In response, the Minister of Transport stated that the government would not get involved for the time being. The Liberal member for Vancouver Quadra now says the government must step in. The pressures are growing and might even pay off.
My question is for the Prime Minister. The government's policy has always been to let our air carriers play by market rules, which means allowing free competition with all the risks it entails. My question to the Prime Minister is this: Is government policy still the same and is he still ruling out any injection of public funds into the bottomless pit that is Canadian?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question, but there is no change in the government's position in this regard.
We do not believe that putting money into a company that has not requested it, to deal with a problem that is essentially a restructuring problem to deal with long term deficits would not have any purpose whatsoever.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Transport ruled out any regulatory changes that would allow American Airlines to acquire a bigger share of Canadian.
Can the Prime Minister, or the Minister of Transport, assure us that his government will not now or later change regulations so that Canadian cannot be taken over by American?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no application was received from either Canadian International or American Airlines to increase American's share of Canadian.
(1420)
As no application was made, we did not review this matter and there is no reason to make a decision.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Transport not think that, in the final analysis, there is only enough room for one national air carrier in Canada, as the Bloc Quebecois has always maintained, and that the government's policy of encouraging and supporting two carriers can hardly work?
Should the government not revise its policy before injecting taxpayers' money into the financial sinkhole that is Canadian?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government's policy is to favour competition among several airlines. It is not a matter of having only two airlines; there are several others involved. We want a system that will help increase the number of flights while reducing fares.
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Canadian is about to come back and pass the hat for more taxpayers' money to deal with its financial problems, but year after year, the same company continues to pay a very expensive $150 million annually for its service contract with American Airlines, and will do so for 20 years.
Before even considering the possibility of injecting one cent of federal money into Canadian, could the minister give taxpayers the assurance that he will make sure that Canadian's contracts with American Airlines have been revised to make them much fairer to Canadian?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's position is based on an erroneous premise. There has been no request from Canadian International for government funds, there has been no request for money from the government. We are not going to force a company to take our money. That will not happen.
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there may be no request, but in January something is going to happen. We know that Canadian announced last week that the company will have a liquidity problem starting next January.
Does the minister still intend to demand that Canadian continue to pay back the remainder of its $120 million loan from the government, as agreed, and will he refuse to delay the payback so as not to give Canadian special treatment?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): First, Mr. Speaker, the loan of $120 million was from three governments, not one. Second, three-quarters of that loan has in fact already been repaid.
With respect to the overall issue of the position of Canadian, we believe it is really important for this restructuring to succeed. A company which has a structural problem and consistently loses money year after a year is not in a position to continue for many years in operation. Therefore we want to make sure the restructuring process succeeds.
The issue of a loan or of changing ownership simply does not enter into the fundamental question which is a restructuring of its systems so that it becomes a profitable company and can continue to employ 17,000 Canadians
Will the Prime Minister clear up this confusion by simply releasing the secret ethical guideline he has for his cabinet ministers?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on June 16, 1996 we published the ``Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders''. We have issued the Lobbyists' Administration Act. We have other provisions in legislation to guide everybody in public office.
(1425)
As far as communications by the Prime Minister to ministers, they are communications within the privy council. I do not release them but it is not very complicated.
I have said to ministers that they must adhere to the highest standards of conflict of interest that they can find. I am very proud to say that despite the member's innuendo there is only one minister who has given me his resignation. The reason he resigned was that he had written a letter to a tribunal to help a poor lady who wanted her husband to come to Canada.
There was no other resignation, and the member cannot say what she said because it is not the truth. There was only one, and everyone in Canada knows why the former minister of defence resigned.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has bragged repeatedly over the years that he has ethical guidelines for cabinet ministers that go well beyond this code of conduct for public office holders, and now he says they have just mentioned it and had a chat about it.
Nobody seems to know what these guidelines are, where they are or whether they exist at all. If the Prime Minister does have these ethical guidelines that he talks about, there is no good reason why they should not be made public.
Again, does the Prime Minister have a set of guidelines for his cabinet ministers who have higher ethical standards than even the code for public officers which he has talked about? And if so, why in the world will he not release them to the public?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I repeat they are communications between me and my ministers, and we have the result today.
In three years there was only one incident that has caused the resignation of one minister. One of the complaints in letters I received was that they were too strict for the former minister of defence to resign.
Look at the conduct. For the last three years this government has had no serious accusations of misconduct because the ministers have accepted the highest standards seen for a long time in the Canadian Parliament.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, all the bluster and bragging in the world will not solve the problem. Ethics are a public matter and Canadians deserve to know what the Prime Minister's so-called higher standards are.
In the last election the Liberals promised to restore integrity to our parliamentary institutions and make government open and transparent. I think I heard those words several times during the campaign.
It is very difficult to see how secret ethical guidelines square with the Prime Minister's red book promises. Will the Prime Minister live up to his red book promise and release the guidelines for these higher standards for Liberal cabinet ministers?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no wonder they are losing a member a week. They have nothing to contribute to this Parliament. They go on about this problem, which we have already explained.
The secretary of state got up in the House and explained herself. It is the tradition of the House of Commons that if a member does not accept the word of a minister, they should make a charge, an accusation.
They have nothing but innuendo. For example, yesterday one of the members linked this operation that was done in good faith to that of a bank robber. He did not apologize.
When I see political people operating at that level of innuendo I do not want to spend too much time on them but I know they cannot find anything to talk about. When they cannot talk about the real problems of the nation we know they are politically bankrupt.
[Translation]
(1430)
How will the Minister of Canadian Heritage make her colleague understand that, as shown in a recent study by Heritage Canada, it is imperative for the film industry that no exception be made for Polygram?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the hon. member's proposal. As soon as the decision is, I will let him know. Right now, a request has been made. According to law I am obliged to keep that information confidential. And I have nothing to say to him about the Polygram case.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the problem in this case is that the decision is up to a body with two heads. The head of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, which wants to protect the cultural industry, and the head of the Minister of Industry, which wants to circumvent the cultural industry. Cabinet will be meeting in two days time and Polygram may be on the agenda at this meeting.
I would like to know, then, what guarantees can the Minister of Canadian Heritage give us to show she is in a position to ensure compliance with Canadian policies?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is an application under the Investment Canada Act under review.
The provisions of the law prevent us from discussing the contents of that application and I will not do so.
Canadian taxpayers have the right to full disclosure and therefore have the right to see complete copies of credit card statements and supporting documents.
In the interest of openness and accountability, will the Prime Minister direct that these documents be tabled in their entirety?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker. The House or the members do not have access to personal information of a confidential nature. This is a right of individuals that is protected in our laws and that we will continue to protect.
So that members will know exactly the source, it is under section 19 of the Access to Information Act: ``A government institution shall not disclose personal information''. That includes Parliament.
The Access to Information Act goes on to say: ``The definition of personal information stated under the Privacy Act applies''. Personal financial transactions are clearly included under personal information.
The member should apply his time to other types of questions rather than hitting a wall that protects the privacy of personal information.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, clearly when a minister puts personal expenses on a government card, that individual has moved it from the private to the public domain. That is the issue here.
What we want are the facts that are missing. In just the six months for which we currently have some information, at least $9,300 is unaccounted for. We have no documentation for the other two and a half years. This could be cleared up very simply by the tabling of complete, un-whited documents.
Will the Prime Minister direct this openness, that these documents be tabled?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member is simply and clearly inviting me to break the law. I think this is unethical behaviour.
We know that the health minister is so anxious to table a bill governing the use of tobacco that he has urged the public not to
vote Liberal if the bill is not passed before the next election. But we also know that there is another group within the Liberal caucus vigorously opposed to tobacco control legislation.
(1435)
Can the Prime Minister, who has surely discussed this issue with his minister at the special meeting of cabinet, tell us whether his government will be going ahead with this bill?
[English]
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member is right about one thing and that is the minister has made an unequivocal statement that there will be legislation and that it will follow all the parameters that he has indicated up to this point: the Supreme Court decision, the priority of the health of Canadians, and all the consultations that have followed as a result of the blueprint document.
As to everything else, because we live in a democratic society, people are welcome to present their views, but there is no deviation from the issue that the minister has put forward. The legislation will come and it will be definitive.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while I am all for tobacco control legislation, the major problem of sponsorship of sports and cultural events has yet to be resolved.
Is the Prime Minister aware of this problem and will he undertake to find a solution before the next election?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health, Lib.): But the solution is already there, madam.
Mr. Speaker, pardon me.
[English]
The solution is already there. The legislation will follow the indications that I offered to the House a moment ago and it will in no way inhibit any Canadian, whether they be individual or corporate, from making decisions about how they will contribute to and fund any cultural, sporting or recreational activities that contribute to the common good. There will be no indication that anyone will be impeded from so doing.
I ask the member and all members of the House to be patient and wait until the legislation comes forward. Then she and others will see the details.
Canada has been one of the main proponents in establishing the World Trade Organization and the rules based dispute settlement that goes along with it. This last year the Liberal government could have taken the dispute with the United States on softwood lumber to the World Trade Organization. Instead it has caved in to the Americans and accepted export quotas.
Thousands of jobs in the forest industry will be lost because of this government's misguided, bureaucratic and unworkable quota system. What is the minister going to do about it?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we went the route of an agreement with the United States because that is what the industry wanted in all provinces. That is what the provincial governments wanted as well. They knew that, in fact, our chances of success at the WTO were very iffy and that we would have years and years of legal wrangling. They wanted stability and certainty.
On top of that, in terms of the formula as to how the allocations were made, it was the industry that brought forward the suggestions on which the allocations were made with the concurrence of the provinces.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it seems ironic that after only six days of this quota system we are getting a flood of mail from mills that are going to be out of business. If all the stakeholders put together such a good deal, why are all these companies going to be put out of business? What went wrong?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the price of lumber went up substantially in the United States and, seeing a good business proposition, these companies decided to rush the border with lots of lumber, knowing full well that the quota was going to be based on their past experience. They put themselves in the position they are in. They created their own misfortune and put their employees in jeopardy with that kind of action.
Notwithstanding that, we have established a quota bank to give the lumber companies that have used up all their quota an opportunity to draw on it in terms of next year's allocations so they can continue to do business and provide jobs in the lumber industry.
[Translation]
Although the Minister of Justice stated in this House last October 7 that some real progress was being made in the battle against the smuggling of illegal immigrants, we learned again this morning that the Canadian borders seem to have become a real
sieve, and that our country is being used as a means of transit for illegal immigrants from Asia headed for the United States.
In light of the intensification of this problem, can the minister tells us what additional efforts his government is bringing to bear on controlling the Canadian borders more effectively?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. member was going to get up to congratulate the RCMP, the immigration department and the various other police forces for their recent success in smashing a major international ring which was smuggling immigrants.
This success is an indication of what the federal government is doing, which is to work jointly with other federal departments and police forces to break up the rings which smuggle people and goods. We are working to deal with this serious situation in a way that protects our traditional open borders which are important to the vast majority of people in this country and in our neighbouring countries.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have no congratulations to offer to either the minister or the RCMP. In early October, one woman died as a result of this smuggling.
In order to put an end to this unacceptable smuggling of people, which may involve accomplices in high places in Hong Kong, can the minister inform us of the steps that have been taken, and the agreements there have been, if any, with authorities in the countries of origin of these illegal immigrants?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat that the federal government treats this matter very seriously. It has been intensifying its efforts through joint forces activities involving our national police force, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, our immigration department, and police forces of other countries.
I repeat that I think the hon. member has disappointed millions of Canadians including his own constituents for not congratulating the RCMP and their colleagues for their success in breaking up a major immigrant smuggling ring.
Over the past few weeks the leader of the Conservative Party in Prince Edward Island has promised that if elected, he would out of the EI act obtain an interest free $75 million loan from the Government of Canada to establish a venture capital fund. In my view, this would be highly illegal under the act and Mr. Binns knows better.
Could the minister clarify specifically, can funds be taken from the employment insurance account and given to a provincial government for such a purpose?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Employment Insurance Act makes it absolutely clear that the employment insurance fund is not a slush fund for the use of this government or any provincial government in the land. The employment insurance fund is there to help Canadians get back to work. It is there to finance active measures such as wage subsidies, earning supplements, self-employment assistance, job creation partnerships and skills loans and grants.
Our government will be working with the Government of Prince Edward Island. Right now we are working on a transitional job fund of about $10 million. However it is not a solution to go to the employment insurance account for such a thing.
I am a professional forester and I have spent 25 years in the forestry industry. Never before have I witnessed such secrecy surrounding the allocation of quotas to individual lumber mills; quotas that are far below expected levels and are forcing mills to severely downsize or shut down altogether. What I find most disturbing is that producers have been instructed by the minister not to divulge their individual quotas.
(1445)
My question is for the minister of trade. To clear this veil of secrecy regarding quotas, will the minister table in the House a full list of quota allocations showing all lumber producers in all provinces?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker, but if the individual companies want to divulge their own quotas they can do so. If they have no problem
with that in terms of competition and commercial confidentiality, they are quite free to do that but certainly it is not my intention.
The hon. member may have been in the forestry industry for a long period of time, but I do not think he ever got out of the woods or he would soon know that in fact the industry wanted this deal.
We got the industry something that was unprecedented. We got five years of trade peace with the United States in terms of lumber. The problem is that a few of the companies thought this was such a great deal that even though they knew there were quotas, and they wanted quotas, they were still going to rush that border and make as much money as they possibly could. Now of course they are asking what happened. What has happened is there is no more quota.
The companies knew that the quota was going to be based on their traditional exports. They knew what the rules were because their industry gave us their suggestions for the rules. By and large we adopted them and with provincial government concurrence.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when the minister ran on a platform of jobs, he forgot to tell Canadians that they were American jobs at the expense of Canadian jobs.
Many lumber mills, particularly the smaller ones, are laying off staff or closing down altogether because their quotas did not materialize or they came in far below the expectations. A number of companies in B.C., Alberta, Ontario and Quebec are desperate for help.
This government ran on a platform of creating jobs yet in this case thousands of jobs and livelihoods are being lost.
My question for the minister of trade is plain and direct. What is the minister going to do for the families that he has now put out of work?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): This government, Mr. Speaker, has put nobody out of work. This government has bent over backward to try to make sure that the system which the industry wanted-the industry wanted this protection-is fair and balanced. We have talked with all 600 of those companies that are getting lumber quotas to make sure that we are in fact fair.
If some of them have gone overboard and have used their quota, we are still providing a quota bank to help them in terms of bridging over this period of time so that they can keep the jobs. We also know they can go ahead at the existing prices and even pay these fees which are staying in Canada. They can pay the $100 fee and the $50 fee and still make some money on it.
[Translation]
In the last supplementary estimates, we learned that the Canada Information Office has a funding budget of $4.9 million, out of its total $20 million budget.
Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage give us the criteria which the Canada Information Office will use to allocate its funding?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for information on the CIO, I would invite the hon. member across the way to start by going to the World Wide Web site on the Internet, where she will find everything there is available, not only on InfoCan, but also on other components of the department, whose mandate it is to focus on Canadian identity throughout the country.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Canadian Heritage is acknowledging that the Information Canada Office does allocate funding, can she explain to us why her department's reply to an access to information request indicates that the ICO does not have such programs?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that if she wants to know everything that is going on at the Information Canada Office, she has only to drop a line to InfoCan and she will find that there are all manner of programs. The ICO, however, does not give out grants.
