[Translation]
I thank the hon. member for Fraser Valley East for raising this matter and the chief government whip for his contribution to the discussion.
[English]
This matter was first brought to my attention on Tuesday, October 22, 1996 by the hon. member for Wild Rose. At that time he described to the Chair how he had been selected as a substitute from the Reform Party's list of associate members for the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and in that capacity attended the meeting of the committee on Monday, October 21, 1996. The hon. member claimed that he had attempted to give notice of a motion but was ruled out of order by the chair on the basis that he was not a regular member of the committee. The member indicated that he had sought a resolution to this matter within the committee and had not been successful.
[Translation]
The matter was raised a second time, on October 28, by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East. In his presentation, he argued that, as a duly selected substitute pursuant to Standing Order 114, the member for Wild Rose should have been permitted to give notice of his motion notwithstanding the committee's internal rule requiring 48-hour notice for consideration of new business.
Having examined the arguments put forward, I find it appropriate in this instance to offer some clarification.
The Standing Orders provide a mechanism whereby members who are associate members of a committee can become substitutes for regular members of the committee at a particular meeting. I have looked carefully at the wording of the relevant Standing Orders and in the case before us, it is clear that the requirements were met and the member for Wild Rose was acting as a bona fide substitute member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for the meeting on October 28, 1996.
[English]
There is no doubt in the Chair's mind that substitute members should be considered on an equal footing with permanent members for the period of substitution. This status must remain unaffected by any internal rules adopted by a committee for its own convenience, otherwise committees risk having two classes of members at the committee table.
In my ruling on June 20, 1994 at page 5,583 of the Debates, to which the hon. member for Fraser Valley East also made reference, I pointed out that:
While it is a tradition of this House that committees are masters of their own proceedings, they cannot establish procedures which go beyond the powers conferred upon them by the House.Committees have found it efficient to establish their own internal procedures such as the 48-hour notice requirement concerning new items of business that was adopted by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs at its organization meeting on March 12, 1996. I would encourage members involved in committee work to bear in mind that such internal rules and procedures should not be crafted in such a way as to diminish the role of substitute members whose ability to fully function in the committee is a status conferred on them by the House.
[Translation]
There have been difficulties with the understanding of rules and practices regarding substitute members of committees and this is why I found this a suitable opportunity to give my views on the matter.
(1010)
[English]
In the past I have referred to the longstanding practice of the House that the Speaker will not intervene in procedural matters arising in committee. Bearing in mind what I have said, I trust that the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and the hon. member for Fraser Valley East can reach some accommodation in this particular matter. I hope that my statement
today will be of assistance to members and everyone concerned with the work of committees.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
That, in relation to the Orders of Reference adopted by the Senate on March 21, 1996 and on June 19, 1996, and by the House of Commons on March 12, 1996 and June 19, 1996, the reporting date of the Special Joint Committee on a Code of Conduct be extended to Friday, December 13, 1996;[English]
That, if the House is not sitting when the final report of the committee is completed, the report be deposited with the Clerk of the House of Commons and shall thereupon be deemed to have been presented to the House of Commons; and
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House for these purposes.The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands have the consent of the House for the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is not unanimous consent.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We just received the request from the member for Kingston and the Islands regarding this motion. While unanimous consent has been denied at this point, it is so consultations with colleagues can take place. I would ask if you could seek unanimous consent to waive the usual 48 hour notice and have this motion stand under motions for tomorrow in order for me to have time to consult with my colleagues and grant the approval that the member seeks for the motion.
(1015)
The Deputy Speaker: We are reverting to motions, I take it, if there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent to do as he has proposed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The petitioners call on Parliament to enact legislation to define marriage as the voluntary union between one man and one woman.
I am happy to present that petition.
The petitioners call on the government not to tax books. I am happy to present that petition.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to inform you that I will share my time with the hon. member for Bourassa.
I welcome this opportunity today to respond to the speech from the throne pronounced by the governor general last February, on behalf of the government. How time flies: it has already been eight months since the speech was pronounced.
Nevertheless, today's debate is useful in that with the passing of time, we have a better picture of how the government has acted on its commitments.
As we read the speech from the throne, we notice, for instance, that the government officially set the scene for its post-referendum strategy in dealing with the Quebec government. This strategy, known by everyone as plan B, basically consists in a hardening of the government's position on the freedom of Quebecers to decide on their political future.
In this respect, the governor general said the following, and I quote: ``But 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''.
Considering last year's quasi-victory of the sovereignists in the referendum on October 30 and the way every part of English Canada criticized the role played by the government during the referendum, the latter felt it would be politically more effective to take a hard line. But in fact, the government's strategy of resorting to plan B merely confirms the chronic inability of Canadian federalism to renew itself and to find durable solutions for dealing with Quebec's traditional demands.
A few days before the referendum, when the polls were leaning increasingly to the yes side, the Prime Minister had the fright of his life. He then shook himself out of his legendary torpor in Verdun and went so far as to promise to entrench the distinct identity of Quebec in the Constitution and to give Quebec a veto.
In an article entitled ``The Secret Summit'', published in the October 21 issue of Macleans and excerpted from the forthcoming book Double Vision by two journalists, we read that a few days after the referendum, the Prime Minister had become obsessed by the promise he had made in Verdun to have Quebec recognized as a distinct society.
(1020)
In an attempt to trap Jacques Parizeau's successor, Lucien Bouchard, the Prime Minister developed an ultimately unsuccessful scenario that would allow him to enshrine the distinct society concept in the Constitution. He needed the support of 7 provinces representing at least 50 per cent of the population. In this regard, according to the article in Maclean's, the Prime Minister could count on the support of the premiers of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, but not of course, that of the then premier of Newfoundland, Clyde Wells.
Knowing that the Prime Minister could not count either on the premiers of Alberta and British Columbia, he had to get Ontario's Mike Harris on side.
Maclean's also tells us that, three days after the referendum, the Prime Minister had a secret meeting with Mike Harris so he could explain to him his plan for entrenching the notion of distinct society in the Constitution.
Unfortunately for the Prime Minister, Mike Harris refused to support his post-referendum strategy. Make no mistake: the Prime Minister's main concern was to save the little credibility he had left in Quebec and force our hand so we would accept a meaningless concept.
If the Prime Minister's strategy had worked, that is to say, if Mike Harris had decided to support him, the blame would, of course, have been laid at Lucien Bouchard's door.
When his strategy failed, the Prime Minister tried to save face with regard to his last-minute referendum commitments in Verdun by passing, in December 1995, a simple parliamentary resolution stating-it was more like wishful thinking-that Quebec is a distinct society, and a bill giving Quebec and Canada's four other regions the right of veto with the effect of further reducing the likelihood that the Constitution will ever be amended.
Since then, the Prime Minister has repeated at every opportunity that he would like to enshrine these two measures in the Constitution, but is prevented from doing so by Quebec's sovereignist
government. We have since come to realize that the argument raised by the Prime Minister is nothing but a smoke screen.
