canadian content.
In the past, we have always opted for strategies that would support our artists, our creators and our cultural industries and provide a buffer against the tide of American culture. We are aware that this sector, which is critical to establishing our distinct identity in the world, would not come into its own if market forces alone were allowed to prevail. That is why we have put in place policies and institutions that serve to maintain a balance between our own identity and foreign perspectives.
The throne speech is in line with a tradition that has confidence in the talent of our own citizens.
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the speech from the throne, I noted very little, a few lines only, on semi-urban and rural communities.
(1745)
Earlier, my colleague said that mining and forestry would be handed over to the provinces. But we know that mining and forestry are already under provincial jurisdiction. In this case, I do not know how this could be organized another way. It is a bit like the eastern plan, which worked very well for communities in eastern Quebec. It was put into effect, and timber owners were very happy.
The Conservatives, before them, had set a deadline of a year, which was extended a year, but is now about to run out, in March. Will there be compensation? When something wonderful happens somewhere, particularly in a rural setting, it would seem great
pleasure is taken in cutting it. I saw nothing in the budget to compensate for what was cut.
There are other problems in our regions. Matane has a local airport, and Mont-Joli a regional one. Major renovations are required at the moment, and the plan is to give them to the municipalities or an independent agency to do. There is a lot of talk about Mirabel and Dorval, but little thought is given to regional or local airports. Their maintenance alone will cost the people in the regions a fortune. There is nothing on that.
There is something else I would like to mention, in the area of agriculture. We, as in other regions, are having huge problems getting a meat packing plant. We apply, and this sort of thing always involves some pickiness. They do not want to help farm producers process the butcher's beef they produce.
I wonder what the budget contains for the regions, the rural communities and the farmers?
Mr. Dupuy: Mr. Speaker, to start with, I would like to clarify something. Our colleague mentioned the budget; the budget will be presented next week. Today, we are dealing with the speech from the throne and he should not expect me to comment on the content of a budget which the finance minister said will be delivered in a few days.
Also, I would like to mention that when I referred to areas such as tourism, mining, and forestry, I took care to specify that they were areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. There is no doubt about that, it is a well known fact. Therefore, from what is the Canadian government withdrawing? What is the meaning of this new step it is taking?
It is responding to the request of provinces which have been asking for years that it withdraw from certain areas by not using its spending power in those areas. Provincial governments found it offending that the federal government exercises its spending power in areas under their jurisdiction. The federal government is complying with their request. But you have to be logical, you cannot, on the one hand, ask the federal government to withdraw its spending power from these areas which are acknowledged as areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction and, on the other hand, ask that it spend money in those very same areas. This is one of many contradictions.
Transport is certainly a major area and I have no hesitation in recognizing that we need to provide assistance to small airports, which I have myself used on many occasions.
(1750)
The federal government owned them. It was responsible for all the work. Pressure was put on it to privatize, because municipalities and private groups asked the federal government to let these properties go, put them up for sale and put them back in the hands of the local communities, which claimed to be better able to manage them.
This is what the government is doing. However, it is extremely difficult here as well to tell the government to withdraw from the management of these investments, these assets, but to continue to help pay for them and the management of them. So, we have to accept the consequences of what we ask for when we get it. I think the policy of the Government of Canada is a good one. It responds to requests at the local level and by private industry, and we have to live with the consequences. I hope, however, that these new owners will invest enough to make these vital communications centres cost effective and useful.
[English]
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton-Peel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for sharing his time this afternoon.
The throne speech has charted a course for the next two years, the remainder of the term in this House. It has dwelt in a number of areas. First, it has had something to say about the accomplishments of the government to date and significant accomplishments they have been. It has also had something to say about one of the most perplexing and what should be the most important issues of concern that we have to deal with at the present time, the issue of Canada and Canadian unity.
I have listened for the last two years to the Bloc and the speeches that have been made in this House. I heard the remainder of a very impassioned speech this afternoon by the hon. member for Mercier. If I am wrong, I stand to be corrected but what I seem to detect so often from some members of the Bloc is an underlying belief that Quebec cannot exist within the framework of Canada because Quebecers somehow do not have the self-confidence nor the strength to preserve their society within that framework.