[English]
The Pest Management Regulatory Agency is a prime example of the Liberals' infatuation with big government. The number of bureaucrats in this empire in comparison to the number of pesticides registered is astronomical. Apparently it takes 213 bureaucrats to register 19 new products. That 11:1 ratio beats the proverbial light bulb jokes.
The Pest Management Regulatory Agency is inefficient, bureaucratic and costly. The minister is receiving calls and letters from all across the country complaining about it. Will the minister take
responsibility and act to correct the nightmare his government has created?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, among the commitments we made at the time of the 1993 election was a commitment to act upon the recommendations of the pest management regulatory report which was published under the previous government.
We have made considerable progress in implementing the principle recommendations in that report, including the establishment of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. That agency brings together authorities that were previously in four departments to streamline the process. It has two principal objectives: to ensure the health and safety of Canadians and the environment; and to be fully cognizant of the competitive requirements of Canadian farmers to have a level playing field nationally and internationally.
The Pest Management Regulatory Agency is working diligently toward that direction. We are in the process of establishing a stakeholders consultative committee to make sure that the agency has the necessary input from the private sector.
I would point out for the hon. member's information that the legal responsibility for the Pest Management Regulatory Agency is in fact vested in the department of health, not the department of agriculture.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the agriculture community is finding that the Minister of Health is not listening.
I have to commend the hon. minister for living up to his reputation recently described as having the conversational knack to circle the earth without ever landing.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I am going to ask the member to put his question now.
Mr. Hermanson: Will the minister please come down to earth and realize that his disregard for the bloated Pest Management Regulatory Agency, one that pushes cost recovery rather than reducing farmers' input costs, has ended up costing farmers a lot of money and that his bureaucratic mess is making Canadian agriculture less competitive? Will the minister admit that?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, speaking of landing, I would be delighted to land splat on the hon. member in the next election which I intend to do.
In terms of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, I think the hon. member should know that the agency is in the process of getting up and running. It is in the process of soliciting all the necessary input from all of the relevant stakeholders. I am confident the agency and the responsible minister will take all of that into account.
It would appear that we have a series of new pests to deal with in the Reform Party.
The seafood industry is concerned that the consolidation of food inspection services into a single food inspection agency could lead to a serious loss of expertise and advocacy for seafood at the federal level.
Will the minister explain how the seafood industry will fit into the new agency structure? Will there be a dedicated seafood inspection branch staffed by former fisheries and oceans inspection personnel?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that this regulatory process does fall under the jurisdiction of the minister of agriculture.
(1455 )
I am happy to assure my hon. friend and the seafood industry that there will be no loss of expertise in the new Canadian food inspection agency. The current Department of Fisheries and Oceans inspection staff and all of their professional experience and expertise will be transferred to the agency to ensure that there are no gaps in service and no gaps in the quality of service.
The seafood industry will benefit from this process, from a broader base of support to food inspection in general and by better co-ordination of all of the government's inspection resources. We will of course have new flexibilities under the legislation in terms of financial and human resources to make the system better than it is today.
It is now two years since I asked the two previous ministers of Human Resources Development about the Singer case. A month ago, I brought this case to the attention of the present minister. Last week, the minister said he had taken note of the question and would look into it.
Has the minister looked into this case and what does he have to say today to retired Singer employees who are still waiting for justice to be done?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yes, of course I looked into the case. I know the hon. member is very concerned, because he asked the same question last week.
We are looking into this case. I believe there is a problem due to the fact that the pension fund belonged to the Singer company which was transferred to the United States, it closed its doors here and has declared bankruptcy in the U.S. As far as the Canadian government is concerned, the circumstances make taking any kind of action rather difficult.
In my riding and in the general suburban area of Vancouver, street prostitution is a serious problem which the community wants dealt with. We had hoped for some action in 1994 yet still we have nothing from the government.
At some point the government must gather itself, find a moral compass and act in a way that is right. The legal door for kids to get hooked into street prostitution has been left wide open by the justice minister.
Will the minister act now to make street level prostitution an indictable offence or at least a hybrid offence? Will he act now on this important change to protect our children? Will he himself take action instead of continuing to blame his inaction on the provinces or those pressure groups that represent prostitutes?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member knows that the issue of street prostitution involves more than simply changing the words in the Criminal Code of Canada. If we are going to resolve the question of people working the streets and selling their bodies for money, we are going to have to do more than simply amend the Criminal Code of Canada.
There are some things that can be done effectively through the criminal law. Through Bill C-27, which is now before a committee, we have proposed tough mandatory minimum penitentiary terms for people who would use violence to coerce children into prostitution. That is going to be an effective measure.
Let me say to the hon. member that two years ago, governments at all levels began looking at a short list of steps that could be taken not only through the Criminal Code but through other strategies to bring down the incidence of street prostitution and all the difficulties it causes for neighbourhoods, for families and for children.
Consultation documents have been circulated in all the provinces. That process is almost finished. In fact, all but two of the provinces have now returned with conclusions from the consultation process. When that process is completed, and Manitoba and Ontario have yet to complete it, we will look carefully at the short list of possible steps that all levels of government could take and we will decide on an appropriate course of action.
Has the minister considered being proactive and providing leadership in finding a solution to this problem by suggesting actions that the federal government could take to help this troubled airline?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
(1500)
The point I would like to make to him and to everybody in this House is that we must keep our eye on the actual problem of Canadian International Airlines.
Anyone who thinks some government bailout can be a substitute for the restructuring plan of Canadian is simply dreaming. There is no point in coming forward with financial assistance to handle the losses of a period if there are no structural changes made that will prevent those losses from reoccurring in the future.
That is why I can say to him-I appreciate his question-that we strongly support the proposals for restructuring Canadian airlines which have been put forward. I recognize this will be a very difficult decision for the employees and I am extremely sympathetic to them as they consider this plan.
Without a plan within the company which deals with the structural chronic losses that it has had, we will not be able to have that company providing employment in the future as we would like.
Given the recent media reports and concerns raised about human rights, can the minister explain whether Canada is contributing money to the Government of Rwanda, yes or no?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that, notwithstanding the allegation made in the media last weekend, which was false, the government is not making contributions to the Rwandan government.
The funds are provided through Canadian NGOs, through universities and so on. They are to help the victims of the genocide in trying to repair the broken legal system and the broken society in Rwanda.
One quarter of the funds are to assist in the area of human rights. The rest is to provide for basic human needs, particularly to help the poor, women, youth and mostly abandoned children.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I invite you to come to Room 216 to meet Canada's top guns who were introduced to this House earlier. They will be there from three until about four o'clock.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it will be a pleasure to make a statement on the business of the House.
[English]
If the address debate should finish before the end of this afternoon, we will return to consideration of the child support bill, Bill C-41. In any case, this will be our first item of business tomorrow.
When the House returns on November 18 we will resume the list if necessary with Bill C-41, followed by Bill C-66, the labour code amendments presented by my distinguished colleague, the Minister of Labour and deputy House leader. Then we will have Bill C-62, the fisheries legislation; Bill C-59, the transport bill; Bill C-49, the tribunals legislation; Bill C-34, the agricultural penalties bill; Bill C-39 and Bill C-40, the flooding agreements legislation.
This should take us into the middle of the week in question. I will have met with members opposite by that point to arrange subsequent business.
The Speaker: Colleagues, as you know, a question of privilege always takes precedence over a point of order. I would ask the hon. member for Calgary Southeast if she would permit me to hear a very short point of order so that she is not disturbed.
(1505 )
The Speaker: I did not hear that statement, but I will review the blues and if necessary I will come back to the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, if he actually said that, I would like to know whether it would be judged unacceptable. This week, we saw not only in the blues but also in Hansard that the Prime Minister said the leader of the opposition had made false statements. I want to know whether that is acceptable.
The Speaker: If a member is not directly accused of having used the word ``lied'' or something like that. Usually, when someone says that, according to a newspaper, a statement was made in which someone said etc., in that case, it is not always necessary for me to intervene.
I will go back and check the blues and check what was said. If necessary, I will come back to the House to provide clarification.
The breach of freedom of speech, as I will state, involves the inability of me as a member of Parliament and others to participate in debate on government legislation or to be an active member of House committees.
I am aware that we as parliamentarians are bound by the rules and orders of the House with respect to participation in debate. However, as we have seen in the past, the status quo regarding parliamentary reform has been challenged. It is my intention today
to stand to challenge the status quo respecting the freedom of speech of individual members of Parliament.
The question I raise asks for the Speaker to give additional recognition to the members of Parliament who do not have party status in matters of debate and committee representation. I would like to point out that when I refer to members who are without party status and currently sitting in the House, I am referring to those members who are not officially recognized by the House of Commons due in part to the 12 member party threshold to which we as parliamentarians are currently bound through the 1963 statute that is embodied in the Parliament of Canada Act.
We are currently sitting in the 35th session of Parliament with a high number of MPs without party status representing constituents all across Canada. It is now time that the House recognize this as a significant deficit in terms of opinion and representation in debate. Without these voices the constituents in 15 ridings are quiet.
There have been a number of important debates in which those members have been unable to participate, and Bill C-41 is one of those in which many of us would very much like to participate.
Under current parliamentary rules and practice the opportunities for members with non-party status are limited in committee work. Political parties dominate the ever increasing role of the House and it is extremely difficult for members who do not belong to a party to have the same influence or to participate as fully as members who are party members.
Freedom of speech is a fundamental parliamentary privilege. Professor W.F. Dawson of the University of Alberta said in a 1959 article:
The privilege of freedom of speech is probably the most important and least questioned of all privileges enjoyed by the House. In its most elementary form this privilege was stated in the Bill of Rights which declared that `the freedom of speech and debates of proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place outside of Parliament'. Today, it is one of the privileges requested by the Speaker at the beginning of every Parliament.Freedom of speech means that the members have the right to speak freely in the Chamber without fear of intimidation or challenge. What they say is privileged, protected or immune from being questioned outside of Parliament.
(1510 )
Joseph Maingot, former law clerk and parliamentary counsel of the House of Commons, has said:
The privilege of freedom of speech, though of a personal nature, is not so much intended to protect the members against prosecutions for their individual advantage but to support the right of people by enabling their representatives to execute the functions of their office without fear either of civil or criminal prosecution.Freedom to speak freely is not the sole element of this privilege. Members must also be free to speak. This means that they have to have opportunities to participate in debate and to participate fully in the proceedings of Parliament, including parliamentary committees. Even if members are not inhibited in terms of what they say in the House, they are still inhibited in not being given opportunities to speak. The right to say whatever they want is meaningless if there is no chance to speak in any case.
Freedom of speech does not mean that members have an unlimited or unrestrained right to speak on every issue. The rules of the House impose limits on the participation of members and it is the duty of the Speaker to restrain those who abuse the rules.
It is clear that no member of the House can speak whenever he or she wishes. It is the role of the Speaker to recognize members and to preserve order and decorum. The democratic rights of an elected member are diminished when they do not possess the same opportunities as other members.
The rights of members and through them of their constituents must be respected. I speak from my heart for Calgary Southeast. The Speaker must be assured that the rights of all members of the House are protected. This is an ongoing process and must be reviewed afresh from time to time. The question must be asked whether independent or non-affiliated party members are being allowed to fully participate in the proceedings of the House and its committees. The privileges of these members, their freedom of speech and the fundamental tenants of parliamentary democracy must be satisfied.
Mr. Speaker, if you find that I have a prima facie case of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion, seconded by the member for Kamloops.
I appreciate the time to speak.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made an eloquent case for a prima facie case of privilege being established. I hope she will not take it as being too negative if I bring some other considerations to the attention of the House and to you, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of which is to urge you to reach the conclusion that there is no prima facie case of privilege.
What the hon. member is complaining about has been the accepted practice of the House for many years, for generations. I would suggest that if the hon. member studies the opportunities available to her as an independent private member, she will find that the opportunities she is seeking do exist. She has the same
opportunities as any other member to present petitions on behalf of her constituents. She has the same opportunity as any other member to file written questions or to file Notions of Motions for the Production of Papers.
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to speaking in debate it is you, sir, who has the ultimate authority to decide who to recognize, who to see. It is my impression, based on some years experience here, that if a member wishes to speak in a debate, while they may not get the floor at the exact time they would like to have it, if they make their interest known to Chair they will be recognized to speak in that debate.
Furthermore, with respect to committees our rules are clear. One does not have to be a formal member of a committee to attend committee meetings and to take part in discussions. It is true the person will not have the right to vote in the committee, but in terms of being heard the rules are clear. I repeat, one does not have to be a member of a committee in order to attend the meetings and take part in discussion.
The hon. member concedes that freedom of speech, being very important, has to have some reasonable limit. I think the reasonable limits which have been established both by our rules and by the custom of the House are an effort to make sure that the limited time available in any day for debate and discussion is distributed in a reasonably equitable fashion among members. I think this is a reasonable limitation on what she considers her freedom of speech.
Finally, I would say that the comments she has made regarding freedom of speech refer to the right of someone once they have the floor to speak freely without sanction outside the House. The right of freedom of speech as I understand it does not mean that any member can speak any time whenever they want, perhaps in a way that is not equitable with respect to the equal rights of other members, including those who work together as an organized party.
(1515)
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made an eloquent statement. I understand her concerns but I would suggest that in consultation with you, with the Clerk of the House, with members who perhaps may have been here a little longer than she, she could well get advice which would help her to participate more fully even as an independent member than she has been able to do up to now.
That being the case, I respectfully submit that she has not made a prima facie case to enable her to put a motion of privilege.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with what was said by the government house leader. We have discussed this question on several occasions, both before 1993 and since then.
I know that the Bloc Quebecois raised the matter when we had only eight members, and we had to live with the rules of the House. So I think that was settled. There is only one remedy and that is to take full advantage of other opportunities that may arise, in questions and comments, in committees, presenting petitions, and so forth.
I would say that the best way is to belong to a party that fields candidates in elections and wins enough seats so its has even more opportunities to express its views here in the House. That is how the British parliamentary system works. Even with our own sovereignist option, as far as we are concerned, we fully agree with this kind of system. I would ask you to reject the question of privilege.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments and I share some of the opinions that have already been expressed here on behalf of the government.
I would like to tell the hon. member that I have signed a sheet, along with the government whip and the whip of the official opposition, to allow the member to be an associate member of the committees of her choice. If there are other committees she would like to be an associate member of, I would be willing and happy to do that as well.
I encourage the member for Kamloops, who did get a question today in question period, to realize that there is a rotation. Mr. Speaker, I know you consider the independents to be under the protection of the Chair and you want to ensure they have the opportunity to get on the floor as much as possible.
At times I have substituted members of the NDP or other independent members when our members had to catch a plane or something. This allows them to get their speeches in if it had been difficult for them to do so. But obviously I have to look after the needs of my own party first. I will try to be accommodating. I do not want to see the hon. member not being able to get her point of view heard. If there are ways that can be dovetailed into the House life, that should be done.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for Calgary Southeast for bringing up this point. She pinpointed that she was talking specifically about freedom of speech. I am going to come to that point in a second but before I do, I thank the hon. government House leader for his intervention as well as the House leader for the Bloc and the whip of the Reform Party.
The hon. member for Calgary Southeast will remember that early in this Parliament in 1994, possibly as early as May 1994, the
hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona argued very eloquently that independent members should be given more leeway in the procedures of this House. At that time in my response I mentioned to him that in the magnanimity of the House usually we could make some adjustments so that members who wanted to be heard on a particular issue could be heard.