In fact, two weeks ago, the Prime Minister, exasperated by all this, said on the French-language all-news channel that he had done enough in this area and now wanted to focus his efforts on economic issues.
After inflaming the situation, the Prime Minister would rather bury the whole constitutional issue, knowing full well that any amendment to the Constitution that would deal specifically with Quebec would not received the necessary support from the other provinces.
Consequently, this week, the Minister of Justice told us he was contemplating asking that the Supreme Court to define what would be involved if Quebec were considered a distinct society, if the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs cannot achieve a consensus on this issue in the next few months.
It is as though this government cannot make a move without seeking the opinion of the Supreme Court. In September, the matter of the legality of Quebec's sovereignty was referred to the Supreme Court. Now, they are considering asking the Supreme Court to define the concept of distinct society.
This going to the Supreme Court all the time to settle what are essentially political issues is cause for concern. By constantly referring matters to the Supreme Court, the government is simply shirking its responsibilities.
Need I remind the House that Confederation as we know it was a compromise between two founding peoples, the French speaking one being found mainly in Quebec. These two peoples entered into a confederal agreement where the various political entities, that is to say the provinces, have delegated certain powers to the central government.
(1025)
This solemn agreement between the two peoples has always been perceived, at least in Quebec, as something that cannot be changed without the consent of both parties. This agreement was breached at the time of the patriation of the Constitution by the federal government in 1982.
On May 15, 1980, before the Quebec referendum on sovereignty-association, the Prime Minister of the day, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, had made it clear that voting no in the referendum would be interpreted as voting yes to renewing Canadian federalism.
Instead, two years later, the Constitution was patriated and a charter of rights incorporated in the Constitution, all without the consent of Quebec. The principle whereby all Canadians from coast to coast are equal, a right guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, precludes the specific recognition of Quebec as a society in the Constitution. Similarly, the principle of multiculturalism has been entrenched in the Constitution, while Canada's duality and Quebec's distinctiveness were not. The 1982 constitutional changes, which were implemented despite Quebec's persistent opposition, reflect the contempt in which the government of the day held Quebec.
It is obvious from the constitutional debates over the past three decades, and more recently, the failure of Meech and Charlottetown, that there is no hope of the renewal of federalism being in line with the best interests of Quebec. The five conditions set out in the Meech Lake accord, the least ever requested by a Quebec government, were already enough to make English Canada shudder, and there is every indication that Ottawa-Quebec City relations are going nowhere.
Whether we like it or not, Quebec is still in a catch 22 situation in the federation. Will we realize once and for all that it would be a sheer waste of time, energy and public funds to go down the road of constitutional negotiations again, when these are doomed to fail?
Under the circumstances, it is in the interests of the peoples of Quebec and Canada that all these issues be resolved once and for all. The only solution that will allow our two peoples to thrive is for Quebec to achieve independence. As equal and sovereign partners, they will be able to move on and develop side by side in the best interests of both.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to the throne speech by raising, among other issues, Canada's relations with Latin America and the upcoming visit of the Chilean president.
Before dealing with the main topic, I want to say that I am very sensitive to and concerned by the tragic situation and the humanitarian disaster taking place in Africa's great lakes region. The international community must immediately take action to help the more than one million refugees in Zaire.
A summit was held in Nairobi two days ago, and eight countries asked for a neutral multinational force to be sent to the region to establish temporary humanitarian corridors and safe havens for refugees. Unfortunately, Rwanda has so far opposed the idea. I urge the federal government to do its utmost to ensure that this humanitarian assistance is sent as soon as possible, and I wish the best of luck to the mission headed by Raymond Chrétien.
In the speech from the throne, we are told that Canada will do everything possible to extend the scope of NAFTA, the North American treaty that includes Canada, the United States and Mexico. We are also told that Canada is committed to establishing priority relations with Latin America.
(1030)
However, efforts to extend NAFTA have so far failed. The heads of state of our continent met in Miami, in December 1994. They decided to invite Chile to join NAFTA. This was two years ago, and no new country has acceded to the treaty.
This past January, Canada and Chile decided to began negotiations on an interim bilateral agreement, to make it easier for Chile to join NAFTA. I expected these negotiations to be very quickly brought to a successful conclusion, but it is still not the case. Chilean president Eduardo Frei was supposed to visit Canada from October 1st to 4th, but the visit was postponed to November 17, 18 and 19, because of the failure to reach an agreement during these negotiations.
As you know, I come from Chile and I attach a great deal of importance to the visit of the Chilean president in the coming days. The president will come to Ottawa and Toronto. I must express my great regret, in this House, that he and his delegation will not be going to Quebec, in spite of the invitation sent by the Quebec premier and his government. I hope the federal government has nothing to do with this decision. At times, I have personally noticed federal interference in Quebec's relations with other countries.
I am pleased that Chile returned to democracy in 1990, after 17 years of dictatorship and systematic violations of human rights. I myself came to Quebec in 1974 because of the hard line dictatorship that had ruled in Chile for 17 years. Today, Chile is a country with a very high rate of growth and has resumed its place within the international community.
Santiago is the headquarters for ECLAC, the prestigious economic commission for Latin America. It has an annual growth of approximately 7 per cent and a population of 14 million. It is the site for an increasing number of international meetings. In the coming days, 21 countries will be meeting in Santiago for the Ibero-American Summit, which includes not just Latin American countries but also Spain and Portugal. This summit will look at economic problems, as well as social and political problems, and the issue of democracy and human rights.
In March of 1977, Chile will also host the summit of heads of state and heads of government of the Americas, which will be attended by approximately 44 countries and in which the Prime Minister of Canada will participate. Chile also belongs to APEC, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum, which will be meeting in Manila in a few weeks and in which the Prime Minister of Canada, the President of Chile and other heads of state and heads of government will take part.
I am also glad to see that relations between Chile and Canada and Quebec are very good. They are at the highest level in all areas of the economy and trade. Last year, the Prime Minister of Canada visited Chile and other Latin American countries. Fortunately, Canada finally decided to join OAS, the Organization of American States, in 1990.
Quebec has very close ties with Latin America. We share many fraternal ties of friendship based on our common Latin heritage. Relations are intensifying.
(1035)
Former Liberal minister, Charles Caccia, went to Chile. Bernard Landry also visited that country in late August and early September. The Canadian Chilean community, which numbers 35,000 throughout the country, with concentrations in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, is very pleased and satisfied with this visit, a first. No Chilean head of state or head of government has visited Canada for at least 50 years.
We were expecting this bilateral trade agreement to be signed. However, all signs so far are that it will not be, because negotiations have been more difficult than foreseen. There are still a few details to be worked out. I do not think these problems will be resolved in the next ten days.