From the very beginning, built into the framework we call Canada are the elements to protect that society, to protect the language, the culture and of course the Napoleonic civil law. Those things together are part of what naturally make Quebec a distinct society. That is why the government has endorsed such a move to recognize what actually exists, what already is.
I am always perplexed when I feel, perhaps wrongly, that at least some members of the Bloc do not feel confident within that framework. I ask them and I ask Quebecers to consider what life would be like without those protections that are built into the framework we now call Canada.
It seems from an emotional perspective that one could isolate oneself even more and build a wall around a very small country. However the world is not made like that any more. We communicate instantly to every part of the globe. We trade virtually
instantly to every part of the globe. Money changes hands from hour to hour. The sun never sets on the economies of our countries.
(1755)
I seriously ask those members who wish for separation if they really believe in the long run that they will enjoy the protection of their language, culture and law that they enjoy in the framework we call Canada.
Canada is made up of distinct societies. I visited one a couple of weeks ago and had a wonderful time. It has a distinct language and culture and unless the people speak very slowly I cannot understand them. However they are a very confident and proud people. They exist within the framework of Canada. They are our friends in Newfoundland. If we take the trouble to travel to other parts of Canada we will find other very distinct societies all living within that same framework.
Last summer I had the privilege of travelling into central Quebec. My wife and I went there partly on a bit of a holiday and partly on a pilgrimage. We drove along the north shore to the Saguenay and up the Saguenay and stopped at Baie Trinité to scatter my brother's ashes. He spent the happiest years of his life sailing on the cruise ships on the Saguenay. We went on up to Lac-Saint-Jean and Chicoutimi. We stayed in Chicoutimi and then went on to Roberval and down the long highway to Shawinigan and back home again.
I realized one thing. The geographical isolation of that area separates it very much from other parts of the country. It is unfortunate that many of the young people there do not have the opportunity to move, to visit, to exchange with young people in other parts of the country. If they did there would be a new and revitalized realization that we are all in this country together. We built it together. Quebecers have as much ownership of British Columbia and Alberta as other Canadians have in Quebec.
We have travelled a long distance together, not without our difficulties and not without our arguments in the family and so on. But now we have an opportunity to look to the future together and to move on. The destruction of one part of us produces something less in the rest.
With Quebec, with Newfoundland, with the Arctic and all other parts of Canada, we make the greatest distinct society in the world. With all of our differences, but also with all of our common goals, we all want the same things. We want fulfilment in our lives. We want a roof over our heads. We want to be able to have three square meals a day and to be able to raise our children in safety and in confidence. We want to attend the church of our choice or indulge in the religion of our choice without interference, without anyone coming along and saying we cannot do that.
Those are common aspirations of all people in the world. Sometimes they get clouded with history or with the visions of
history or the perceptions of history, sometimes true, sometimes untrue, sometimes twisted.
(1800 )
My first ancestor in this country came from Ireland. He was a Protestant living in the south of Ireland. Talk about being on the wrong side of the railway tracks. The troubles that existed in 1834 continue to assail that land today, in 1996. He made a conscious decision to leave that strife behind him.
He was being terrorized. His cattle were killed. His life was threatened and so on. He left with his wife and five children and came to the wilds of Canada. He lost his wife to cholera on Grosse Isle, a place I hope to visit in a very few weeks.
I have his diary. He made a conscious decision to put the past behind him and to put the old emnities, which have held that country back for hundreds of years, away and come to Canada, a new land where he could find fulfilment and partnership with the people he met.
I make a plea to my friends in the Bloc. The time has come to make a conscious decision to put the past behind, to join hands and to move together because together we are much stronger than pieces separated and scattered. We can do far more as a family, as a team, than we can as strangers.
Quebec is very special to me in many ways. I spent some years in Montreal as a child. Montreal was a thriving city at that time. I was disappointed to see it again and how it has declined.
We can talk about the politics of blame. We can blame the federal government. We can blame somebody else and all the rest of it. The time has come to make that conscious choice to move ahead. If we do, we can only be the richer for it.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would first like to point out to my colleague, who talks about people with clouded minds, that we should look at Quebec from another angle. I heard my colleague talk about the small country that Quebec would be.
We can compare pare Quebec to other countries in the world, Israel, in particular. Israel is a country with a population of about 3.5 million Jews, without any natural resources, and surrounded by 220 million Arabs. It is 74 times smaller than Quebec. Quebec is not small. People should stop saying that.