(1520)
I would point out to the hon. member for Calgary Southeast that now it is taken for granted that at least one and sometimes two independent members will have statements prior to our question period and we have tried as much as possible to get at least one independent member on in every question period every day. We have not always succeeded but to the extent that we have been able to get them on, I would suggest that the House as a family has been successful.
Many times members will come to me on a particular issue where they have to ask a question on that specific date, for example, if there is a catastrophe in the Saguenay or something like that. That it is a topic just for that day and they have to get information from the minister. I make every effort to see to it that the member, whether an independent or belonging to another party, would have a chance to get their question on.
I would tend to agree with the government House leader in this respect about freedom of speech. I direct myself precisely to the point that freedom of speech of course has to do with a member's being able to say what he or she wants to say without any impediments in this House after the member has the floor. As to the member's being able to get the floor, to get the eye or the attention of the Speaker, members as a House have generally decided that this will probably be the make-up. But in the absence of any suggestions from the different parties it is of course the responsibility of the Chair to make the decision as to who will speak and when.
I find at this point that there is not a prima facie case of privilege with regard to the specific point to which the member alludes. However, once again I appeal to the House in its magnanimity, and I refer specifically to the whip of the Reform Party who said he has made some allocations where it was possible for independent members to take the place of some of the members of his party who would have spoken had it not been for another occasion, for example. These things I think we can work out together.
However, specifically to the member for Calgary Southeast, if there is a burning issue, something on which the member must absolutely speak, although this does not occur on all the issues, I would ask the hon. member to address herself to the other whips if she likes or come up to the floor and where that slot is put in there, the Chair will give every consideration for those members who make a direct appeal to the Chair at that time.
I thank all hon. members for their interventions at this time.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with our deputy House leader.
Today we are discussing the Liberal speech from the throne which was delivered on February 27 of this year, some nine months ago. It was 13 pages long. We all tried to listen to it. Only once in that 13 pages did the Liberal government even mention the word family, and that was just in a passing reference.
Today I would like to take the government to task a bit about that and also explain perhaps the priorities I think the family issue should have been given in the speech from the throne and certainly would be given by the Reform Party.
In an Angus Reid poll in 1994, 63 per cent of Canadians agreed that the family is in crisis, not just in trouble, in crisis.
(1525 )
In our recent fresh start initiative we have addressed the concerns that many Canadians have about their families being under pressure, stressed out, overworked, underpaid and having no time to spend with their families, on charity work or on community work. They are feeling the stress and are not enjoying it.
In a seven page attack memo that was put out by the Liberals last week in response to our fresh start campaign, they said Reformers do not understand the complexities of the modern family. Just what they are talking about I do not know. The modern family is not very complicated. I can tell members right now that if one wants to call it complicated, in the modern family most times both parents have to work. Some also have to moonlight. If that is complex then I think I understand it. The modern one income family has to pay $7,000 more a year in taxes than the two income family making the same amount when both parents work. This is the so-called complex reality of the modern family.
I think it is really very simple. Parents to not have enough time, enough disposable income and enough assets to spend as much time and energy with their children because they have to work harder for diminishing returns.
It is interesting that most of these people do not feel that they have a choice about whether they are going to spend more time with their family. They end up working split shifts, two shifts, two
jobs and so on because they are forced to for economic reasons. Many of them would prefer, especially when the children are young, to be able to look after their children and have the assets to do that.
On page 38 of the red book the Liberals said the following: ``Young families need a support system that enables parents to participate fully in the economic life of the country. That is why the availability of quality child care is an economic issue''.
The Liberals' concern for families is that they have to find ways for them to participate fully in the economic life of the country. In other words, it is Liberal doublespeak for ``get to work, people, you do not have enough assets to stay home and look after your children, so put them in day care''.
The Liberals do not seem to understand that there are other options, that we can reduce taxes so that one parent can look after the children. We can change the Criminal Code so that parents do not feel worried about the safety of their families and their children. We can change the taxation system so that it reflects an equality for all people regardless of their choice for child care.
Before I get into our own fresh start alternative, it is interesting that the Liberal answer seems to be to keep taxes high and force both parents to participate in the economic life of the country so that they can tax them both highly and then the government will run a huge national program in order to pick up the slack. It is no wonder 63 per cent of families feel that they are stressed out and overstressed. They do not have an option. The options have been taken away from them by this government. It does not seem to understand that the simple answer, and not just the simple but the correct answer, to what it would like to say is a very complex issue is a very obvious set of guidelines and priorities that can change and turn this whole problem on its head and give families the stress relief they deserve.
This is what Reform's fresh start would emphasize if we were giving the throne speech today. First, we would acknowledged the problem which is that because of social and economic changes many families are facing high debt, stress, bankruptcy and burnout. A reform government will recognize the value of families as the most important building block in our society so they can spend less time under pressure and more time with those they care about the most. That should have been the guiding principle, the acknowledgement of the problem, so that we could get on with solving problems that families feel need to be addressed and should have been addressed in the throne speech.
This is our commitment to the Canadian family. A Reform government would make families a priority and ensure that government policies and regulations are family friendly.
(1530 )
Second, extend the $3,000 to $5,000 child care deduction to all parents, including those who are there for their children at home.
Third, increase the spousal amount from $5,300 to $7,900 thus levelling the playing field for parents who choose to stay at home to look after young children and helping families meet the needs of a more demanding economy. In other words, increasing the spousal deduction will put more dollars in their pockets so they can look after their families in whatever way they feel necessary.
Fourth, help provinces and local governments ensure that deadbeat parents live up to their responsibilities to support their children when families break down. Reform will ensure that agreements concerning access to children are also respected and enforced. When families break down, an unfortunate thing that happens in society from time to time, Reform wants to make sure that deadbeat parents fulfil their obligations to their children and do not try to skirt around their obligations. It is not only a moral obligation but Reform wants to make it a moral obligation to support those kids.
Fifth, Reform would enact a zero tolerance policy on family violence.
Sixth, crack down on child prostitution and child pornography.
Reform wants to make families a priority. It should have been a priority in the throne speech, and it will certainly be a priority under a Reform government.
Reform believes that the strongest social programs to be had are policies to create and to build strong families. With a strong family all the other problems, many of which are dealt with here by legislation, go by the by. When there is a strong family that can look after themselves, feed the children properly, educate them and buy them school supplies, over the course of time those children are better educated. They have a lower crime rate, are able to concentrate better at school and have the confidence and the security that comes from having a family that is not stressed out completely. That is why families need and should have a higher priority than the government has given them to date.
I would argue that time spent with your family is not a luxury that should be enjoyed by a few or by a fluke of birth or whatever. Family time is essential time whether you are talking economically or psychologically or crime prevention or literacy rates. Families that spend time together can address most societal problems within their own family structure.
I would argue that parenting has real value and the government should recognize this as well. It is often said that children are our country's future. It is a phrase that is thrown out at every opportunity but it is true. Policies and programs of governments need to reflect the truth: we are concerned about parenting and we
want to make sure that it is possible for families to have and recognize the value of that parenting skill.
That is why Reform places such an emphasis on tax relief for people raising children. People raising children have increased expenses and increased needs. Why not allow the policies and programs to reflect that? Why not increase the spousal allowance so that people who are raising children do not have to send the government money? They can keep that money to look after their families.
Why should we not say that all people who have children, whether they put them in a government run day care, whether grandma is looking after the kids or whether they look after them in their own home, deserve a pat on the back and encouragement. Some of that should come from the tax man. In other words, they deserve some tax relief that is targeted toward recognizing that parenting has real value and that good parenting is the key to a strong society in the 21st century.
That is why Reformers say the child care deduction of $3,000 to $5,000 should be given to all people regardless of their choice of child care, whether it is institutional care, at home, with a neighbour, through a pooling of resources or with grandma. It does not matter. When you are raising children you need resources. Those resources should not just be made available to people who are able to hire a nanny. Those resources should be made available to them when they have children. That should be the criterion. It should not be the criterion of a government program.
(1535)
We believe that if these resources are given to parents they will be able to make better use of them than if those same resources were shipped off to Ottawa and people hoped against hope the program that was delivered in a neighbourhood might actually be of some use to them.
There is an old saying that governments take the people's money, deduct 50 per cent for handling and then give back services the people never asked for nor wanted. That should stop. The services that parents want to provide for their families, if the resources were left in their hands, could be provided. They could provide for the needs of their children better than the federal government.
There are some things we need to do to reassure families about their future security. We have to have zero tolerance toward family violence. As have many hon. members, I have had people in my office telling me terrible stories about spousal abuse, family abuse, child abuse and so on. Each story is sad and sickening. I have zero tolerance for it and so should government policy.
That is why family assault should be made a separate and more serious offence under the Criminal Code. Those who abuse the trust of people need to be in a special category, a category which is more severe. Those people have broken a trust and have destroyed, perhaps forever, a child's security. It should not be tolerated. There should be zero tolerance for that.
We also want to enforce and strengthen peace bonds and restraining orders toward those who have shown a tendency for violence or who have threatened family members.
Finally, we want to make effective counselling programs a part of any sentence for family assault.
I mentioned earlier some of the other things that families deserve.
Mr. Speaker, as you approach half a century on this earth, as you get toward a very serious plateau in your own life, you will recognize the need to place emphasis on the family. I will allow my colleague to elaborate on that. As you head into your second half century, I know, Mr. Speaker, that you will listen kindly to his remarks.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we heard some very interesting comments from the hon. member for Fraser Valley East.
I was wondering if he has some other statistics. I think I heard at one time that some polling company came out with a statistic which told us how many mums or dads would love to stay home to look after their small children. If that was feasible financially, how does he feel about that?
When I was in Winnipeg I had the privilege of attending a meeting of the Standing Committee on Health. An RCMP officer brought out a very interesting fact. He said that they had found it a lot easier to build a good kid than to fix a broken adult.
When we spend billions and billions of dollars on the justice system, would the hon. member not agree that this would be money very well spent if it was directed toward the parenting of young children?
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, there are statistics to back up all of the things I mentioned today, for example, that children who come from a secure home have lower rates of crime, have higher levels of literacy and education and have better health. The statistics go on and on.
It is true that over 50 per cent of parents say that while their children are young they would prefer, if financially possible, to have one of the parents stay at home to be the chief provider for those children. In other words, they would train them, teach them, spend time with them, build security into their lives, pass on family values, show them right from wrong and so on. They feel that is a valuable asset and a valuable contribution.
(1540)
That is why the tax proposals that Reform has come up with, especially for low income families, will lower the tax burden by 89 per cent for families making less than $30,000 a year. Just think of it. I am not going to spend any time worrying about those who can hire a nanny. They have made their priority choices in life and I guess they have a lot of money.
However, if those who are just on the cusp, just barely able to make it, were told that the choices were a little more flexible because if they are making $30,000 a year as a couple it maybe means that one person is working at a minimum wage job and the other is working part time, and I told them that their tax rate would be lowered by 89 per cent, it would mean that they would be virtually paying no taxes. If they are making $30,000 a year it is not a lot of money. They need all that money to raise their family.
A family of four earning $30,000 a year is on the poverty line. Imagine if they got their pay cheque and where today it says deductions for income tax sent off to Ottawa, never to be seen again it seems. Twenty per cent or 30 per cent is deducted for taxes. Would it not be wonderful if they saw instead the column said zero and all the money they earned, they got to take home to spend on their families the way they saw fit? I think if Canadian families were asked who knows better where the money should be spent, most people would say they know the needs in their own homes. They would be able to provide for their children. They have the best interests of their children at heart and they know that given a good shot at it, an ability to hang onto their funds they would be able to do a better job than the bureaucrats in Ottawa.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, normally when I start a speech I say how privileged I am to join in the debate. But let us remember that this is, after all, November 1996 and we are debating the throne speech that was tabled on February 27, 1996 approximately eight months ago. Throne speeches are when the government lays out its mandate and desires, what it wants to achieve on behalf of the nation. Unfortunately, over the years they have become perfunctory statements that are bland, wide-ranging and have very little meaning or substance.
The speech we are debating in November 1996 and was tabled in February 27, 1996, is bland, wide-ranging, says nothing specific. I cannot imagine why we are debating this seven months after the fact rather than talking about specific legislation emanating from the speech. The answer unfortunately is somewhat obvious. It is because the government likes these bland, innocuous statements rather than serious legislation to fix the problems that are facing Canadians today.
Members have heard the Reform Party talk about the one in four people in this country who either do not have a job, are looking for a job, or are concerned about their job because they feel that their jobs may be in jeopardy. We were talking about that in the House in question period less than two hours ago. The finances of a major employer in western Canada are in serious trouble and many jobs are potentially on the line. The government says: ``It is not our problem at this point, '' yet it ran on a policy of jobs, jobs, jobs. It seems rather strange to me that it continues to spout the mantra without delivering on any of the goods.
This is the lack of vision of the Liberal Party that the Reform Party has railed against for the years that we have been in existence. In the section ``Ensuring Opportunity: A Strong Economy'' of the throne speech it is stated: ``The government will work with the private sector and the provinces to make the collective investments required to produce hope, growth and jobs''.
(1545)
We have not seen any tax reduction. The deficit continues to cause the government to borrow more money. The total debt is rising. It will soon be $600 billion. Yet, we have talked in this House in the last few weeks and have been critical of the government because it has given a company in Montreal, Bombardier, $87 million interest free.
Surely, that must be what the Liberals were talking about when they said they would work with the private sector and the provinces in their collective investments to produce hope, growth and jobs. I am concerned about the logic. It is the ordinary taxpayers, the people who work hard every day and remember that one in four of them are concerned about their jobs, who have to pay taxes to the Government of Canada because the government had to borrow $87 million which the government lent to Bombardier interest free.
Bombardier is a large and successful company with an international reputation. It has factories in production around the world. We are proud of Bombardier. We are proud of a Canadian success. But why do we have to be so proud of our Canadian success that we have to go to the ordinary Canadian in the street and say: ``Can you spare a little more in taxes to pay the interest on the money we are going to borrow so Bombardier can have an interest free loan of $87 million?'' That does not make sense. If that is the only thing the government had in mind in this line in the throne speech about collective investments with the private sector and the provinces, surely we expected a lot better.
Remember that the government's line was jobs, jobs, jobs. Here we are today, three years into the mandate and an election starting to loom on the horizon. I can see the next election being on the theme: ``We didn't do it last time but this time it is going to be job, jobs, jobs. Trust us. We are going to deliver''. That line is wearing thin. I doubt very much that Canadians will believe the Liberal Party this time if it runs on a policy of jobs, jobs, jobs. It does not wash.
Under the section on trade: ``The government will continue efforts to expand NAFTA and will work toward more world trade liberalization. Where there are trade disputes, the government will spare no effort to promote and defend legitimate trade rights and interests''. Nice words. Remember that the Liberals in opposition said: ``Scrap NAFTA. We do not want anything to do with it''. In the last election, they said they were going to amend it to make sure that it fit their philosophy.
As we can see, the Liberals have already moved a long way to acquiescence. After they won the election, they just said: ``Where do we sign? Show us the dotted line for NAFTA''. According to the throne speech, they are continuing efforts to expand NAFTA and work toward trade liberalization. My goodness, how they change when they get into power.
Of course in the next line the Liberals talk about promoting and defending legitimate Canadian trade rights. We had it right here today. The softwood lumber disputes should have gone to the World Trade Organization for a complete, satisfactory and final resolution but the minister stood up and said: ``We got an agreement for five years. Isn't this neat and wonderful?''