However, a social security agreement will be signed during this visit between Chile and Canada, providing benefits in the form of disability pensions for the surviving spouses of individuals who have worked in both countries, Chileans who worked in Chile and who are now here, or Canadians who are now working in Chile. This is an agreement I have been pushing for since Chile's return to democracy. It is an agreement that also, in my view, meets the aspirations of the Chilean community in Canada. I hope that Canada will sign other such agreements with other countries, such as El Salvador and Guatemala, which have sent many of their nationals here.
But I also regret that, since the president is not coming to Quebec, the social security agreement between Quebec and Chile will not be signed this time, although there are 10,000 Chileans, 10,000 Quebecers of Chilean origin, living in that province who would like to see it signed as soon as possible.
Today the exchange of goods and services is being liberalized on this continent. Canadian investments in Latin America are increasing daily, eight billion dollars in Chile alone, primarily in the area of mines, forestry and communications.
There are still problems to be resolved, however. Many Latin American countries complain about how complicated it is to get a visitor's visa to come here. This is the case for Central America. The problem is greater there because Canada does not have ambassadorial representation in some Central American countries, such as Honduras, Nicaragua and El Salvador.
This is a problem, because people have to travel to apply for a visa. I hope that, some day, the Canadian government will be represented by ambassadors in some Latin American countries, because there is a principle of reciprocity in international law which ought to be respected. These are countries, Bolivia for example, which have embassies in Ottawa.
I have said that I was in favour of these efforts toward continental economic integration, but I do have a couple of reservations, because a process of integration should be able to benefit all of the population in the countries concerned, which is not the case at the present time. In Latin America, there is still extreme poverty in many countries, with immense differences between social classes. The great majority of people do not have essential services, sometimes lack housing, do not have access to education, face some very serious problems.
(1040)
What I would like to see in meetings and discussions between Latin America and Canada is for us to also be able to address the problems of poverty, unemployment, underemployment, exclusion and human rights issues. During the Chilean president's visit, I hope that the agenda will include, not only economic questions, investment, exchange of goods and services, but also social, cultural and political questions of concern to the entire Chilean and Canadian population.
I would also like to see this Parliament make more effort to link Canadian and Latin American parliamentarians. Since I was elected to Parliament in 1993, I personally, with the support of my party, the Bloc Quebecois, have made every effort to intensify and strengthen parliamentary relations between Canada and Latin America. I have personally visited Chile and Argentina, Cuba and Central America. I have met many parliamentarians.
I think we have the resources, the capacity to do more. With Mexico, for instance, we have a parliamentary friendship group but we should have a recognized parliamentary association. We have other associations, especially with Europe, the United States and Japan. The parliamentary groups do not have the resources to do anything effective.
As a member of Parliament of Chilean origin, I welcome this visit by President Frei. I hope it will be a successful one. Meetings will take place here in Ottawa between the two governments. I previously noted visits by the Argentine President Carlos Menem, by President Zedillo of Mexico and Central American presidents. I hope the Canadian government will invite other heads of state and government leaders. We share the same continent. We have common problems, and we should have more extensive relations.
Here in Ottawa, I often met the ambassadors from Latin America. We speak the same language. Sometimes they do not have a very good understanding of the political, legal and constitutional structure of this country, because in Latin America, generally speaking, all states are centralized. For instance, they do not realize that if they want to conclude an agreement on social security, they also have to negotiate with Quebec, separately from Canada, because social security is a shared jurisdiction. The provinces in Canada have a great deal of autonomy. We have to make the effort, and whenever I have a chance, I try to explain the situation in Canada to them. I also explain the situation in Quebec.
I think the federal government has sent the wrong message to Latin America by saying that Canada is a united and homogeneous country. It has emphasized Canadian unity without ever informing the international community that Quebec has legitimate aspirations, that it wants to use democratic means to become a sovereign country, and that this is legitimate. The United Nations have recognized more than 25 countries during the past ten years. There is nothing anti-democratic about what Quebec and Quebecers are doing.
Again, I hope this visit by the Chilean president will help expand relations that are already very good between Canada and Chile, and between Chile and Quebec.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Bourassa for his lesson. His presentation was very precise, and he did a very good job of explaining the new North American trade context as well as the importance of relations with Chile.
(1045)
I would like to ask him a question in a different vein. According to the throne speech, which we are debating today, the Canada Labour Code was to be reviewed so as to meet the demands of Canadian workers and employers. This week, in my opinion, the Minister of Labour gave birth to a mouse when, in the document he tabled, he refused to include real antiscab regulations in the revised Canada Labour Code.
I know about the hon. member for Bourassa's past experience in the area of labour relations. I would like him to explain what was the impact in Quebec of this antiscab legislation that regularized labour relations and helped reduce the number of days lost to conflicts. Is there a way of making the federal government understand how relevant such a measure is by looking at Quebec's experience? I know there is similar legislation in British Columbia.
Are we then not justified in saying that the federal government's actions show it is not fulfilling the mandate it gave itself in the throne speech? In the final analysis, in this area as in many others, all it did was engage in wishful thinking. Could the hon. member
for Bourassa comment on this to try to convince the members opposite that the bill that was introduced in this House does not go far enough?
Mr. Nunez: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question of my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup as it deals with an extremely important issue.
In the speech from the throne, the government promised a complete overhaul of the Canada Labour Code. It was long in coming, but just a few days ago, a bill was finally introduced. Unfortunately, it does not contain any real anti-strikebreaking provisions.
Parliament has been looking at this for many years. Across Canada, there are more than 700,000 workers under federal jurisdiction, subject to the Canada Labour Code, who are not protected by anti-strikebreaking provisions like workers in Quebec, British Columbia and, until just a few months ago, Ontario. The Conservative government of Ontario abolished this protection.
In Quebec, since the anti-strikebreaking legislation was introduced in 1977, labour disputes are no longer as violent and tend to get settled more quickly. Today, we enjoy unprecedented social peace in Quebec.
Having been involved in the labour movement for 19 years, I know this area pretty well. I even introduced a bill of my own containing very specific anti-strikebreaking provisions. I hope that, when the time comes, we can count on the support and co-operation of this government. While many Liberal members are quite sensitive to this issue, all the Minister of Labour actually told us is that anti-strikebreaking provisions may be included, but would apply only when an employer tries to break the union.
This would be extremely hard to prove. How can one tell that the employer intends to break the union? You cannot prove that. This provision will have no immediate, concrete impact on labour relations.
This is a most unfortunate shortcoming, which will hopefully be remedied through amendments to this bill, when it is considered at committee stage. I do hope the government will reconsider and include real anti-strikebreaking provisions in the Canada Labour Code.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for those watching the debates in the House of Commons this morning I would like to once again say that this morning we are engaging in debate and comment on the government's speech from the throne which was presented nearly a year ago but which comes up on the Order Paper from time to time.
The speech from the throne was about 13 pages and dealt with a number of areas where the government made representations to
Canadian citizens that it would deal with those areas and how it would deal, what measures it would put into place.