I take another example, Singapore. Everyone is trading with Singapore, everyone wants to do business with Singapore. Singapore has a population of about 4 million people, and a total area of 651 square kilometres. It is 2,500 times smaller than Quebec. Let us stop talking about Quebec being small and start talking about
real things. Quebec is one of the largest countries in the world in terms of its territory.
Second, some people talk about isolation. They would like to build a fence around Quebec. Every time we talk about making Quebec a sovereign country, they say we want to cut ourselves off. I would like to quote from an article published quite recently in the economic section of La Presse, on February 5, 1996. What I am going to quote was written by an American university professor, Kenneth Holland. This article appeared in Quebec Studies and was done at the University of Memphis, in Tennessee. He is not a member of the Parti Quebecois or the Bloc Quebecois.
What does he say about Quebec? He says: ``The unwavering support given by Quebec to free trade with the United States at the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s was the catalyst that made possible the remarkable chain of events that changed forever the global trade system''.
(1805)
It is all very well to talk about people wanting to isolate themselves. And by the way, the comparison he makes with Ontario certainly does not reflect well on that province. Quebec has always been open to all markets, and there would be no North American Trade Agreement today if Quebec had not been on side.
I do not see a society that wants to cut itself off but a society that is as open as can be. The hon. member asked why we did not think it was worth being part of the Canadian federation? The reason is that we are a political minority. Even if all Quebecers voted to send members to this House, we would never be able to form a government. Every time the interests of Quebec clash with Canada's, as often happens, we will always be on the losing side. That is what Quebecers realized in the last election. That is why they sent the Bloc Quebecois here, to get real power, as much as they could get in this Parliament, because we cannot form the government in this Parliament. We are a minority. Which means what? It means that when Canadians decide, for a number of very good reasons that are in line with the interests of Canada, to make decisions for all Canadians that go against the interests of Quebec, they can never prevent that.
Earlier, someone mentioned political uncertainty as one of the factors responsible for the current economic decline affecting us. First of all, this political uncertainty was created in 1982 by the patriation of the Constitution. This is not an attempt to dredge up past events, it is the truth: the contract that united this country was torn up, and Quebec was excluded from the Canadian Confederation. That is where the political uncertainty started.
I think we should look at all that in the light of these new factors. Quebec is not a small territory. It is an immense territory. It is not a
closed society. It is a society that is opening up, a society that will go the full democratic route to do what all other peoples in the world have done: become a country.
[English]
Mr. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I did not know I had any time left.
I appreciate the words of my hon. friend but I point out to him that Israel is probably not the best choice in the world, if we consider that Israel is now surrounded by the enemy. There are those outside of Israel who are determined that no peace shall ever exist there.
This is precisely what I was trying to say when I talked about my grandfather five times removed leaving Ireland, to get away from the strife and come to a land of peace.
I understand that the separatists in Quebec consider themselves a political minority and they believe that decisions taken in the interests of Canada go against them. However, I believe if together we are looking for the greater good of the whole, we will all realize that the decisions of the House in which Quebec has an very important role to play, are not only good for Canada but are good for Quebec as well.
That is where I think we part company. I am rapidly becoming a minority in Canada. If we go to Toronto-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I deeply regret interrupting any of you but I must resume debate with the hon. member for Okanagan Centre.
(1810 )
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne is a plan, a sense of the direction the government is taking. Hon. members opposite have said very clearly that is what the speech from the throne is to designate.
I read the speech from the throne. I listened when the Governor General read it. I came away with a single sentence that I think describes accurately the leadership that we are seeing evidenced here in this House and it goes something like this. It is vague enough to be confusing but specific enough to dash any hopes of a better day at the end of this session.
I wish to address my remarks to exactly those kinds of things now. What is it that we need to do to govern ourselves successfully? I want to approach it from four specific points of view: First, the specificity of the speech; second, the fiscal responsibility that is or is not demonstrated in it; the economic and industrial development that is being proposed and the unity that is addressed.
First, let me look at the specificity of jobs. The Prime Minister said that we should have jobs. In fact that was the hallmark of the election campaign. It was a threefold election platform; jobs, jobs, jobs.