We open the newspaper and find out jobs have been lost in rural Ontario. We find out jobs have been lost in rural Alberta. We find out that jobs have been lost in British Columbia. We wonder what the government really means when it talks about defending legitimate Canadian trade rights and jobs, jobs, jobs. We could go on all day.
How about the public pension plan. ``The public pension system will be there to support people in their old age'', the Liberals said in the throne speech. Within a few weeks thereafter, the Minister of Finance stood up in this House and said that universality for seniors is right out the window.
There will be no more old age security in 2001. There will be no more guaranteed income supplement in the year 2001. The first thousand dollars of pension income tax free is out the window. The age exemption that every senior has enjoyed as a tax reduction on their tax return is out the window.
(1550)
Instead anybody with any reasonable income of any kind is going to have a 20 per cent additional surtax applied as a clawback on top of normal taxation. If they are in the higher tax brackets their total payment marginal rate to the government can get as high as 75 per cent. And universality is out the window.
Did the Minister of Finance stand up and say that in this House? No. He couched it in nice and wonderful language much like the throne speech and said: ``Don't worry, be happy. If you can look after yourself, good, because we cannot afford to do it for you. The Canada pension plan is in trouble. We are going to soak the working people. We are going to take it back from the retired people. We are going to put the excess in our own jeans rather than saving the Canada pension plan''.
That is what we found out in the throne speech. We are still waiting for the legislation. Eight months later and we are still talking about the throne speech. Surely Canadians deserve better. They do deserve better and it is outlined in the fresh start program of the Reform Party that we introduced a few weeks ago.
Rather than taxing seniors more, we are going to give a tax break to every Canadian after the budget is balanced. After the budget is balanced. Please note that we want that job done first and then we will talk about tax breaks. We have laid these things out.
We are going to cut unemployment insurance for employers to create jobs so that they pay the same rate as the employees, a 28 per cent cut. It is going to take this huge surplus in the UI fund and put it right back into the employers' hands because they are the people who create jobs.
We are going to cut the capital gains rate for the entrepreneurs to give them the incentive to create jobs.
We are going to talk about giving every family the opportunity for a deduction for their children in lieu of saying only if their kids are in day care can they claim a tax deduction and therefore they have no choice if they want to reduce their taxes but to put their kids in day care. We want to recognize that it is the parents who choose how to bring up their children. It is not tax policy that dictates how parents shall bring up their children.
These are the things we have introduced in our fresh start program. This fresh start is a new vision of Canada compared to the no vision, the bland statements that are still bland statements eight months later. They were introduced on February 27, 1996 and today in November 1996 they have not moved forward one single inch.
Let that record speak for itself.
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to say publicly that I congratulate you on your appointment to the Chair.
I want to make a couple of observations pursuant to what the hon. member has just said. I think all of us would agree that when MPs come to Ottawa one of the most serious and one of the most grave responsibilities they have is to maintain national unity. The last thing we should do is to try to play one province off against another or one region off against another.
Over and over again that is what the Reform Party does. They shirk that responsibility. They love this game of playing one region off against another. In the last few days they have raised the loan to Bombardier and they somehow leave the impression that there is a game of favouritism going on here and that Quebec or the city of
Montreal is being favoured over some other city, some other province, some other region. Nothing could be further from the truth.
It is noted very well on this side of the House that those members in the Reform Party never mention anything about what the federal government has done to support Calgary's bid for the exposition in 2005. The federal government has done everything possible to ensure that the exposition in 2005 comes to the city of Calgary. It has nothing to do with the fact that Calgary is Calgary or that it is in the province of Alberta or in the region called the west. It is a Canadian city. It belongs to all of us, as does Montreal, as does Winnipeg, as does Halifax. And this federal government has a responsibility to support that bid.
(1555)
My city of Winnipeg, the capital of Manitoba is getting the PanAm Games in 1999. The federal government is supporting that project to the tune of about $40 million. Do we hear that from the Reform Party? No. We do not hear that from the Reform Party. The Reform Party would rather talk about a loan to Bombardier because that somehow conjures up an image that Quebec is getting something and the west is not.
I am from the west and I am sick and tired of that kind of game which divides this country. It is a game that should stop. Responsible members of the House of Commons would not indulge in that kind of talk. It is injurious to this country. It is very injurious and the sooner we stop it, the better.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I think that was feigned outrage by the member who is from Winnipeg and from the west.
I do hope since he is from Winnipeg that he stood up and spoke loudly and at length, that he shouted from the rooftops when the CF-18 contract was taken from Winnipeg and given to another part of the country. Everyone knows that Winnipeg was a better bid, a cheaper bid, yet the people in Winnipeg, in his hometown, were denied that contract.
I am glad he raised the issue of unity. There was a referendum in the province of Quebec a year ago last week that we came within half an inch of losing. Why? Because this government sat and did nothing through the entire campaign. It sat on the sidelines and watched the country almost disintegrate because it had no policy whatsoever to deal with that situation.
While the member for Winnipeg St. James talks about the Reform Party and its policies, I have heard nothing about his defending the motion to create a distinct society for part of this country which was introduced last December in this House. In many parts of the country, including Alberta where I am from, that type of issue would not even be contemplated. Yet it was introduced in this House by his government to divide this country because the west does not like that particular phrase.
The member has the gall to accuse the Reform Party of divisive policies when we see the government he represents standing by without any governance whatsoever and allowing this country to fail both in unity and through the fact that we now have a $600 billion debt hanging around our necks, courtesy of that government. That type of thing must stop and a fresh start Reform policy will do that.
[Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I too will share my time with a colleague. I would also like to congratulate you on your appointment, Mr. Speaker.
I am also happy to participate in this debate, even though we are speaking about the throne speech that was delivered on February 27, 1996.
The very fact that we are still discussing the throne speech eight months later shows the importance of this document. I see the throne speech as a kind of business plan for the government. The fact that we are still debating this business plan shows how important it is.
With your permission, I will not go over the whole plan but, as my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works, pointed out, I will address the part of the throne speech dealing with national unity.
(1600)
Notwithstanding the actions we took in the weeks following the referendum, there remains some confusion, especially in Quebec, on the various measures our government took to try to settle the basic issue of Canadian unity.
There are obstacles, but I listened with interest to the comments made about the throne speech by members of the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party, who, I must point out, were nowhere to be seen during the referendum debate. Today, they claim to be concerned about Canadian unity. That is not true. If they were really concerned about Canadian unity, instead of criticizing our government day in and day out and making no proposals to advance the debate on Canadian unity, they would have expended their energy on settling the matter and especially on trying to convince our colleagues and fellow citizens in western Canada to make an effort to understand a little better what Quebec has been seeking for so long.
It was clearly specified in the throne speech.
[English]
We were very clear in the speech from the throne what this government wanted to do. The Reform Party member who spoke prior to me stated that we have no vision of Canada, that we have no plan for Canada. Nothing could be further from the truth. I question, based on his intervention, whether he even took the time to read the speech from the throne.
As I said in French, the speech from the throne is a blueprint of where our government wants to take this country. In the speech from the throne we talk about modernizing the federation. More important, we talk about the different areas of responsibilities that our government is willing to withdraw from.
I want to quote from the speech from the throne concerning the areas which have been a sore point for most provinces. The throne speech states: ``The government will not use its spending power to create new shared cost programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction without the consent of the majority of the provinces, and any new program will be designed so that non-participating provinces will be compensated provided they establish similar programs in their province''.
In the province of Quebec this has been a very sore point for many years. Traditional past governments, in order to penetrate or impede on some provincial jurisdiction, would through their spending powers introduce their own programs and thereby bypass the province totally.
Our government was clear. We wrote it down. We stated that we will no longer do that. Why? We feel we have to work with the provinces because they are our partners. We cannot always look at the other levels of government as our enemies. If we are going to get Canada back on track, as we have done over the past two or three years, of which I am very proud, we are going to have to take new initiatives and work with the provinces.
We also stated in the speech from the throne that the government will work the provinces and Canadians to develop agreed upon values and principles to underlie the social union and to explore new approaches to decision making in social policies. That is very clear.
The Reform Party says we do not want to do anything and that we are not working with the provinces. The newly appointed Minister of Human Resources Development has spent a considerable amount of time, as did his predecessors, in negotiating manpower training with the provinces. It is a long process, but we made the ground rules and the blueprints in our speech from the throne which lay out very clearly where we are headed.
In essence, what we are saying is: ``Hey, provinces, we are willing to work with you. Let us sit down and define which level of government is best able to deliver the services''. After all, there is only one taxpayer in this country. Whether it is a municipal government, a provincial government, a federal government or even a school board, there is still only one taxpayer. Quite often these levels ignore that fact.
(1605 )
What we are saying is that we should look at the powers. We are looking at the responsibilities. We said it again in the speech from the throne. The government is prepared to withdraw totally from some sectors.
The government is going to withdraw from manpower training. That is well under way and in the province of Quebec it has been accepted with open arms. The government is also willing to withdraw from areas such as social housing, mining, sports and recreation.
The government has worked with the provinces on these matters, but there are probably some jurisdictions that it needs to retain, such as the environment. Obviously, pollution does not stop at a provincial border. The rivers which are polluted do not stop at a provincial border. The federal government still has to be responsible to a certain degree.
Tourism and food inspection are two others areas in which the federal government is willing to work with the provinces.
What we said in the speech from the throne is that we are prepared to renew the federation. It is incumbent-and the proof is in the longevity of our beautiful country-on every generation to look at Canada and to mould it for its needs and for the needs of future generations. That is what our blueprint states.
I would like to touch on the different things that we have done to respond to the commitments made by our Prime Minister in the weeks preceding the referendum. Again, most people seem to have forgotten them rather quickly.
During the referendum we promised that we would transfer manpower training to the provinces. We have done that. We delivered on that promise.
We promised to recognize regional vetoes. I recall very vividly that debate. I was out west at that point in time. I remember that British Columbians felt they were a separate area and that they should be recognized as a region. Our government listened. Instead of creating four regional vetoes, we went ahead and recognized five regional vetoes. We gave all the regions a veto. Quebec, after all, is the only province that had constitutional change imposed on it against its will.
I have one minute left. I will take that very important minute to appeal to my western colleagues to work with our government. They can use whatever phrase they want. The Liberal Party chose to use distinct society. Let us try to work together to recognize the distinct reality of Quebec. One has to be blind not to recognize that
Quebec has a different language and a different culture. Let us work together to enshrine that in the Constitution.
Yes, we did make exceptions for provinces. British Columbia, for example, in order to join Confederation, required that the national railway be built. In 1892 that dream was realized. Where would British Columbia be today if that dream had never been fulfilled?
If there were only eight residents on Prince Edward Island, all eight would either be senators or members of Parliament. We recognize that even a small province can contribute to Canada.
I make an appeal to the premiers of the provinces to work with our government. I make an appeal for all parties to work with our government to solve the Canadian unity problem once and for all.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a question or two for the hon. member for Vaudreuil, one of those members who have frequently raised the fact that political uncertainty was disastrous for Quebec in terms of attracting investments in the province.
I should point out to him that, just today, an announcement was made that a Swedish company will be investing $300 million in pharmaceutical research in the Montreal area, probably in or around my riding.
If political uncertainty has such a disastrous effect-and perhaps he could address this in his response-it certainly is not political uncertainty caused by separatists, as he puts it, that adversely affects investment.
(1610)
I would say that the Liberal government's attitude is much more detrimental. On November 5, Claude Piché wrote in La Presse that it was strictly an irrational excuse on the part of the Liberals to claim that investments were not coming in as they should in Quebec because of the political uncertainty caused by the separatists, when in fact it was just the opposite.
The problem is due to the fact that the federal government itself would have everyone believe that the lack of investment is due to political uncertainty and the sovereignist cause.
It is absolutely not true and I would like him to say so, because, if he is serious about wanting to help the people he represents-I think he speaks mainly for the people of Montreal and Quebec, given that he was elected by the people of Quebec-perhaps he should stop talking about political uncertainty and start creating an atmosphere to counter such a perception by investors, because this is strictly a matter of perception.
The perception does not match the reality. There is no survey indicating that political uncertainty in Quebec adversely affects investment. He should say do publicly-I sincerely hope he will-if he is serious about wanting to help the people of Montreal. That is my first point.
My second is the Bombardier investment issue, that the hon. members from western Canada keep raising. The problem, really, is the way the Liberals have announced it. The Prime Minister himself came to Montreal to announce that he was lending $87 million to Bombardier.
In fact, it is a loan equivalent to about six or seven million dollars per year, over a few years. As far as I know, never before has a Prime Minister made a trip with his ministers to announce with great pomp annual subsidies of $7 million to a major company such as Bombardier, when the economic spin-offs will be much greater than the $7 million in question.
The problem that westerners face has to do with the way the Liberals came with great pomp to Montreal to announce what was in fact a loan of $87 million. It is a loan and this is fine. I have nothing against it.
The problem is the way it was announced. The government misled people from the west by making them believe it was a huge subsidy, but it is not the case. I would appreciate it if the hon. member for Vaudreuil would explain it, to correct the false impression created by the fact that the Prime Minister came with great pomp and that the Minister of Industry said the government was giving $87 million. The government is not giving $87 million: it will give about $7 million per year, taking interest rates into account, for a few years. The hon. member should set the record straight.
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. member for Vaudreuil to provide a brief response.
Mr. Discepola: Mr. Speaker, I will not have time to deal with the two questions in a brief response. I will discuss the issue of political uncertainty and its effect on the economy of Montreal and of the province as a whole.
The member for Longueuil only has to walk or drive through the streets of Montreal to see the devastating effects that this region has had to put up with for a long time. I am proud of the measures recently announced by our government to help Montreal's economy. It is sad and deplorable that the Quebec premier did not invite the federal government to the socio-economic summit. If he cared about Quebec's interests, he would at least have invited the federal government. Yet, Bloc Quebecois members are asking us why we do not do more for Montreal.
We are not the ones dreaming in technicolour, it is Bloc Quebecois members and separatists. The facts speak for themselves. Let us take a look at the unemployment rate. It is no coincidence. After all, we have the same policies for Quebec as for other provinces, and for Montreal as for other major cities. We do not devise policies to punish Quebec.
We must ask ourselves why the unemployment rate is two points higher in the Montreal region. the Canadian average is around 9.6 per cent, while the rate for Quebec is 12.6 per cent.
Why is it that the uncertainty affects the Quebec and Canadian economies indirectly and directly? It is not good for Quebec and it is not good for Canada. I hope some day they understand that.
[English]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg St. James will have the floor. It is my understanding that the hon. member will be speaking for 10 minutes.
(1615)
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Vaudreuil for allowing me to share his time in reply to the throne speech. I would like to pledge my co-operation to my hon. colleague from Vaudreuil as he makes every effort to strengthen Quebec's position and place in this federation.
I have recognized in working in the national capital as a federal member of Parliament that we are all family and we are all Canadians. Quebecers are as much Canadians as Albertans or as Manitobans. We are all family. We have our own peculiar problems and our own unique concerns. All of us have a responsibility to work together so we can tackle these problems wherever they might be found, in Quebec, British Colombia or wherever.
We know that the economy of the province of Quebec is in serious trouble, especially on the island of Montreal. We as good Canadians should do everything possible to revive that economy. The stronger the Quebec economy is, the stronger our national economy is. That applies to every province and region in the country.