(1050 )
I would like to use my time this morning to address the area of justice and public safety and how it was dealt with in the speech from the throne. I would also like to make some comments where I believe and we believe this country needs to be going in this important area.
The speech from the throne dealt with the area of justice with one short paragraph of 7 lines in a 13 page document. I hope that does not indicate to Canadians the emphasis, importance and priority this government places on public safety.
However, in those seven lines we find very little substance and no specifics at all. These seven lines deal with the non-violent character of our country, stating that because our country is non-violent citizens are secure. I guess the government has not been looking at some of the recent trends in crime. In fact, violent crime has tripled since 1962. Crimes against property have skyrocketed during the same period. Violent crimes, most disturbingly, by young offenders have increased 244 per cent from 1980 to 1993 alone.
Statistics Canada, which is an arm of the government itself, estimates that fully 90 per cent of sexual assaults are not reported, that 68 per cent of other assaults are not reported and 53 per cent of robberies are not reported.
When we talk to Canadians across the country as elected representatives it becomes increasingly clear that Canadians no longer feel secure in what the government is pleased to term the non-violent character of our country.
We do need to get serious and take a serious look at measures that can provide safe homes and safe streets for the citizens of this country.
The government is trying to find ways to keep people out of prison and out of contact with the justice system. I would suggest that whatever measures are being put in place are not effective. It talks about reforming criminal procedures to better serve the victims of crimes. That is a goal I think all Canadians would agree with. Unfortunately, the Liberal record does not square with that very laudable goal.
In fact, if we look at the major bills that have been introduced by this government we see some very disturbing trends that continue to emphasize the rights and considerations being given to criminals and law breakers instead of really looking at how victims can be given a greater standing and consideration in the justice system.
If we look at five of the major bills that have been put forward in the justice area by the justice minister, I think we need to very
quickly assess the efficiency and effectiveness with which government has kept promises to Canadians made in the throne speech.
First there was Bill C-41 which purported to deal with hate crimes and put more emphasis on what was in the mind of the perpetrator of a crime, the criminal, rather than the effect on the victim. We say that assault is equally wrong regardless of who was assaulted or for what reason. If someone beats a person up it hurts. They need to have redress. There needs to be protection. This emphasis on what was in the mind of the criminal surely is of no comfort or help to Canadians whose rights and safety have been breached.
We then have Bill C-45 which again continued to leave in place a provision of the Criminal Code which allows a cold blooded murderer to be let back out on the streets after serving only 15 years of his or her sentence. In fact, the sentence that is handed down for premeditated, cold blooded murder is life in prison. However, after only 15 years murderers can apply to have early parole and are very often successful when they do apply. Again we see that victims of crime, their families and friends come second to the extra considerations that are given to murderers.
(1055)
Bill C-53 dealt with temporary passes from prison. It quadrupled the time that criminals could be absent from prison. One person described the bill as giving criminals an opportunity to apply for a two month vacation from prison for whatever reason, for example shopping trips. In some cases individuals who are out of custody have committed further crimes.
Bill C-55 is the government's centrepiece legislation to deal with violent offenders and to get tougher with them. Unfortunately there are many flaws in the bill which have been debated in the House at some length. Violent offenders will still be released back into society with only minimal supervision.
In addition, Bill C-55 includes a rather bizarre and very troubling provision. Citizens who have been neither charged nor convicted of any criminal offence can be monitored electronically. Once again we have a government that shies away from strong measures to protect society while it allows for more government intrusiveness into the lives of law-abiding citizens who have not been convicted of any law breaking activities.
We had the same problem with Bill C-68, the so-called gun control bill. It controls law-abiding citizens while it does little or nothing to stem the tide and the growing use of illegally obtained firearms.
In spite of the nice words in the seven lines of the throne speech about public safety, the government's record is dismal.
It is not right to criticize measures unless good alternatives can be proposed, which is why I am pleased to put before the House the Reform Party's measures to increase public safety, to ensure the safety of our families and communities in this country.
We would first enact a victims bill of rights. We have provisions for such a bill which have already been put before the House. We have urged the government to enact those provisions. Victims, innocent citizens, law-abiding citizens of this country should get the top consideration. However, the Liberal government has quite a different philosophy on public safety.
In 1971 the Liberal solicitor general stood up in this very House and said: ``We are going to put the rehabilitation of individuals ahead of the protection of society''. That philosophy is continued in present Liberal bills. Victims are second and criminal rights and considerations are first. Canadians are tired of that. They want a whole shift. They want the justice system changed so that the protection of society, the protection of law-abiding innocent citizens, is number one. That is exactly what should be done.
We would repeal the universal firearms registry enacted by this government and replace it with meaningful laws to control guns and to fight the criminal use of firearms.
We would replace the Young Offenders Act. As we are all aware, in the past 20 to 25 years youth crime has shyrocketed. It is a very troubling aspect of our society. Young people themselves are the greatest victims of this increase in youth crime. Many young Canadians do not feel safe in our schools and communities. We can see examples of this over and over again. Something needs to be done about this. We need to deal with this issue seriously and the Reform Party is proposing measures to do that. We believe that young criminals must be held accountable for their actions in this society.
(1100)
We would also reform the parole system and abolish the early release of first degree murderers. We would also pave the way for a national referendum on the return of capital punishment. Many citizens are concerned that there is not a strong enough signal being sent to law breakers in this country, particularly to cold blooded murderers, that we will not tolerate that kind of victimization of innocent members of our society.
We need to look at the specifics of how the past approaches to justice measures have been ineffective in protecting our society. In 1991 Brian Mulroney's Conservative government introduced new gun control measures. At that time the auditor general criticized those measures because they lacked the necessary background data or evaluation process to really show whether there would be any potential benefits for such legislation. In other words, when measures are put into place by governments, they should have some objective criteria to measure how effective those measures
are going to be in light of the cost and in light of the fact that we are dealing with the lives, property and freedoms of our citizens.
To compound what was already a flawed process, in 1995 this Liberal justice minister introduced Bill C-68. This bill put into place a universal firearms registry that included shotguns and rifles. Of course the registration of handguns has been in place for over 60 years.
The majority of the federal Tory senators who had put the 1991 measures into place supported Bill C-68. Their leader, the member for Sherbrooke, did not show up for the vote on this measure in the House of Commons.
We in the Reform Party were the only ones who actively opposed the registration of shotguns and rifles. We have done so consistently. It is very clear to us that this universal firearms registry will squander already scarce law enforcement resources, time and money. Our law enforcement officers will now spend incredibly more time shuffling paper instead of fighting real crime.
Our opposition to this registry should not be interpreted as being anti-gun control. Every citizen in this country and certainly myself and other members of my caucus believe we must control the criminal use of firearms which threaten the safety of our streets and of our citizens. We have a very tough zero tolerance policy for criminal offences involving firearms.
The waste of money and resources involved in a universal registry for law-abiding citizens is something we oppose. We believe in the long term it will only hurt our goal of public safety which is the goal of our citizens. We want to see that goal reached in effective ways, not in the ways this government has brought in.