Two years later unemployment rates have not changed very much. Many of the jobs that do exist are part time and many of the other jobs that are not part time are temporary. People want stable full time jobs.
What does the speech say to that particular issue? It begins by addressing the question for young people. It says the government will double the number of federal summer student jobs this summer. They are temporary jobs. They are really bubble jobs. In fact one of the young people I talked to said they are bubble gum jobs, here this summer and gone the next. The emphasis is on getting our young people into the job market. However, what happens to the parents of these young people who are unemployed?
The challenge is for government and the private sector to work together. But there are no ideas of what the endeavour should be or the sectors that should be involved.
The government challenges business and labour leaders to find new approaches to assist young people to find jobs. What a finger pointing exercise that is. Talk about shifting blame from government policy to business and industry. As long as the tax burden continues to increase, and it must, given the kind of deficit picture that we have, the tax burden alone will discourage the creation of jobs.
There is the section stating that we want enduring jobs. There is a suggestion of how we might achieve these: investment and knowledge technology. Three specific areas are mentioned: aerospace, environment and enabling technologies like biotechnology.
The second major area proposed is a predictable policy and a regulatory framework for the information highway. The last proposal is to expand the school net and community access programs to use technology to increase the knowledge base of workers.
We need knowledgeable workers. We need them in this new economy. We need them to grow, we need them to develop, but there is no indication as to how this is to be accomplished except with one little statement ``to use the technology to increase the knowledge of workers''. Is the federal government going to institute training programs? Is some kind of special superfund going to be created in the form of subsidies and grants to industry in terms of developing biotechnology and these industries in aerospace, environment and so on? It is not clear.
There is no suggestion of what sort of institutions or programs of study, or internship programs or other mechanisms by which workers might develop their skills. There is no indication of the kinds of measures, and I would like to underline that, that will be employed to monitor the quality and success of any of these programs.
Millions of dollars have been spent in the last number of years to develop programs, to retrain unemployed people. What has the success measure been? Where is the monitoring program that these programs are working, the people are actually getting to work and their skill level has increased? There are some notable exceptions, but generally speaking it has not worked.
On the information highway there is no specific direction as to what we are talking about. Are we talking about telecommunications? Are we talking about broadcasting, radio, television, cable, satellite? What is it? Do we address the question in terms of convergence of these various media to get involved in how they will work together, or the adaptation and application of new technologies that are particularly conversant with digitization of information and can carry that very well, making obsolete the transmission systems that are dedicated to analog formats of information distribution?
There is one little paragraph on financial institutions which states that the government will update legislation governing financial institutions to ensure that they continue, or that the legislation continues to be relevant to the emerging needs of business and consumers.
Businesses need capital, especially small businesses. Those that are being established now, particularly in the new economy and in the knowledge based industries need fair access and timely access. They need it in large amounts; they need it in small amounts. The speech does not even seem to recognize that these are some of the needs of businesses.
On the other hand, consumers need competitive prices for the services offered to them. They need privacy, they need confidentiality and they need confidentiality of personal communications. Current legislation allows significant intrusion into the personal information and confidentiality of an individual's financial affairs. Is the legislation that is being proposed going to change that? We do not know. It simply states that the government will do something.
When there is so much ambiguity can we trust the government to do what we really need and what we want? Or is it really as Mr. Gibson pointed out in his article in the February 27 Globe and Mail where he says: ``Our system effectively provides for a four-year elected dictatorship with an astonishing concentration of power in the Prime Minister's office and cabinet. Not unnaturally those enjoying this power think it is a pretty good system''.
Will this legislation governing not only the banks but financial institutions include the insurance companies, the credit unions, the
trust companies? Will it allow them to expand into these areas? Will it have to do with the confidentiality, the cross selling and the tied selling which is currently taking place? Will that be allowed to continue? Will conflicts of interest that currently exist be allowed to continue? Questions on all of these vague matters have been unanswered.
If we are going to determine how we are going to govern ourselves, if there is going to be a direction here, then it has to be very clear there is a direction. However, there is not a direction and it is dangerous to get into that kind of situation.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Since we are voting today on the subamendment this will close this portion of the debate.
It being 6.15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the subamendment now before the House.
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)
Finlay
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Laurin
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
Ménard
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-164
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the subamendment defeated.
It being 6.42 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 6.42 p.m.)