The member from Vaudreuil mentioned that the 1996 throne speech had a vision of renewing the federation, and that is very true. Its main thrust was renewing the federation. Renewing the federation comes in many manifestations. For example, getting our fiscal house in order was and is part of that vision. Cleaning up the fiscal mess in the national capital is part of that vision. Without stabilizing the government and our national finances, everything else is put into question, everything else is put at risk. As part of that vision, as enunciated in the throne speech, it was so important to talk about and to address this problem of our national fiscal situation.
When this government came to office in the fall of 1993 the deficit was in excess of $40 billion, maybe even in excess of $45 billion. That is a lot of money. Something had to be done because without addressing that deficit, other things that this government wanted to do would not be possible. So our finance minister went to work aggressively and established a course that he has followed. He has followed that course assiduously and without any deviation. In that process and by not deviating he has established credibility. When he sets out to do something, he means it.
He started with a target to reduce the deficit to 3 per cent of the gross domestic product, and he has done that. He has now reset his target at 2 per cent, and it is not going to be long before it will be 1 per cent of the GDP. It will not be that long before there is no deficit at all.
Not only is the deficit being brought down quite rapidly but in the process the debt is being tackled. The finance minister announced a few days ago that come fiscal year 1998 there will no longer be a need for borrowing new money. That is success.
The debt is far too high, in the neighbourhood of $600 billion. Our interest charges are neighbouring $50 billion and that is far too much and has to be brought under control.
(1620 )
However, the finance minister has established credibility. He has shown that he can get the job done, and Canadians believe him and support him. I know it is going to be done. As a result of his doing a good job interest rates have come down to the lowest we have seen in almost 40 years. Our interest rates are lower than those in the United States. With interest rates as low as they are it makes buying a car a possibility, a probability. It means more and more Canadians are able to buy new homes or repair their homes or get a mortgage because of the low interest rates. We have had considerable success on that financial front.
That was part of the vision as outlined in the 1996 throne speech. However, there was far more to that vision than just cleaning up the fiscal mess. The throne speech mentioned technology partnerships. Nowadays it seems that wherever we turn we are confronted with new technologies. It is part of globalization and part of the new world order, technology and computers. For a lot of us who were raised a good many years ago, a lot of this new technology is perhaps beyond us. However, this government realizes that we are in a new technological world and we had better observe the necessities of the new technological age.
That is why the Minister of Industry has worked very aggressively on working with technology firms. Through his good work he has developed all kinds of technology partnerships. The government has contributed about $250 million toward technology partnerships. That will further technological innovation and it will strengthen the economy. It means creating jobs, which is being done already.
Notwithstanding the unacceptable unemployment rate in this country, a lot of new jobs are being created, especially in technology firms. This government has created over 600,000 jobs and I
expect better things to come. I expect those better things to come as early next year, 1997.
Also part of the throne speech vision was youth services. The government has found additional money for youth services. Right now there are about 35,000 Canadian youths involved in apprenticeship programs which is a real opportunity for young people to move from secondary education, high school and other educational institutions into the workplace. It is an ideal opportunity for young people to make the transition from their lives of education to the workplace. I believe our youth policy is working.
Maintaining medicare is part of the vision of the throne speech. Canadians believe very strongly in medicare and want this government to maintain it. I can assure members that we are going to maintain it and adhere to the five basic principles of the medicare system. We are not going to let the medicare system slip away.
It should be observed that in the last budget brought down by the finance minister he put a so-called cash floor so that the support for medicare would be maintained.
I could go on and on but I know I am out of time. However, I think the throne speech of 1996 has a well rounded vision. It is about renewing the federation. It is about strengthening the government. It is about getting government right. It is about serving Canadians much better than they have been in recent years.
(1625)
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here all afternoon listening to the various statements and comments with regard to the throne speech and I have a few comments of my own.
I was a teacher, before I came to this House, for almost 25. I have been a parent for almost all that time. I have met people from across the entire country since coming here and previously and a lot of the remarks that I have today in response to all the speakers who have been on this afternoon come from that.
There is one group of people in this country that I think is the key to the future. Despite all the rhetoric we hear, the government gives the impression that children come first but its policies and its legislation contradict this. That group of people that I think we must consider first and foremost in all the things we do is our children.
Liberal crime bills are very often merely job creation programs for lawyers. Liberal tax policies have forced both parents out of the home in order to avoid poverty. Liberal social engineering programs cause education, health, justice and social program costs to escalate. But the most horrific aspect of the Liberal policies, and the throne speech is an example of that, is they cause violent crime to increase, and our kids will pay a terrible cost.
What is the best crime prevention strategy that we could implement? It is simply to give children back their parents. This is the basis of Reform's fresh start family issues policy.
Let us look at education. The first and best teacher a child could ever have is a loving, caring parent. If we look at justice the best strategy for preventing violent crime is one that encourages bonding between a child and a parent. If we look at health care, the best health care program is one that starts at home with proper emotional development. If we look at social programs, the best social program is one in which taxes are lowered to the point where one job will provide for the needs of the family. It is common sense. It is simple.
When voters examine our fresh start platform they will see that Reform is the family friendly party. The party that puts kids first will do more to make society safer, improve health and education and reduce social program costs than all the big Liberal spending programs.
Mr. Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I found the hon. member's remarks interesting. I wish I could believe everything he has been saying. On the one hand he talks about the Reform Party being a family friendly party. Yet day in and day out in this House what do members of the Reform Party talk about? They talk about the criminal justice system. They talk about the spectacular cases that come up from time to time. They tell the government how we have to get tough on the young people of today, that we have to throw them into jail, that we have to lock the jail doors and throw the key away.
What the Reform Party talks about is all we have to do when it comes to youth crime is just write another law, add an amendment to the Young Offenders Act. We do not have to strengthen families. We do not have to help families that find themselves in a dysfunctional way. Oh no, just write a law and strengthen the justice system and maybe get rid of the Young Offenders Act. Not only that, but maybe we can even start charging young kids of nine and ten years of age with crimes.
That is what members of the Reform Party talk about.
(1630)
Reformers do that every day in this House, and now the member for Yorkton-Melville comes along and says that his party is a family friendly party. I have two words: get serious.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the address in reply to the throne speech, although I find it a bit odd to do so now, since the speech was given on February 27, 1996 and it is now mid-November. I suppose the government, which controls the program in this House, did not want us speaking about the throne speech when it realized it had not met the objectives it set for itself.
I have been here for 12 years, and although I do not recall what happened other years, it seems to me it has taken a while to get to the throne speech. If we had spoken about it in March, April, May perhaps, I would understand. But it is now November. My birthday is November 15 and I did not think I would be speaking about it so close to my birthday. I would have liked to speak about it much earlier.
The throne speech dealt with research and development, science and technology. The government said it would take steps to improve promotion of science and technology, and research and development in order to encourage job creation. It also said it would pay particular attention to the political uncertainty hanging over Quebec.
It also talked about improving free trade with the United States and Mexico, and mentioned NAFTA and a climate favourable to economic growth. These were the main points covered in the throne speech. Unfortunately, this is not exactly what is being done.
With respect to research and development, this morning I listened to experts and representatives of certain departments and Canadian institutions appearing before the industry committee. They seemed quite discouraged by the fact that the government was reducing research and development budgets. In my view and in the view of a number of people who know a little bit about economy and a country's economic performance, research and development is vital. It is something that must not be neglected.
We must always keep a keen eye on a government's obligations regarding education, training, research, and assistance to businesses so that we can operate more economically and be more productive. All this concerns the production environment in a capitalist system like the one in which we live.
People need training in order to be more effective. They need to be healthier, better educated. There must be more applied research that is more closely related to business needs. The purpose of all this is to provide a better standard of living for Quebec and for Canada.
This is, however, not what is happening. Since the Liberals have been in power, there is more unemployment, more people on welfare, things are going from bad to worse. Every day we have to motivate people, to give them faith in the future. At the present time, there is a little glimmer of hope, a minimal rate of growth.
Great attention must be given to everything related to research and development, educational levels, health, products, pure science, so that we can keep up with the growing international competition in the market place.
There are some who think that international competition is somewhat vulgar, bad capitalism, but it is nonetheless a reality. The reality is that we have decided to open up markets with the United States first, and then with Mexico. Now we are trying to open up markets with Israel, a small country, but still this demonstrates the desire to open up markets.
(1635)
The countries of Asia and the Pacific have the same desire to open up markets in order to communicate, to do business together. This seems to me to be a good thing for humanity. The greatest opportunities to meet and to dialogue are always available in trade and in business.
I have seen this in the few trips to Africa I have had the opportunity to take. Several of our experts told us that trade was the route by which we will manage to get to know each other and to do business together. Not in the crass capitalist sense of the word, but rather in the sense of having trade exchanges in which the interests of all partners are served. And when people's interests are served, they make an effort to understand each other and get along better, so that gradually, we are better able to live together in peace and harmony. We might have fewer wars and fewer conflicts if we are more open to the world.
Since we know there is an advantage to being open to the world, for the reasons I just mentioned, the Canadian government must co-operate with business, universities, unions and everybody else, whether we are talking about human, scientific or other research, to help us draw on the resources we need to develop our own potential and help others do that as well, whether we are talking about trade, productivity, health care, education, or other sectors. This is all very important.
The government must also be fair. So far, I can tell you the government has not been fair in the way it distributes spending on research and development and science and technology among the provinces.
In 1989, I chaired a committee when I was with the previous government in power. It produced a report. At the time, we noticed that when officials of Statistics Canada evaluated how federal spending on research and development and science and technology was distributed, they always excluded the National Capital Region, which greatly distorts the results.
For instance, if we ask Statistics Canada: ``Are your own employees distributed equitably among the provinces?'', Statistics Canada answers: ``Yes, we do a good job of distributing our staff''. So I asked them in a committee in 1989, and this was quite sometime ago: ``How are Statistics Canada employees distributed across Canada''? They told me: ``They are very well distributed, we have about 150 in Quebec, 185 in Ontario, about 85 in the West and 40 or so in the Maritimes''. I said: ``How many employees do you have together?'' I was told: ``We have around 4,500 or 5,000
employees''. I said: ``Where are the others, I counted only around 700 or 800''? They told me: ``The others are in Ottawa''.
So there were around 3,500 or 4,000 in Ottawa and furthermore, Ontario had 185, and Ottawa is in Ontario.
This is just an example. So when Statistics Canada provides statistics, they are completely distorted because they exclude the National Capital Region, which is concentrated mostly or at least 80 per cent in Ontario.
Imagine what that represents. I did a calculation, and with unanimous consent, I shall if I may table this document in the House for information purposes.
[English]
The Speaker: The hon. member is asking for the unanimous consent of the House. Does the hon. member have the consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: There is not unanimous consent.
(1640)
[Translation]
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil): Mr. Speaker, this shows that the Liberals do not want to know the reality and the truth. It is that simple. In any case, this has already been made public, but I still wanted to table this document and ask the government if it could enlighten me about the direction of the changes reflected in this document-for the Liberals' information, I will get back to this document later-and whether these changes were going in the right or the wrong direction.
In 1989, I commissioned and participated in a study on science and technology. Including the national capital region in the statistics is no simple matter. There are some 75 research and development programs in science and technology, and about 20 departments are involved. So for each department and program, we had to calculate what the federal government spent in the national capital region. This is important. It had been done before, but I had never seen the figures, and I wanted to find out for myself. This exercise showed us there is no equity.
In 1989, Ontario, including the national capital region, received $1.9 billion for science and technology, compared to $724 million for Quebec. This means that Ontario received $1.2 billion more per year than Quebec in federal spending. Even though 36 per cent of the population then lived in Ontario, while Quebec's share was 26 per cent, the difference was enormous.
The point I was trying to make earlier, to tie in with research and development, is that there was a $700 million discrepancy in that area, for a total of almost $2 billion per year in science and technology, and research and development.
What this means is that Ontario was getting $2 billion more every year. I am not saying this only for Ontario, but for all the other Canadian provinces that are disadvantaged by this. A large percentage of the $2 billion invested each year on science and technology-given how many jobs for scientists and experts there are in that area-is spent on salaries.
Let us take a look at the economic spinoffs in Ontario. First, there are taxes paid on the products, houses and other goods purchased in the province. You can imagine the magnitude. I am strictly speaking in terms of science and technology, and research and development. Two billion dollars generate substantial economic spinoffs in a province.
That is precisely why, a few years ago, I had suggested that the national capital region be considered a province in that respect and that the federal government keep the taxes collected in the region. It would have been fairer. But the government will hear nothing of it, because this benefits Ontario greatly. The fact that Ontario has always been richer than most Canadian provinces explains the presence of the federal government in the national capital region, where it spends tremendous amounts of money.
This is all explained in the document I wish I could have tabled, so that government members could take a look at it, but I will find another way to get it to them.
This goes to show that, when, in the speech from the throne, the government claims to want to be fair and equitable, to encourage harmony, to anticipate political uncertainty, it should start by being fair and equitable to the provinces, including Quebec, until it becomes sovereign.
My other point also concerns research and development, as I said earlier. By the way, our leader is welcome to come and visit the Tokamak facilities in Varennes next week. It is a nuclear fusion research centre. The nuclear industry is a clean industry that can be established within city limits; it really is tomorrow's source of energy. The federal government has decided to withdraw from this project.
(1645)
I invite you to visit the Tokamak project, in Varennes. It is an extraordinarily modern facility that is the result of a partnership involving Europe, Japan and the United States, and where research is conducted on nuclear fusion, a form of energy for the future.
Electricity is produced with turbines, and power will come from the fusion that generates the heat. It is thousands of times more efficient than uranium and other sources of energy. This is not an imaginary thing. It is said that this form of energy will be available in 10 to 15 years.
The materials created and developed through this research allow companies from the Montreal region and elsewhere to build high performance products that they would not otherwise be able to make.
The chief executive officer of the company says that a large number of products sold are the result of the research conducted at Tokamak. This means that financial spin-offs for the federal government are greater than the $7 million it is currently investing in this program, but does not intend to reinvest next year.
I do not know how the federal government does its evaluations but, by ending this annual investment of $7 million, it not only jeopardizes the very important development of nuclear fusion, it also loses potential revenues for itself. This is really a bad calculation.
It is true that the $7 million invested in nuclear fusion research at Tokamak came from the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. AECL was competing against Ontario's oil and uranium industries. The Minister of Natural Resources said the project was not one of her priorities. I realize it is not one of her priorities because she must first protect the oil and uranium industries, not this new form of energy called nuclear energy.
The Minister of Industry should subsidize Tokamak, since he does not have to protect other forms of energy. He is neutral in this respect. The Minister of Industry should subsidize Tokamak. I am making this request in all honesty; I am not playing politics. I believe the federal government is making a fundamental mistake by ceasing to invest a mere $7 million per year in the Tokamak project. This is very important.
I would also like to talk about the whole issue of drugs. I remember all our efforts to attract medical research investors. We worked very hard. That was the first time I saw scientists travel to Ottawa to demonstrate against the opposition. There was a delegation of close to 200 scientists and researchers, primarily from the Montreal area, who came to demonstrate in favour of the government and against the opposition, which wanted to block passage of Bill C-22 concerning drug research.
The Liberals were then in opposition and they vigorously opposed the bill. We were calling for the protection of patents. We wanted to give some protection to those doing drug research and development so that they could justify their investments.
Mr. Trudeau had allowed drugs to be copied after five years. Companies doing drug research were forced to go out of business. Office buildings and research centres, particularly in the Montreal area, had to close their doors.
(1650)
Hundreds of jobs were lost. Hundreds of millions of dollars left the country, and the Conservatives of the time wanted to get them back. Hundreds of millions of dollars came back into the country to be invested once again in the Montreal area, because there are many very competent people doing drug research there.