The prison system as well needs to be looked at. We have some proposals to make it a more effective instrument of both rehabilitation and deterrence. In most Canadian prisons for example inmates are not required to work. They are also provided with taxpayer funded amenities which many of our citizens cannot hope to enjoy.
This week my colleague from Fraser Valley West mentioned an older couple in his riding. The wife is in dire need of dental treatment. They were unable to save the amount necessary for the wife to get that treatment. Yet criminals are given such treatment routinely at no cost to them. Something is wrong with that picture.
(1105)
At some correctional facilities inmates even have access to golf courses, pool tables, cable television and extensive workout equipment. They qualify for free counselling, full medical and dental coverage, free university education and legal aid.
Many young people in our country are worried about whether they will be able to afford the necessary training and university education in order to have secure jobs and a good future. Tuition fees are rising and student loan burdens for graduates are growing. We therefore have to look at the priorities of a government which provides those kinds of free services to law breakers.
In Canada inmates even have the right to vote. These people have flouted the law. They have victimized law-abiding innocent people in our society. They still have all the rights and privileges of citizenship. They even have amenities and services which taxpaying law-abiding citizens cannot afford. Something needs to be done about this.
With respect to the Young Offenders Act, youth account for more robberies than those in the next two older age groups. In 1991 youth were charged with a full 18,000 violent offences, twice as much as five years ago. In fact, violent crime by young offenders increased in all categories between 1986 and 1994. Homicide was up 36 per cent. Sexual assault was up 16 per cent. Aggravated assault was up 78 per cent. Robbery was up a whopping 131 per cent. We need to seriously address this problem.
The Reform Party would replace the ineffective Young Offenders Act with measures which would truly hold young people accountable for crime. It is a small minority of youth. Most of the youth are upstanding citizens working hard to build a future for themselves and to gain the skills necessary to have a strong future. They should not be put to shame by the small minority which flouts the law virtually without consequence.
The key to crime prevention is to strengthen families and communities rather than to rely exclusively on the judicial, parole and prison systems. When it comes to young offenders this means supporting the introduction of programs for the early detection and prevention of youth crime and the introduction of more effective rehabilitation measures and measures to support education and literacy, skills training, discipline and community service.
We would also shift the balance from the rights of the accused to the rights of the victim and law-abiding citizens. As I said, we would replace the Young Offenders Act. We would redefine young offenders as 10 to 15 years of age. We would also permit the publication of names of all convicted violent young offenders. Serious offenders 14 to 15 years of age or any offender over 16 would be tried in adult court.
A Reform government would repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code which allows for the early release of first degree murderers. We would also ensure that violent offenders served their entire sentence, that repeat violent offenders would be declared dangerous offenders and that all parole would be tightly monitored and earned.
These are measures which Canadians are asking for. They are common sense measures. They are designed to send a clear signal to law breakers that we will not tolerate the violation of the rights of innocent citizens. I urge the government to replace the vague
seven line paragraph in the throne speech with some of these real effective measures which the Reform Party is proposing.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the hon. member from the Reform Party. A debate on the throne speech provides ample opportunity to find flaws in the way the government is following up on the concerns of Canadians.
(1110)
The Reform member spoke at length about crime-related issues. However, two things must be considered when dealing with the issue of crime. It seems to me that the hon. member overlooked one of these aspects, and I am going to ask her, in a few minutes, to give me her thoughts and beliefs regarding this aspect.
The hon. member focused primarily on what happens once a crime has been committed, including the resulting problems for victims. However, she was silent on how to ensure that some crimes are not committed, and thus avoid having victims. As you know, for some time now and increasingly so, the federal government has been withdrawing its financial support to the provinces in the fields of education, health and welfare, with the result that some young people no longer have the support they need to start off on the right foot in life.
It goes without saying that, later on, if these young people turn to crime, and some may even commit sordid acts, there are going to be victims. These victims deserve our compassion, and so do their families and friends.
However, it would have been better to prevent the offender from turning to crime and thus avoid having victims. Until recently, the federal government assumed major responsibilities in terms of financial support to the provinces in the areas of education, health and welfare. By withdrawing its support, it has left the provinces in a tight situation and some are hard hit. Think of Ontario. And these provinces must now make major cuts, leaving segments of the population disadvantaged or in need of assistance. However, there will no longer be any help for these people.
We know that, in certain cases, not all, most of the poor are honest folk, but this does not help young people get off to a good start, and the statistics are there to prove it. In certain cases, unfortunately, these people are drawn into a life of crime. The federal government therefore has a role to play here when taxpayers' money is involved. We are talking about prevention. The federal government no longer assumes this role, or is doing so less and less, to the great detriment of the provinces.
Would not my hon. colleague from the Reform Party agree with me that this federal disinvestment also impacts on the crime rate,
and that the federal government should therefore not focus solely on resolving problems after the fact, but should take greater action before the fact, which would be much safer for the people of Canada?
[English]
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I noticed that my colleague was actually listening to my speech, which was very pleasing to me. I appreciate that. I know how busy members are sometimes and we are not able to pay attention to every intervention, but I appreciate the fact that you did and you raise excellent points.
In my speech I did touch on the whole area of prevention. I agree with you that it is something we need to look at.
(1115)
The Deputy Speaker: Would the hon. member please pretend the remarks are going through the Chair?
Mrs. Ablonczy: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I do not know how I could have left you out of this equation, it was most improper. Please accept my apologizes.
Mr. Speaker, I did touch in my intervention on the whole matter of prevention. I agree with my colleague that it is most important. I had a discussion with some police officers in Calgary a few months ago and they told me they can tell as early as five years of age if an individual may be predisposed to a life of crime and law breaking. I found that very interesting. When my colleague suggests there can be early detection and prevention of a tendency toward criminal activity, that is borne out by some of the things I have heard and read.
Reform members believe there should be support for the introduction of programs for the early detection and prevention of youth crime. There needs to be more effective rehabilitation programs, not just to put people away or put them in a closed facility for a period of time, but to have that time spent in activities that emphasize education, literacy and skills training. These people would then have a better opportunity to become productive members of society rather than otherwise. There should be an emphasis on discipline and community service.
Reform believes that the key to crime prevention is to strengthen families and communities rather just relying exclusively on the judicial parole and prison systems.
I would say two things in reply to my colleague's concern with regard to the decreased funding for the support of these kinds of activities. The Reform Party opposes such measures as a universal registry of every law-abiding citizen's firearms. This is a very ineffective deployment of scarce resources when every dollar is
needed for the kinds of programs that will help to give us safety. However, those dollars are going to activities that simply cause problems for law-abiding citizens and take away law prevention and enforcement time. Reform opposes that.
Second, this is why the Reform Party has kept saying that governments cannot continue to borrow. The government's interest bill when it took office three years ago was only $38 billion-I should not say only, that is a lot of money-and today it is $48 billion. In three short years we have lost $10 billion to interest to lenders. That could have gone toward the kinds of programs that my colleague and I have been speaking about: to prevent crime, to detect crime early and to seriously assist people to become law-abiding citizens rather than lawbreakers. We have to get government spending under control so we do not continually have the resources that we need for these important programs eroded.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the enlightened words of my colleague on helping get young people off on the right track and on prevention. This is a topic dear to my own heart as well.
For every dollar we invest, the government invests, in prevention, scores of dollars would not have to be invested in the administration of justice, and in incarceration, further down the road.
It costs about $100,000 a year to keep someone in a federal penitentiary--an astronomical sum. Helping a young person in difficulty, however, costs only a few thousand. What extraordinary savings could be realized, then, by putting our money in the right place.
I would like to know whether my colleague from the Reform Party shares my point of view.
(1120)
[English]
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, the member makes a very important point, a point to which we need to listen. We talk a lot about dealing with crime after the fact. We do not talk enough about prevention and assistance to our young people especially. I am in complete agreement with the hon. member.
We need to more seriously focus on that area of the justice system. I thank him for bringing forward those points.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue the debate today on the subject of the government's throne speech some months ago. I can tell from the enthusiasm in the House today that it is still a topic of interest and that members are looking at lots of issues.
I would like to touch on four separate elements of the throne speech and the government's current program that arose from or were referred to in the throne speech.
The first area is that of economic opportunity and jobs. This has been a theme of governments for many years and it will probably always be so. The government had mapped out a game plan on being elected in 1993 and the economic opportunity program continued with this throne speech.
Everyone in the House will agree that the issue of jobs is a function of economics. Governments simply cannot go out with a bucket of money, pour it into a particular city or region and hope that jobs will accrue. That is not what happens. The creation of jobs is something that happens when the rubber hits the road, when the business person decides to hire, decides to invest in a new production facility and sells more product. Where all of those business functions are positive that is when jobs are created.
What is the government doing to foster the economic conditions that give rise to those jobs? There are several indicators. In fact there are hundreds of indicators. Of the most important ones I have selected four where the indicators are showing very positive economic progress, the kind that gives rise to job creation. They are not in any particular order.
Canada's current account, the balance of moneys moving in and out of the country, has entered positive territory for the first time in many years. That was tough to turn around. When the government was elected in 1993 there were many who thought the circumstance was desperate. I am very pleased to see that we now have current account surpluses in existence. In the most recent quarter and in future economic quarters and years we project a continuing current account surplus.
This of course has a very positive effect on the Canadian dollar which has moved recently over the 75 cent U.S. mark and which economists predict is going to continue to appreciate. While that sounds great, I know there are exporters in Canada who are not always comfortable as the dollar appreciates because that means their Canadian goods and services are more expensive for outside Canadian purchasers.
The second area is a prominent one. It is the battle to eliminate the deficit. I do not think there is anyone in the House who could deny the substantial progress that the government under the leadership of the finance minister has made toward the elimination of the deficit. We are now in 2 per cent of GDP territory. The objective for the following fiscal period is now targeted at 1 per cent of GDP.
In approximately the second quarter of 1998 the government will have zero cash borrowing requirements. We simply will not have any new borrowing needs for current operations. We will have to continue to recycle the government debt, but that is a very significant point. Perhaps I should not be projecting, but the economic models are showing no new borrowing in approximately the second quarter of 1998.
(1125)
If we were in one of the other G7 countries, France, U.S.A., Germany and Great Britain, the government accounts are measured differently from the way we do it in Canada. If we measured our public accounts the way they measure theirs I could stand here and say we would have no deficit in the second quarter of 1998. However, we measure our government finances differently.
We cannot change it now because we will all get the sense that we are cooking the books and changing the rules. Therefore, we will keep our unique Canadian way and aim for the elimination of the deficit based on the Canadian measuring sticks. I think we are headed toward approximately 1999 or 2000. These issues are up to Canadians who spend money, Canadians who pay taxes and the finance minister who has his hands on the purse strings.
The last indicator of economic prosperity has to be interest rates. It was only yesterday that I noted that mortgage interest rates were publicly advertised now at 5.4 per cent. We have not seen interest rates like that since roughly the end of the last war.
I can recall in my previous incarnation, prior to being an elected member of the House, meeting people who had one of these old 30-year, CMHC mortgages with interest rates of around 5 per cent, 6 per cent and 7 per cent. Those mortgages would have been amortized and maturing approximately at the end of the 1970s and beginning of the 1980s. I remember people saying: ``We will never see those kinds of interest rates again, never. Those are part of history''. Here we are in 1996 looking at those kinds of interest rates again.
The point I would make is that, as Canadians, we can be seen to actually be in control of interest rates. We are able to do things in government that directly affect interest rates. Maybe we never believed we could to that before but now we see that we can do it because we did it. I think we can take credit for all that we have done. It was not just a decision of the finance minister. It was not just a decision of a bank. It was a whole constellation of political decisions and acceptance by Canadians of a fiscal program that would enable these interest rates to reduce.
I want to leave economics now and go into the area of trust of government. I served in the 34th Parliament and I know that my first two weeks in this place the House had to deal with a matter involving trust. It was my first intervention in this place in 1989. I think it is fair to say that in the last two, three or four years there has been a lot fewer incidents where material issues of public trust have been taken up in this House. I do not want to suggest that there are never any. There are always some.
However, in terms of material issues of public trust, I am very confident that the Prime Minister has shown us a standard which we can comfortably follow, hopefully for many years. I know I am proud to follow that standard and I think Canadians believe that.
I think public polls, where various types of questions are asked, indicate that Canadians are beginning to have a sense of trust in government, not in the sense that government can do everything, it never could and just cannot, but in their sense of confidence in the integrity at least of this Prime Minister and this government's high standards. I know, the cabinet knows and I think members opposite know what those standards are. I think we are doing a much better job of meeting those standards.
(1130)
One way which we show that we are meeting the standards falls under the rubric of accountability. Journalists write about, politicians speak about, Canadians ask about it. This government has made a very real attempt to be directly accountable. It is a very big manifestation.
When I sought election to the House as a Liberal member I ran on the policies in the red book. I used it in my campaign and in much of what I do and what I vote on here and sometimes what I speak about. The Prime Minister and the cabinet are following what is in the red book and proof of that was the decision of the Prime Minister a couple of week ago to publish what he and his cabinet and the government have accomplished in delivering on the red book promises.
Some people viewed that as political grandstanding. To be sure, it was political. However, it was an attempt to account to Canadians for what the government had accomplished vis-a-vis the red book. Individuals may disagree with the score card and may say we have done 8 out of the 10 things but there are still two remaining. That is fair. This was intended to say that by our account we have fulfilled 78 per cent of the commitments of the red book and we still have approximately another year left in our mandate. Every week, every month there are announcements and decisions by the government which continue to improve the record of accountability. I am proud of that.