As recently as this morning, we learned that the Swedish company Astra is going to invest in the Montreal area. This will be the first time that this Swedish company has invested abroad, $300 million over a ten year period, for drug research.
Lately, we have learned to be very wary of the government. I have met people who lobby in Ottawa. They are in favour of Bill C-22 and C-91. They have doubts about the present Liberal government, which intends to reduce the number of years during which drugs are protected.
[English]
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join in the debate this afternoon on the speech from the throne. The throne speech outlined many initiatives which the government would carry forward this year and into the future.
It reflected what has been said in the House on many occasions, in statements by the Prime Minister and many ministers in the House and elsewhere that the number one priority of the government was, is and continues to be economic growth and jobs for Canadians.
One of the most important initiatives in the speech from the throne was to get government right, to continue to bring order to our financial house and to meet or exceed our deficit reduction targets, targets that the government has met or exceeded to date and will continue for the balance of this year and for 1997 and 1998, reaching a reduced deficit target of $9 billion in fiscal year 1998-99. This has resulted in the lowest interest rates we have seen in the country for decades and at the same time a low rate of inflation.
It has prompted an increase in small business and industry in Canada which has resulted in hundreds of thousands of new jobs being created. Getting the deficit on a downward trend toward a balanced budget and our financial house in order is also the best protection for our cherished social programs such as the national medicare system and the protection of pensions for those Canadians depending on this important made in Canada program.
Let me talk a bit about economic growth and the enthusiasm for business, industry and the associated jobs with the same in my constituency of Carleton-Charlotte.
(1655 )
Earlier this summer I had the pleasure of attending the official opening of the new, expanded Sabian cymbal plant in the small community of Meductic, New Brunswick. This new, enlarged and modern facility means an additional 12 to 15 new jobs immediately. As a result of these wonderful cymbal producers who export throughout the world and are marketing what is proclaimed to be
the best or one of the best cymbal products known throughout the world is something to take a lot of pride in.
Also earlier this past early summer McCain Foods in Florenceville, New Brunswick announced the expansion of its data processing centre to double its size, meaning another new 30 to 50 jobs. That is confidence when we see this happening.
In Centreville, New Brunswick, another small community in my Carleton-Charlotte constituency, Canusa Foods announced and began construction of a new potato processing plant, meaning another 25 to 30 new jobs that were not there before.
In Woodstock, New Brunswick, Penn Papers is expanding its processing manufacturing plant which certainly means many new jobs.
Last week in the village of McAdam, New Brunswick I had the opportunity to participate in the announcement that the former railway station would be turned over to the community by the Southern New Brunswick Railway Company and by the Irving family. This is a very picturesque railway station and something of which we can be proud as part of our Canadian heritage.
What does it mean to the village of McAdam and surrounding area? It means that it is the focal point for the tourism industry, and I might say year round tourism industry, the focal point for the lakes, the beautiful eco-tourism industry of that whole surrounding area.
Imagine, in a small community, over 800 people came out for the official announcement. They had waited years for this to happen. This did not just start yesterday. It started many years ago. I certainly was delighted to be part of it. What does it mean? It means new and additional jobs for that whole region.
Briggs and Little in York Mills, New Brunswick is a yarn company which is famous across Canada. It will be opening its new plant this month which produces woollen yarns that are used in products across this country. It will see an additional 25, perhaps 30 jobs as a result of this opening. It is a new modern plant, with modern machinery and modern technology to meet today's demands.
(1700 )
Earlier this week, this very week, I had the opportunity to participate in the official opening of Apocan Inc., an antimony mine in the Lake George area of New Brunswick. Some 75 new direct jobs have been created. The mushrooming effect of this antimony mine will produce additional jobs in trucking and other services throughout the community.
What is antimony? In the very early days it was used in the mixture of medicines. Later it was used as a component in the production of alloys. While it is still used to a small extent in those areas today, one of its major purposes now is as a fire retardant. It is used in many of our homes in such things as draperies, carpeting, even in our clothing because of its fire resistant qualities.
The projections are that the use of this product will increase at a rate of 8 per cent a year for each year in the foreseeable future. Therefore I am optimistic that those 75 jobs announced this very week will continue to expand to become 100, 150 or 200 jobs in future years. They in turn will have the spin-off effect of creating jobs in service industries to support them.
In St. Stephen the famous Ganong Brothers chocolate plant is working at full capacity at the present time. It is working on its Christmas production of those famous chocolates that are in demand not only in Canada but in many parts of the world.
Connors Brothers which operates fish processing and packing plants in Blacks Harbour, Back Bay and Seal Cove has certainly seen increased production this year and the important jobs associated with that.
Agriculture, the traditional fishery, aquaculture, forestry, literally hundreds of small businesses and industries of all sizes are working hard across Carleton-Charlotte, and indeed across New Brunswick, in order to profit, expand and provide hundreds of new jobs.
There are challenges with the new technologies and the changing requirements of today. There is no question that much work still has to be done, but these new technological requirements are being met today and will continue to be met into the future. There are a few examples which were just announced this week by Industry Canada.
There is support for the community access sites. I can refer to those in my constituency and others may want to talk about those in their constituencies because this is good stuff. These are great opportunities for our communities and our youngsters. New technology, new opportunities to connect with the world marketplace are at our doorstep.
Announcements were made for new community access sites in St. Stephen, St. George, Fredericton Junction, Florenceville and Hartland, New Brunswick. These announcements on this three year program are in addition to the ones that were made last year for community access opportunities in Juniper, Bath, Woodstock, Harvey, Lawrence Station, Deer Island, Campobello Island and St. Andrews.
(1705)
The program provides all of those communities and indeed all of those rural areas with the tools to reach out to the markets and to the information that is available around the world. That is what the throne speech was about: equal access for all Canadians. Regardless of whether they live on Prince Edward Island, in New Brunswick, in the wonderful province of Quebec, on the west coast,
in central Canada or in the Northwest Territories and Yukon, there will be equal access and equal opportunity for all Canadians.
That is why leading economists and even the OECD have projected that in 1997 Canada will lead all G-7 nations in economic growth. Canada will lead all of the industrialized countries of the world in economic growth. What does that mean for Canadians? It means jobs. That is why we are excited about it. It will mean jobs for all Canadians.
I see my colleague across the way from St. John's, Newfoundland. She is excited because there will be an opportunity for her constituents to get jobs. Jobs are needed in Atlantic Canada, there is no question about it.
Yes, we have challenges and we will continue to have challenges. But we will meet tomorrow's challenges as we have in the past. We did not say it was going to be easy and that the solutions would simply fall at our feet. It has been tough work.
On arriving here we faced a $42 billion deficit. The debt was over $500 billion. There was a $6 billion deficit in the unemployment insurance fund. It went on and on. When we opened the books it was scary. Yes, there is still a way to go. There is no question about it. But is it not great to see our deficit on a downward trend? We can look forward to a balanced budget. That is exciting stuff.
What is being said about Canadian exports? We know that team Canada is planning another trip. Business and industry leaders, the Prime Minister and the premiers will get together to travel overseas to create more opportunities for Canadian business and industry. That is being planned for early 1997. What does that mean to us as Canadians? We are told that every $1 billion of export trade that is garnered means 11,000 jobs for Canadians, either in new jobs or existing jobs which will be protected. That is important.
Almost every day in the newspapers the leading economists write that Canada will lead in economic growth in 1997. That is the result of getting government right. That is the result of bringing down the deficit. That is the result of having an acceptable inflation rate. That is the result of good administration and hard work. It will continue from this time onward until the next throne speech and thereafter.
(1710)
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Madam Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte on his speech. It is a very fine Liberal speech. He has listed for us the things that are going well in his riding, and the things that are going a bit better in Canada with respect to putting our finances in order and reducing the deficit.
What struck me at the beginning of his speech was his reference to three objectives in the throne speech: getting government right, bringing order to our financial house, and reducing the deficit.
I wish to address the first point. I think he perhaps did not speak much on it: getting government right. There is much talk of this, in the newspapers, in books, in magazine articles. They all say the state must change, must be defined differently.
Our Reform colleagues often tell us that we need less and less government, that the state has no role in certain economic or social areas. On the other hand, it ought to play a heavy role in suppressing crime, and other such things.
The question I would like to ask my colleague is not a loaded one. I would just like to know how much it can be claimed that the Canadian government has re-examined the role of the state since the Governor General's reading of the Throne Speech? Does this mean less involvement in the economy, less involvement in social measures? Does it mean government involvement in job creation?
Reference is often made to job creation, and sometimes the impression is given that the government is boasting of having created jobs. There is talk of 600,000 jobs, yet certain ministers sometimes tell us that the government is no longer the one creating jobs, it is business.
Having made these few comments, I wish to ask the following question: How has the federal government met the objective it set for itself in the throne speech to get government right? How has it re-examined the role of government, and what are the differences today between the federal government's concept of government before the throne speech, and now, five or six months later?
[English]
Mr. Culbert: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the Bloc for his many questions. There were a number of them and I will try to answer them in the order that he put them forward.
The member talked about rethinking government. As all government members are well aware, since arriving in this place we certainly have been rethinking government. We have been looking at the size of all departments.
The first thing I recall being done upon arriving here was reducing the number of staff members in ministers' offices. Many offices in the junior portfolios had 50 to 60 staff members and the senior portfolios had from 100 to 120 staff members. Those offices are now working with 15 to 20 staff members. We are rethinking, taking the challenge first.
The hon. member will know that the budget of every member of Parliament was frozen. Government members and opposition members alike, we all shared in it because it was a burden and we had to overcome it.
(1715 )
There have been a number of those initiatives to build a smaller and more active oriented government that can provide services to people.
This was done in balanced fashion. We protected those social programs that I spoke about earlier and a number of others that we and our constituents across Canada cherish in this country. We did not cut and slash and say they would be gone tomorrow, as others have suggested we do. We looked at their value and tried to make the difficult changes in a very balanced fashion that would be respected by all Canadians.
Industry, business and job growth were mentioned. I think all members see that it is our responsibility to develop and take the initiatives that will build the climate in which business and industry in this country can expand and develop, thus creating the jobs that are needed for Canadians, creating jobs in the new technologies that we know are developing right here in the city of Ottawa. It is happening right under our noses. We heard one of our colleagues speak about it this morning.
It is also happening elsewhere in Canada in many small communities. I spoke earlier about the importance of community access so that rural communities would be on the same level as our urban areas. Those are the important things.
I would like to give a quick example. Some of it has been tabled in the House and some of it will be coming. We know in agriculture and fisheries how important our inspections are to ensure that we have the best product to export around the world. Whether it is in agriculture, fisheries or whatever product we are producing it seemed to put them under one umbrella, a new agency that will have the expertise and the most modern technology to ensure that our product is the number one quality in the world. Those are the types of things that will help us to continue our growth in the export trade and continue making Canada number one in the world.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I think seeing the member for Carleton-Charlotte sitting there with his hon. colleague from Malpeque I would have to ask one simple question about the Canadian Wheat Board.
Hearing the member talk about all the expertise in communications that we have today, I am wondering why the Canadian Wheat Board sold less grain than in the previous year. Why, when there was a tremendous need in the U.S, did we sell half a million tonnes less into that market? Now we have a record carry-over in durum and also some feed grains.
It was very interesting to read in the papers recently what the priorities of this Liberal government are. When a motion or a resolution was brought forward to its policy convention supporting the Canadian Wheat Board it was side tracked by a motion to legalize the production of hemp. One of the reporters said: ``Instead of supporting the wheat board we can now legally smoke a rope''. I am wondering if that is supposed to soothe the nerves of western farmers, with Liberal philosophy of that sort, so that we can sit quietly at the end of the field and more or less smoke a couple of ropes and not realize that our grain is still in the bins instead of being sold. I wonder how the hon. member would respond to that.
Mr. Culbert: Madam Speaker, I will try to be as brief as possible. I thank my hon. colleague from the Reform Party for his question.
I recall in all the east coast literature I have read over many years and all of the programs I have seen on television that people around the world have exclaimed time and time again what a wonderful organization the Canadian Wheat Board must be because it continues to bring revenue for western farmers in Canada.
(1720)
It has, time and time again, shown that it could bring more revenue than those selling on an independent basis in many other countries, many other wheat producers around the world.
Yes, there are problems. The hon. minister, time and time again, has alluded to those problems and is looking at ways to make it better. It has a wonderful history. I am glad to see it is going to continue to expand and prosper for all farmers in western Canada in the future.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate today. I am a little surprised that we are continuing only on the fifth day of debate on the speech from the throne, considering it is nine months since the speech was given. Perhaps it speaks volumes about the worth of the words in the speech from the throne and the integrity of the government in implementing some of those ideas.
I listened with considerable amusement to the former speaker because it was such a typical Liberal speech. The Liberals, in the last three years since I have been here, truly have been masters of governing by illusion and creating an illusion of doing great things when the facts do not bear those things out.
Truly, what could we expect from a party whose leader has an imaginary friend he talks to on the street corner and has imaginary ethical guidelines that his ministers go by? It would only stand to reason that we would have an imaginary report card on the performance of this government giving it an honours score when, in reality, the facts do not bear it out in any way.
I would like to go through some of the facts and statistics that would paint a somewhat different picture than what I have heard coming from the members of the Liberal Party.
The speech from the throne, as a previous speaker indicated, kind of took a three pronged approach in its direction. Its objective was ``to provide security for Canadians, to provide unity for Canadians and to provide jobs for Canadians''. I believe that was the expression we heard.
When we look at the facts, in spite of the rose coloured glasses that some members wear, they do not bear that out. When we look at the security for Canadians, this government over the last three years has cut social spending transfers to the provinces by some $7 billion. It has cut funding for health care, for education and has enforced the closure of hospitals. There are many things people do not hear it talk about.
It has cut substantially the benefits to seniors since coming to office in spite of the rhetoric we hear about protecting seniors' benefits and all the rest of it. There has been one segment, however, that it has provided substantial security for to show where its priorities are. Of course, that is in the security of the MP pension plan, looking after its members' own security on retirement. I do not hear a lot of them bragging about that when they are proposing to cut security for other seniors in this country.
When we look at the promise to create unity for Canadians, the statistics do not bear out that there has been much progress on this front as well. Only a year ago we came within half a percentage point of losing the referendum and having this country split apart.
I did not see much progress being made up to that point and certainly not much since. The only reaction before going back to sleep on the whole issue was the proposal to drag up the distinct society clause for Quebec which even the party representing Quebec in this House and most Canadians rejected soundly in the Charlottetown accord many years ago. I do not see that there has been substantial progress on that.
(1725)
The third prong of the speech from the throne was dealing with jobs for Canadians. Perhaps this is one of the most dismal areas in spite of the illusion that the previous speaker tried to create of this wealth of jobs being created for Canadians.
The fact remains that personal and business bankruptcies are at an all time record high in this country. In spite of presumably coming out of the recession that the North American economy was in and having some of the lowest interest rates since the 1960s, our unemployment rate still hovers on one side or the other of 10 per cent, in spite of the fact that across the border to the south unemployment rates are only half the rate they are in Canada. I do not see a lot to brag about when we talk about job creation.
Looking a little further at what has been going on in Canada over the last 30 years it is hardly any wonder that conditions in Canada led to the creation of the Reform Party and some of the ideas the Reform brought to this House and promotes in Canada. In spite of all the bragging and illusion created Canadians today, after three years of Liberal government, are unquestionably worse off than they were three years ago. There is no arguing that.