I realize that at some time I will have to account to my electors in Scarborough-Rouge River for only scoring 86 per cent of 87 per cent. In this modern complex world I challenge any institution, any government or corporation, whether it be a hospital, a school or a commercial entity, to deliver 100 per cent on anything as the years unfold. Do not forget, we are dealing with government which is very complex and very broad. I am very comfortable with the process of accounting.
Another little element of this, one little snapshot of where I believe the Prime Minister and the government have shown they are more accountable is in the innovation of the government's decision to put in place a commissioner to oversee the activities of the Communications Security Establishment, a signals intelligence agency with a high degree of capability of eavesdropping. This agencies has carried on since the second world war with out any
legislative mandate and without any accountability mechanism, as far as I have been able to determine. There certainly was a minister in the House, but rarely if ever were there any question put in the House on this subject. Even more rarely were answers given.
Now a former judge has been appointed, and the accountability mechanism there to assist Parliament, sharing accountability, was an innovation which was not there before. I am very proud to be part of a government that was bold enough to address that issue.
(1135)
Third, what has happened in the region I represent in terms of the throne speech? What has the government delivered? What has the throne speech done? My riding of Scarborough-Rouge River is part of the greater Toronto area. It is difficult to look at a particular riding in that area in isolation.
However, I know that the financial community on Bay Street likes what this government has done, what it has delivered. I know that for the second year in a row, Canada's exports are hitting record highs. Never before have we exported as much as we have recently, which means jobs for Canadians.
Never before have I as a Canadian felt so plugged into the world. From my riding and from the GTA I see goods and services being exported from Canada to all parts of the world. Now there is no part of the world in which Canadians are not marketing, selling, building, advising. It is really a treat to see this happening. We have a lot of Canadians with a lot of abilities who are working in that area.
Rouge Valley Park is a unique 5,000 acre green preserve within metropolitan Toronto. The federal government has done its part. It has delivered on its funding commitment. We are very proud that the Rouge Valley Park alliance is moving ahead with the co-operation of all the other levels of government, provincial, municipal, metro and the regional conservation authority, to accomplish its objectives.
The Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence and the GTA caucus are dedicated to taking a piece of the Downsview air base and turning it into green space and other positive infrastructure for the GTA.
The commercialization of the Toronto airport is now proceeding. The carpet has been ripped up; the doors at the entrance to terminal II, which never worked, have finally been replaced; a new tower is being constructed; a new runway is being constructed; the other runways have been repaired. Millions of dollars in investment are going into the Pearson airport which is a huge economic entity. It is the gateway to central Canada and for many people around the world it is the gateway to Canada.
One of the things visitors to Toronto will see is the new trade centre which is being constructed on the Canadian National Exhibition grounds. The centre is a product of the federal-provincial infrastructure program, a federal program contained in the red book. This huge attractive trade centre will be open shortly. Canadians will market our goods and services to the entire world through this trade centre. We will compete with trade centres globally. There are some great centres out there, just as the GTA trade centre will be.
I cannot talk about the throne speech without mentioning national unity. The government has a program which has been debated in the House. We want to modernize the federation in little bites because we have found the big bite is too much for Canadians, too much for this House. We have not been able to do it in big chunks. We are working on that in many areas, co-operation federally and provincially, avoiding duplication, job training, environmental protection, a national securities commission, which I think is an excellent objective, and dealing with partitionists in Quebec who would partition Canada. Some are called separatists, some are called secessionists.
(1140 )
This is a matter that has to be addressed and will continue to be addressed maybe for another 100 years. However, I believe that Canadians and Quebecers are going to be able to deal with this issue, as tough as it is. We have to give a lot of elbow room to all the provinces, including Quebec, so that each of the groupings across the country can achieve their goals as a region or as a province. I am confident that this government, under this Prime Minister, will be able to accomplish this objective and all others.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know where to begin. We are having a lively debate on the throne speech which was presented nine months ago. The government must have pretty thin legislation to offer this up for debate today. It should be an embarrassment to the government.
The hon. member painted a rosy picture about all the great and wonderful things that are happening in this country. He tied them into trust. I would like to talk about trust a bit. I believe that looking at some of the truths is also important.
It is true that when the Liberals were in opposition they opposed the NAFTA and free trade itself. In fact they had a leader who ran on a platform against free trade. There was a red book promise that the NAFTA would not be approved until the dispute settlement mechanism was revisited. That would have avoided the unneces-
sary nasty deal that was recently negotiated on softwood lumber. That is not good news.
In opposition the Liberals complained incessantly about the philosophy of the governor of the Bank of Canada, Crow, and his anti-inflation policy. When the Liberals were in opposition they were against that. Now they are taking the credit. It was that policy of the Bank of Canada which toed the tough line when it was necessary and it was the right thing to do. Canadians knew it, but the Liberals did not know it in opposition. They were against it.
Now they are taking credit for low interest rates. Now they are taking credit for the expansion of exports. That is what is expanding the economy. Domestic growth is nil. When interest rates are really low, that is a sign of failure. That means that the economy has stalled. They should not be patting themselves on their backs.
The banks and all lenders want to lower their rates to induce people to borrow. Why? Because they are not borrowing. We should talk about the other side of the story.
The Liberals are saying that in two years from now, when our deficit is only $9 billion, there will be no new borrowing. We will have a balanced budget because of the way in which the countries which belong to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development measure their deficits.
Consider this logic. We will have a $9 billion deficit. The hon. member said that when we hit that single digit level we will have a balanced budget. There will be no new borrowing. Where are they going to get $9 billion? They are going to borrow it from the civil service pension fund. That is a loan. That is a debt. They should not be telling Canadians that there will no longer be deficit financing or borrowing. That is a distortion of the truth. I am embarrassed that the finance minister is talking that way and letting the Prime Minister get away with things like that. It is cooking the books. It is saying that they broke the back of the deficit when they are not coming clean with the Canadian public.
Let us do that. Let us say that we have a $9 billion deficit. We are going to borrow it from the civil service pension fund, but we will have a balanced budget. That is not true.
This government brags about the steps it took and the spending cuts it made. It will be sad when the member goes back to his riding to seek re-election. I am going to submit that it is his government which is responsible for the nurses who are losing their jobs and for the teachers who are losing their jobs. Who reduced spending for education and health care by $7 billion? The government. Who has to live with it? The provincial governments, and these guys are patting themselves on the back and blaming the provinces for doing a poor job. Excuse me. That is a sorry way to run a country. It is a poor excuse for taking responsibility and telling the truth to Canadians.
(1145)
Spending to the provinces by this government has been reduced by 42 per cent. Spending on its own federal administrative costs is only about 1.3 per cent. Tell me how all these spending reductions were made. On the backs of the provinces and the government is bragging about it.