The income of an average family of four has dropped by $3,000 since 1993. People are working harder and harder just to try to maintain a standard of living. Two out of three two-parent families have two or more jobs; 1.4 million Canadians are unemployed and continue to be unemployed; 2 million to 3 million Canadians are underemployed and one in four Canadians are worried sick about losing their jobs and not being able to provide for their families.
Canadians truly have taken a national pay cut. For a family of four the pay cut has been some $3,000 over the last three years. The Liberals at the end of their mandate will be collecting some $26 billion more in taxes than they were when they came to office in 1993. This government, which says everything is so wonderful and rosy, the economy is booming, jobs are being created, has added $111 billion more to the national debt, forcing it up to the $600 billion mark; truly not a very good track record.
Looking at the last 25 or 30 years in this country, in 1972 when Pierre Trudeau came to power only 553,000 Canadians were unemployed. When his government was defeated in 1984, 1.45 million Canadians were unemployed.
Then the Tories took over and were going to turn things around. They talked about a job for every Canadian who wants to work. By the time they left in 1993, 1.65 million Canadians were out of work. Certainly in 1993, in spite of the red book promise of jobs, jobs, jobs, there remains in Canada today 1.5 million Canadians out of work.
The Prime Minister is trying to tell Canadians that somewhere around that level of unemployment is acceptable, that it cannot be brought down lower. We know what happened to former Prime Minister Kim Campbell when she made that remark.
Certainly we have heard a lot of bragging today about balanced budgets. A number of previous speakers talked about achieving a balanced budget somewhere in the year 1998-99, getting the deficit down to $9 billion and then assuming at that point that the budget was balanced. I submit that only in a place like this would anyone presume that a $9 billion or $10 billion deficit is in fact a balanced
budget. Certainly in the real world I do not think that could be considered a reality.
(1730)
Between 1972 and 1984 the Liberals increased the national debt from $17.2 billion to $199 billion, a staggering 1,057 per cent increase. In 1984 the Tories promised to put a stop to the increase in the debt. Instead they increased it from $199 billion to $508.2 billion in only nine years.
Then of course the current government has added another $111.5 billion, bringing the debt to the $600 billion mark. It is not a record about which most governments would have the audacity to brag, I am sure.
The illusion is not one that most Canadians will long believe. I firmly believe that Canadians are demanding an end to this political rhetoric, this campaign platform that makes all kinds of promises that the government has no intention of living up to. Canadians are demanding some integrity in government, some honesty in election platforms and they are demanding a fresh approach to government, a basic restructuring of government, a basic downsizing of government.
I spent last week travelling in western and central Canada with the natural resources standing committee which is holding hearings on rural economic renewal. In spite of real prompting from the members of the Liberal Party on the committee to try to initiate some response in favour of another infrastructure program or subsidies to provide incentives to small business, witness after witness said: ``We don't need more hockey rinks and canoe museums and the like. What we need is government to get off our backs, get out of our pockets, give us a chance to make a dollar, succeed in our businesses and be successful''.
That is a story we heard over and over again. I very much look forward to the day when we write the report on the committee and put into print what supposedly we heard on the tour.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Could the hon. member please indicate to me if he is sharing his time with another colleague?
Mr. Chatters: Yes, Madam Speaker, I am sharing my time with my colleague from Surrey North.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): That should have been indicated at the beginning of your speech. You are two minutes over your time. I will give you 30 seconds to wind up your speech.
Mr. Chatters: Madam Speaker, I did not realize that the time had expired. I apologize for that.
The government has maintained the degree of popularity that it has over the last number of years through illusion and political rhetoric that really is very shallow. I am sure that Canadians, come the next election, will see through the rhetoric and the illusion and take a dim view of the record of the government.
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I just have a couple of comments to make.
The hon. member of the Reform Party was talking about jobs. He was criticizing the government for not creating enough jobs. I think the member's credibility is lacking very seriously.
Reform Party members have been in Parliament now for three years. For almost three years the word jobs never crossed their lips, never crossed their minds. Did we hear a word about jobs from the Reform Party in 1994? Not a word. Did we hear about jobs from the Reform Party in 1995? Not a word. It was not until this past summer that Reformers discovered the word jobs in the Reform Party vocabulary. Somebody put it there. I suspect what happened was that they read a survey or two or a poll and they discovered that Canadians are actually preoccupied with the issue of jobs. This is the party that talks about its members speaking to its constituents.
(1735)
It took Reformers three years to discover the word jobs in their vocabulary. Where have they been for three years? Talk about a fresh start. That is the kind of fresh start we get from the Reform Party. It discovers that Canadians are actually concerned about jobs.
While they were somewhere in the wilderness, somewhere in the bush, not realizing that Canadians do have a concern about jobs, the government has been doing something. Since the government came to office, well over 600,000 jobs have been created.
One more thing. Now that Reformers have discovered that Canadians have a concern about jobs, what does the Reform Party propose as a response to that? It proposes a tax cut, right across the board. Do Reformers ever learn anything?
What did Ronald Reagan do in the United States when he came to power in the beginning of the 1980s? Across the board tax cuts. What happened? The deficit went right through the roof. The United States went from being the greatest creditor nation in 1980 to being the greatest debtor nation in the world in 1988. That is what Ronald Reagan did. The Americans suddenly realized that this trickle down theory of economics does not work.
But here is the Reform Party, true to its dinosaur heritage: ``Yep, that's what we're proposing, across the board tax cuts''. It did not work in the States and it will not work here in this country. Canadians do not believe in it and it will never work. That is why this member and all the members of the Reform Party have absolutely no credibility.
Mr. Chatters: Madam Speaker, I can only assume that what I am hearing from across the floor is political rhetoric. I assume the member opposite is an intelligent individual and can certainly read our fresh start platform and our platform of the last four or five years. Job creation has been an integral part of that platform from day one.
I do not expect him to believe or to support our platform, which is perfectly reasonable. Since he is a Liberal and I am a Reformer we take quite a different strategy in dealing with job creation. We believe that jobs can be created by the private sector, by getting government out of Canadians' pockets and off their backs, by giving Canadians back some of the 60 per cent of their wages that governments take away from them with the view that it is smarter than the individual and that it can spend it more wisely.
I heard the comment awhile back that they believed the primary purpose of government was the redistribution of wealth. I am only assuming that is rhetoric and positioning. I think the member knows better.
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak in the debate today on the throne speech. I will direct my remarks to the family.
The throne speech was in February. I wondered if the government was going to take the opportunity, as is traditional, to utilize the throne speech to tell us what it intended to do to meet the needs and wants of Canadians. I am glad to see we are now debating it again so we can pursue that.
(1740 )
One of the areas in which Canadians want change is in the area of families and how governments treat families. Of course, work and the resulting income is an essential component for the establishment of a healthy family unit, yet the government and those which preceded it over the last 20 or so years have implemented social and economic policies and continue to enhance those policies which result in undermining the security of Canadian families. That contributes to the levels of stress, burnout and financial hardships which many Canadians face today. The policies of the last 20 odd years have created the situation in which we find ourselves today.
For example, one in four Canadians are worried about losing their job. Another two million to three million Canadians are underemployed. They are unable to find work in the area for which they trained. There are approximately 1.4 million Canadians who are on the unemployed list. That was the number in 1993 I believe. That number has not changed.
Not much of an inroad has been made into job creation. If inroads have been made, then other jobs have disappeared, because the figures are still hovering around 1.4 million. We all know that puts extra strain on people's lives and on their families. If we do not have a sense of job security we are left in limbo. We begin to wonder what kind of a future we will have.
Canadians are worried about making ends meet. Often two incomes are necessary. Often, despite the two incomes, we do not get enough time to spend with our families and raise our children. About 25 years ago one income seemed to cover the bills and there was some room to spare. Now, for many families, it takes two incomes to run the family.
When we consider that the tax freedom day falls in June, it is easy to see where that second income has to go. One income goes to the household and the other goes to government in some form or another, be it in taxes, user fees or a licence for this or that. It seems that the government wants both parents to have to work. It wants families to need two incomes to survive.
In a recent letter the Minister of Finance said he is opposed to changes in the day care tax deduction because levelling the playing field would be a disincentive for both parents to work. The day care tax deduction should not apply to those parents who work, it should be directed toward the children. It is a day care service for children, so it really should not matter if the parents work. If they have children, they should be entitled to it.
The priority of members of the Reform Party is the family. The best words to illustrate that goal are the words of the leader of our caucus, the hon. member for Calgary Southwest, who said: ``Because of social and economic changes, many families are facing high debt, stress, bankruptcy and burnout. A Reform government will recognize the value of families as the most important building block in our society, so you can spend less time under pressure and more time with those that you care about most''.
We are committed to Canadians and to the family. We want to make the family a priority and ensure that government regulations and policies are definitely family friendly.
Where do you start? One place to start is to extend the $3,000 to $5,000 child care deduction to all parents, not just to those who are working.
We could also increase the spousal deduction from $5,380 to $7,900, levelling the field for parents who choose to stay at home to look after their young children. Of course, that would help families to meet the needs of the more demanding economy.
(1745 )
Family time or family life is not a luxury. If families are to preserve health and happiness in a home it is not a luxury, it is a necessity. They need the time to spend building that core structure. It is time to make families a priority once again in our Canadian lifestyle.
The Reform Party believes that parenting has real value and if there is anything this whole House can agree on it is that children are the key to the future of countries around the world.
We must give parents greater freedom to spend time parenting and to succeed economically while they shape the lives of their children. Some ways we feel that can be done is to increase the child deduction to parents to $5,000 for every preschool child; $3,000 for every child age 7 to 12 years old. All this is in the fresh start program. We have to start somewhere and these are some of the targets we are looking at which will definitely assist the family situation.
To make it as fair as possible to all families with regard to income level, we will turn the deduction into a tax credit. That method will allow everyone to save.
My critic area is in aboriginal affairs. Consequently, I have spent a fair amount of time looking at that aspect of our country. One thing that comes forward there is family violence. It is not just in that group. It does not matter who we talk to in the country, it seems to be at all levels of society. It does not matter if it is in the north or in the south. I certainly believe that family violence, spousal and child abuse, has to addressed and there have to be some guidelines put out there. We have to identify the playing field.
This is one thing Reform would like to do. Instead of looking solely at the intent of the action, we would like to focus on the action itself. Assault is not something Canadians choose to have in society. We want to get more firm with people who assault, assault of any kind. However, this predominantly occurs in family circles, which we are not able to address because there tends to be a reluctance to identify the situation. Therefore many people live in these abusive situations who do not wish to come forward. We should create a situation that would encourage them to come forward.
Another thing is that when there actually is a situation of abuse and someone has been charged, in looking at the counselling aspect, the aboriginal community is trying to tell us that there is more than one way of getting to the bottom line. I really feel we should be looking at different methods and address the one which is most suitable to achieving the bottom line.
If a person wishes to read and understand the English language as written in Reform's fresh start, from the family point of view which I am addressing today our main concern is to leave more money in the hands of parents to allow them to build that home and the structure in which to raise their children, cloth, feed and educate them, and give them the choice as to how they wish to pursue that.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I appreciated the remarks of the member for Surrey North with respect to wanting to improve the lives of families in Canadian society, possibly by tax means and other instruments.
I would like to point out to her this is a sentiment that is shared broadly in the House. Two nights ago there was a motion presented to the House by the member for Mississauga South, a government member, which proposed that the government introduce a caregiver tax, particularly for families with young children and families of the disabled. That motion was supported on all sides of the House.
(1750 )
I think I can assure the member for Surrey North that the desire to give better opportunities to the traditional nuclear family is a concept that is shared by all members of this House, not just the Reform Party. I think we can look forward in the coming year to some significant steps on the part of the government in that regard. I think certainly most members on the government benches would support it in every way.
I would like to take the member just briefly down another road if she would not mind. One of the points made in the speech from the throne was there would be a modernization of the federal labour code which applies to federally regulated industries.
Just this past week a bill was presented to the House containing the proposals of the labour minister in this regard. I would like to draw the attention of the member for Surrey North to a couple of provisions in the proposals put forward by the government in this new legislation. One of the provisions pertains to replacement workers.
In Quebec there has been a ban on replacement workers during labour stoppages since I think 1977. In Ontario legislation was brought forward by the New Democratic Party banning replacement workers in 1993. This legislation was since overturned by the current Conservative government. We find this Liberal government bringing down legislation that is in between these two extremes. What it proposes basically is that replacement workers continue to be an option of a company facing a strike or a work stoppage but that company is not allowed to use those replacement workers to break the union. I think this addresses the problem that exists with several very nasty strikes that exist in Quebec. It seems to me that this is a very positive compromise on the part of the Government of Canada.
I also point out that the labour code proposals also suggest that following work stoppage, those who have been out of work and faced with replacement workers are entitled to return to their jobs. Again the government in its wisdom has made provisions for workers who have legitimately sought to pressure a company by the means of a legal strike but not to be unfairly penalized at the conclusion of that work stoppage.
I hope the member for Surrey North can reply to these three initiatives. The third and final point, which I thought was very progressive on the part of the government in introducing these amendments to the labour code, is that it is proposed that when it comes to the grain handling industry, only those unions that actually handle the grain should continue to have the right to stop the shipment of grain. In other words, peripheral unions will no longer be permitted to hold the country at ransom by the stoppage of shipments of grain.
These are three very positive initiatives that spin directly out of the speech from the throne. I could find the page in the speech from the throne for the member. I think these are very fine initiatives and I would like to hear the member comment on these three initiatives. Does she support them or reject them?
Ms. Bridgman: Madam Speaker, I find it ironic that when I address my remarks to family how it suddenly got into silos and grain, but here we are.
I think at the heart of what I want to say here is that the policies of this government and preceding governments over the last 30 years miss the point. We tried them but they are not working. It does not matter what we are looking at, replacement workers or whatever.
Basically what we are doing here is taking a policy and band-aiding it. My background is health and I feel we are addressing a symptom. We are not actually looking at the cause and treating the cause to resolve the problem or the disease.
The negotiating process where we have the type of thing that is being suggested by the government of bringing in these workers when a strike is threatening was not the original intent of the negotiating process.
(1755)
The negotiating process initially was to give the employee, when things were perceived to be wrong by the employee, some clout to negotiate and bargain to get them right.
We have let that go to the nth degree. It is not working-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): We are now resuming debate.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak today in the debate on the Throne speech.
[English]
The speech from the throne was delivered on February 27, 1996, approximately two years and four months into the government's mandate. It was an opportunity for the government to confirm its priorities, namely jobs and growth, and to continue on that agenda. At that point over half a million net jobs had been created. Now we are at over 620,000 net jobs created.
The speech from the throne went on to deal with three priority themes: the jobs and growth agenda, the security for Canadians, and the modernization of the federation to ensure national unity. The area where I would like to concentrate my remarks is national unity.
When we speak of national unity, invariably we end up speaking of the Quebec situation. Canadians are aware that national unity is a much broader question than simply the wants and desires of the province of Quebec.
We end up concentrating a lot of our effort and time dealing with the Quebec question because the separatist governments in that province have twice called referendums under provincial legislation dealing with the question of the separation of Quebec from the Canadian federation.
Going back prior to the speech from the throne and the time just before the last referendum, Canadians will recall that in the week before the referendum the Prime Minister became very active in the campaign.
Until then the Prime Minister had been a member of the no committee, constituted under the Quebec legislation. There were other members of the committee, federal ministers, the leader of the federal Conservative Party, the leader of the Liberal opposition in Quebec, et cetera.
The strategy that was arrived at was that the Prime Minister would make certain timely interventions in the campaign. As the campaign wore on it became evident from the polling that there was difficulty, that the result was going to be much closer than polls indicated earlier.
The Prime Minister became much more involved. He made certain commitments to the people of Quebec dealing mainly with the recognition of Quebec's distinctness, the question of regional vetoes and the issue of job training. It had been a traditional Quebec demand that job training be turned over to the provinces so that they would have more jurisdiction in that field. The Prime Minister made those commitments.
In December 1995 the House of Commons passed the motion on distinct society, passed the bill dealing with regional vetoes and in the course of its employment insurance reforms it has been dealing with the job training issue.
As far as the federal government and the Prime Minister's being able to honour those commitments without the participation of the provinces, they have done so.
(1800 )
The government has also indicated and continues to indicate its willingness to entrench the recognition of Quebec's differences in the Constitution as well as the regional vetoes. Of course, that cannot be done unilaterally by the federal government and requires the participation of the provinces in accordance with the amending formula of the Constitution which requires seven provinces representing at least 50 per cent of the population.
The speech from the throne sets out what the government's plan on national unity is. Basically it is a plan of reconciliation, to reconcile all of the concerns of all of the provinces and all of the regions of Canada and to modernize the federation to take those concerns into account.
Much progress has been made with respect to the modernization of the federation. At the first ministers conference in June, steps were initiated and negotiations were undertaken. At the premiers conference in August, there was a resolution passed and agreement arrived at by the premiers that they would work with the federal government in its efforts to try to make arrangements so that the jurisdictions between the provinces and the federal government could be worked out to the satisfaction of all parties.
The federal government has acknowledged that there are certain areas where definitely there should be more provincial involvement. I have made reference already to the job training areas. Another area is the administration of social housing. There are also the forestry and mining sectors. Measures have been taken in the Fisheries Act to allow for the delegation to the interested provinces of responsibilities for management of freshwater fisheries habitats.
Later this month there will be more meetings in the field of the environment. The provincial ministers of the environment will be meeting with the federal Minister of the Environment to try to negotiate the terms of subagreements on environmental assessment to eliminate duplication and the mixed jurisdictions in those areas.
As well, the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Health are negotiating with their provincial colleagues. They are trying to come to arrangements where perhaps the provinces would have more say in certain areas of jurisdiction and maybe certain other areas of jurisdiction would be turned over to the federal government or their role would be heightened in the appropriate cases.
On the question of future referendums the speech from the throne also indicated the following: ``As long as the prospect of another Quebec referendum exists, the government will exercise its responsibility to ensure that the debate is conducted with all the facts on the table, that the rules of the process are fair, that the consequences are clear and that Canadians, no matter where they live, will have their say in the future of their country''.
That commitment is in the speech from the throne. The government has acted upon it with the intervention in the Bertrand case when the Quebec provincial government was saying that the rule of law had nothing to do with the right to self-determination, and also with the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Inevitably, as I indicated at the beginning of my speech, we end up speaking of Quebec when we speak about national unity, even though many of the other provinces share many of the same concerns that Quebec has with the operation of the federation and the need for its modernization.
Canada today is not the same place it was in 1867. Much has changed and obviously there is a need to modernize the workings of the various levels of government. We come back to the Prime Minister's commitment on the question of recognizing Quebec's distinctiveness.
(1805 )
In today's debate I heard one of the members from the Reform Party mention Charlottetown and that the concept of a distinct society was rejected when Charlottetown was rejected and that the people had their say. There were so many things in the Charlottetown accord. No one can say with any degree of certainty which of the components of the accord people were voting against when they voted no. If they were voting yes, they had to agree with every component. It was a flawed process and I think we have learned our lesson.
The Prime Minister has indicated on several occasions in this House that his strategy is to deal with these issues separately one at a time so we will know exactly what the acceptance of a particular concept is. It is not correct to say that the people of Canada rejected the distinct society because it was one of the components of the Charlottetown accord.
The polls tell us that 60 to 65 per cent of Quebecers feel an attachment toward Canada and want to see the difficulties that are being expressed by many of the provinces and not just Quebec resolved within the Canadian context. We need to determine why then did we have a referendum result with 49 per cent voting yes? Was the question reasonable and fair? Did the people understand it precisely?
I think it was more than that. There has to be some other explanation as to why, if only 30 to 35 per cent of people are committed to separating, as high as 49 per cent would vote yes. We need to look at that and determine the reason for that and for those of us who want to see the country stay together, what we can do to deal with that.
That is where we come back to the question of the recognition of Quebec, its difference by reason of its French language, its French culture and its French institutions. Those are the facts. Quebec is the only province in Canada that has a predominantly French speaking population, a predominantly French culture. It has le droit civil. It is one of two jurisdictions in North America that has le droit civil legal system as opposed to the common law system. There is an indisputable difference I would submit and we need to deal with that. A recognition of that difference needs to be entrenched in the Constitution.
People may have noticed that I am not using the term distinct society. When that concept is discussed there is a fear in the provinces other than Quebec that it means there is going to be some advantage, right, power or privilege given to Quebec that the other provinces will not enjoy. That certainly is not what is being proposed by this government. This government is simply proposing a recognition of Quebec's difference by reason of its French language, culture and institutions without granting to it any further rights, powers or privileges.
That begs the question: Of what value is it? Is it simply symbolic? It is not going to fill the bill. It is not going to address the concerns of the Quebec people who are looking for some reason to remain in Canada. I submit it is more than symbolic because it would entrench in the Constitution the existing constitutional convention.
Mr. Justice Brian Dickson, the retired chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, recently published an article in the Globe and Mail. It indicated that presently the Supreme Court of Canada in interpreting grey areas of the Constitution takes into account Quebec's difference by reason of its French language, culture and institutions.
(1810 )
We would be guaranteeing what is existing now. On the one hand we would have something substantial which Quebecers could feel secure about. On the other hand we would not be granting any rights, powers or privileges that the other provinces do not now enjoy. In other words, there would be no preference given.
There is certainly room for that type of discussion, not by our friends in the Bloc Quebecois and members of the PQ government in Quebec because they want a separate country. Offering them any form of guarantee or recognition in the way the Constitution is interpreted today will not be of any benefit to them because it will not lead to separation.
We have to address the other 60 to 65 per cent of Quebecers who are looking for that. It is also a way for Canadians outside Quebec to express to their fellow Canadians in Quebec that they are prepared to assist in the preservation of the French language, culture and institutions which are prevalent in Quebec. It is a way to support them and to alleviate their insecurity.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has said that if Quebec is the only predominantly French speaking province or jurisdiction in Canada and in North America, it creates a natural insecurity and a legitimate concern with respect to the preservation of the French language, culture and institutions. If we Canadians outside Quebec can show that we are prepared to support them in that preservation, it would have an influence on their desire to remain a part of this country.
As part of my duties for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs I have travelled to different regions of Canada. I was in three of the four maritime provinces this past summer. I have been to British Columbia and Alberta. I have spoken with people who have formed Canadian unity groups, Canadian citizens who are concerned about Canadian unity. They have expressed frustration at not being able to do anything about the preservation of unity in Canada. They have come together in an effort to become involved in the process.
When I speak to them in the terms I have just outlined, I get very little opposition to the concept of recognizing Quebec's differences by reason of its French language, culture and institutions when it is presented to them in a way that gives them some assurance that it will not lead to any additional rights, powers or privileges. Once the term distinct society is put into the equation however, then there is all of the baggage that comes from the constitutional wrangling of the previous government with the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords.
There is a way to develop that support and to act on it. The government is on the right track. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has spoken to most of his provincial counterparts. In certain provinces he gets a warmer reception than in others. However, we must continue to work on it.
(1815 )
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I noted that the member focused on unity or disunity or the lack of unity or the concern about unity but very little on how to build unity in the country.
I was particularly intrigued by one comment. I am talking about the courts of this land for which we have respect and high regard for their impartiality and the quality of the judgments they render based on the law. The law of this land is important and it is the responsibility of the courts to uphold the law as Parliament sets it out in the statutes for them to apply. Of course, there is a great deal of independence between this House and the courts to ensure that they are totally impartial and unbiased and not influenced by the House or by anyone else for that matter.
The member made reference to the fact that the courts seem to take into consideration the political perceptions of the different culture in Quebec, the language and so on, compared to the rest of the country.
I wonder if he was suggesting that the courts are becoming politically aware, if I can use that phrase. I hope not, but I thought that is what he was alluding to.
I happen to have a little quote here, a supreme court ruling in the province of Alberta, where I am from. It was a rather eloquent judgment that went on for some considerable length by Mr. Justice John McClung in a ruling in 1996 in the Alberta Court of Appeal in the case of Vriend et al v. Alberta.
He said: ``None of our precious and historic legislative safeguards are in play when judges choose to privateer in parliamentary sea lanes''. I thought that was a wonderful quote that says that the courts are apart, separate and must protect their own integrity and impartiality. If they want to privateer in the sea lanes of politics, we should all be serious concerned.
Would the hon. member please confirm to me and to the members of the House that he was not suggesting that the courts would take politics into consideration or anything into consideration other than the law which they are asked to interpret. Or did I misinterpret what he was trying to say?
Mr. DeVillers: Madam Speaker, I agree with the proposition that the hon. member has put forth that the courts should not become involved in politics. We need to maintain the separation between the judiciary and the political procedures in the country.
I was quoting an article by Mr. Justice Brian Dickson, retired chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. He was not talking about politics. He was talking about when the Supreme Court of Canada is called on to interpret grey areas of the Constitution; in other words, areas where the jurisdictions are not clearly aligned.
The convention now is that the Supreme Court of Canada in those grey areas takes into account the fact, not a political policy, that Quebec is the only jurisdiction in Canada which has a predominantly French speaking population. There are French speaking people in all other regions but they are not the majority. Therefore in Quebec they are different by reason of the first language of use, by reason of their culture because they are of French origin and have a different culture than the multiplicity of cultures we have in Canada and because their legal system is the Napoleonic code, le droit civil, which is an entirely different legal system which therefore leads to different institutions in that province.
He is not playing politics. He is saying that the Supreme Court of Canada takes those actual facts into consideration when it needs to interpret areas that are not black and white in the Canadian Constitution.
(1820 )
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Simcoe North for his remarks which I appreciated very much.
I would like his response to a point about distinct society. There are about 600,000 Francophones who live in Ontario plus many thousands who live in New Brunswick and other parts of the country. My thoughts with respect to affirming that Quebec has distinct society status are that it would not only protect the cultural traditions of Quebec but it would also be a guarantee to Francophones elsewhere in the country that this national government will defend their interests, their language and their culture.
Mr. DeVillers: Madam Speaker, that is the case with the government's policies on official bilingualism and that is being done by the government at the present time. The French speaking minorities in the other provinces are protected where the demand is sufficient and they can obtain the services they need in the French language.
However, that is a different issue from recognizing that Quebec as a province has a majority of French speaking people; whereas in the other regions the member referred to, the French speaking people are the minority or perhaps in the case of New Brunswick it is almost a 50-50 split. In the other provinces, save New Brunswick, French speaking people are in the minority.
It is the recognition that Quebec is predominantly French speaking, although it has many other people from various backgrounds, that we are talking about. It is about recognizing that fact and the consequences of its culture and its institutions as well.
Mr. Williams: Madam Speaker, I am still intrigued by the question I asked. I am not sure I got a satisfactory answer. The hon. member quoted a retired chief justice, an eminent person.
I am still trying to get clear in my mind these facts he kept referring to. The courts are to apply the law and the law is quite specific. It is written down quite clearly. The law is the basis on which judgments are rendered by the courts. I get this uneasy feeling that he is suggesting the courts take facts, whatever facts may be or however one interprets facts, into consideration in rendering their judgments. Could he make it crystal clear?
I am not aware of any law on our books today that says one province is different from another. Yet the law of the land is what the courts are supposed to apply. Could he be crystal clear and tell me on what basis extraneous facts can be introduced by courts in rendering their decisions?
Mr. DeVillers: Madam Speaker, I guess we are going to beat this horse to death. It is simple. There are grey areas in the Constitution. The member says the law is clear. Well, it is not. There are many areas. The Constitution does not cover every possibility. There are
unclear areas which the court has to interpret. I am not saying it. Mr. Justice Dickson is saying the court takes into account the difference that Quebec has by reason of its French language, culture and institutions. That is what we are trying to get to make that a law. It is not a law now. It is a constitutional convention. We are saying let us entrench it into the Constitution. It should be of some comfort to some Quebecers and it is not taking anything away from the other provinces because it is what is happening now.
(1825)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I will now recognize the hon. member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead. The hon. member may start on the first five minutes of his speech.
[English]
Mr. Harvard: Just the truth, just the truth.
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, BQ): You will hear the truth now.
[Translation]
First of all, I would like to say that I only have three or four minutes left until the end of this sitting. I will resume speaking on the next day of debate on the Throne speech. I do not have time to get into the main part of my speech, which was supposed to be about the government's record on dealing with the disabled, but I will get back to this later on.
For the time being, I will merely refer to some statements by my colleague from Simcoe North who, I think, is a reasonable man who is usually able to make a fairly correct assessment of a political situation, but when he talks about the situation in Quebec, I should remind him of certain facts, just to fine tune the facts he already has. He said, if I am not mistaken, that about 65 per cent want a new and improved Canadian federation, that is, improvements within the Canadian system.
I do not know to which poll he is referring but, depending on the questions asked, you can get the results you want. It is like the Prime Minister, who at his convention about two weeks ago gave himself a score of 78 per cent when referring to his government's achievements. If we dig a little further, we get far different results.
I just want to take one poll as an example, since my colleague from Simcoe North was referring to polls to support his own figure of 65 per cent. A poll published today in the daily papers found that the level of satisfaction with the Prime Minister and the government has been dropping since the beginning of the summer. It now seems that 35 per cent of Canadians support the leader of the government, the Prime Minister, while in April this was 39 per cent and a few months ago it was 44 per cent.
We see there has been a major drop in the level of satisfaction, which is a strong indication, before an election, of the kind of support a government would get if there was an election tomorrow morning.
So figures can be made to say what we want them to say. The fact is that if we want to get involved in a constitutional debate, we are looking at something that is impossible within the Canadian federation. Federalists with the federal government or in the provinces who, over the past thirty years, have tried to change the system in response to the legitimate demands of Quebec and also of the other provinces, have always come up against a dead end. We were always faced with an impossible situation following negotiations, and the hon. member was referring to Charlottetown, when the people spoke for the first time.
But apart from this exercise, we always came up against the situation where Quebec was isolated, having come away disappointed from discussions. And I think it important to repeat this. I have said it I know not how many times in this House, and I will say it again. This was after discussions between federalists, not discussions between federalists on the one hand and separatists on the other, as my colleague for Simcoe North mentioned just now, when he said that it would never be possible to satisfy the wishes of the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois.
I know that the period provided for debate has expired, so I will close by saying that, if political partisanship were put aside, and the proposal made by sovereignists and almost approved by a majority of Quebecers read carefully, it would be understood that sovereignists in this House and in Quebec basically want two things: first, recognition of the people of Quebec, the means we have and the means that go with this recognition in order to be able to affirm ourselves; and second, a partnership agreement with our preferred partner, Canada.
That is what we want and that will be the key in the future to resolving our present problems. I will continue these thoughts another time.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It being6.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 6.31 p.m.)