I just wanted to comment for about five minutes. I will allow an equal five minutes for the hon. member to comment. But that is the other side of the story. It is the complete picture. That is what we have to look at here: both sides of the story. The hon. member can comment.
Mr. Lee: Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed to hear all the doom and gloom from the other side. Things are not nearly as bad as the hon. member makes them out to be.
His comment that low interest rates signal a collapsed economy is laughable. Perhaps the member would have visited Japan a couple of years ago and said: ``My goodness, you only have a 6 per cent interest rate. Your economy must be collapsed''. This is a joke. The member does not understand what a low interest rate means. But let us leave that and move on.
The member has suggested that the Liberals did not agree with the Bank of Canada monetary policy in the last decade. There were times when we did not, that is very true. The Bank of Canada policy in targeting an excessively low inflation rate in the range of 1 to 2 per cent, which it was, underbid what the economy was capable of doing. Consequently it caused a prolonged recession.
People are not going to be told that, but that is what happened. The policy chosen by the bank and adopted by the government prolonged and exacerbated the recession of 1991-92. Liberals would have done it another way, just like we found other ways to make cuts in government spending. There is more than one way to skin a cat.
The member thinks that because we thought we could have done a better job with the free trade agreement with the United States of America and with Mexico, that it is a reason for giving up on trading. Canada does not trade just with the United States or just with Mexico; we trade with the world. Our trade with the rest of the world is expanding.
It is simply inappropriate and silly for the member to focus on the free trade agreement as being the function, the common denominator of the current government policy to foster trade with the rest of the world. The free trade agreement simply does not apply to that type of trade. The World Trade Organization rules do and that is where we are putting our money.
The member suggested that it has been a long time since the throne speech, that we must not have very much going on now that is important if we have started discussing a speech that happened nine months ago. I am sure the hon. member will agree with me
that we have been so darn busy dealing with important legislation that we have not had the time or ability to get back to the throne speech, which was a very good throne speech.
Some day the hon. member and his party will thank the Prime Minister and his government for delivering us through, no matter how they count the deficit, to a stable economy.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the Liberal member who happens to be the only Liberal who dared to speak in the House this morning to defend the speech from the throne. None of the others did. He is the first one we have heard from. We have not heard from any members from Quebec.
I would like to ask him whether we, members of the official opposition, are not clear proof that this government has done absolutely nothing about the main problem it is facing. It was elected, and now it has across the way, as the official opposition, a sovereignist party that wants to make Quebec a sovereign state. In the past three and one half years, the government has done absolutely nothing to deal with this question.
(1150)
When you say that you will be glad to go back to your constituents and tell them you got a score of 86 per cent, what are you going to tell them when they say you have done nothing to diminish the impact in Parliament of opposition members who want to completely transform the Canadian entity by turning it into two distinct countries? Do you think Canadians will be proud of the Liberal government's score?
Here is the other question I wanted to ask, very briefly. It is true that interest rates have gone down, but to buy a house today, you need a job. What have you done to ensure that Canadians have jobs?
The Deputy Speaker: Hon. members will please direct their comments to the Chair.
[English]
Mr. Lee: Mr. Speaker, I know where the hon. member is coming from and we all do. He has a role to play in opposition. He is critical of the government because it has not been able to help the opposition in its objectives.
There is no way in the world that this government is going to assist the official opposition in its number one goal of partitioning Canada. I am sorry, I regret that we cannot do that. I am not even sure we could do it legally if we wanted to. I hope he will forgive the government for that.
In terms of modernizing the federation, we have gone some distance. After the referendum last year, the government committed to three separate things and we have delivered or gone down the road to delivering on all three. I know the member opposite will agree that the government has done it. It may not accomplish his list. It may not get Canada dissolved. It may not partition Canada but it does deal with the issue of modernizing the federation.
This government is going to continue to work on that agenda using small bites. If the province of British Columbia has a problem with item X and the province of Quebec has a problem with item Y, the federal government is going to work on it. The federal government always has, provided the provinces communicate and the federal government communicates back. We have seen a lot of progress and I think we will see more.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to speak in this debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne-although this particular speech from the throne goes back to last February-because we now have a better perspective on what the federal government has done in the past six months since it made those promises in the speech from the throne. Today, we are in a better position to evaluate the results.
Last week in committee, I had before me the President of the Treasury Board, who said more or less that the role of government was to meet the expectations of its citizens.
I suggest we evaluate on those terms the government's record on what it promised in the speech from the throne. Did it meet the expectations of its citizens during the past year? Did it meet its objectives, deal with political situations and take corrective action when necessary?
The first item is fighting the deficit. One could say that yes, on the whole they managed to reduce the deficit, at least on the face of it, but in fact, and the hon. member for the Reform Party hit the nail on the head earlier, 42 per cent of the cuts were made in transfer payments to the provinces. This means that today, when we see 50,000 or 60,000 people demonstrating against the provincial government in Ontario, it is largely as a result of these cuts.
Twenty CEGEPs in Quebec are on strike as a result of these federal cuts. The federal government decided to reduce funding in this area because it was easier to cut at the expense of the provinces than to cut closer to home. The most obvious example of this is that this week, the Liberal majority voted against a motion to abolish the Senate.
We spend $43 million a year on the unelected Senate, whose members are appointed for purely partisan reasons. The govern-
ment decided to turn a blind eye to this and continue paying this $43 million but, at the same time, it did not hesitate to cut $1.2 billion from transfer payments to the provinces. Let the provinces deal with their own problems.
That is what the government has done to fight the deficit. So it did not get a passing mark. Clearly, the people of Quebec and Canada are not happy with the results, especially in ridings like mine, where people realize how they hid the fight against the deficit behind UI benefits.
They changed the law, and we will see the results in the coming months. The federal government's day of reckoning has yet to come. It will come when people receive their last UI cheques in February, March or April 1997. They will realize that the reform cut 10, 12, 15 weeks and that they will have to go on social assistance while the UI fund boasts a $5 billion surplus.
(1155)
This is unacceptable. I almost feel like saying it is practically immoral to let people starve while the UI fund is growing. That is the result of the deficit-fighting measures planned in the Liberal government's throne speech.
As for employment, did this government deliver the goods? Two and a half years ago, it campaigned on the following theme: we will create jobs, we will put people back to work. It did create some jobs, but there are still 800,000 fewer jobs than before the 1990 recession.
Above all, the government did not solve the problem of finding jobs for those who are now unemployed. We can put in place every possible measure to improve Canada's competitiveness in technology, and ensure that engineers and technicians have jobs. Fine, that is great. That is the way to go. But the problem today is that, while technologies are being developed, we have all these people with no technical training who are systematically being put out of work, people whom we are unable to retrain so that they can find another job to support themselves and be proud of it. That is the challenge the Liberal government has failed to take on in any way, shape or form. It is riding the wave of economic recovery. The interest rates have gone down. Great, but that does little to improve the situation of those who cannot afford to invest in the economy. When you are 25 years old and jobless, you do not start a family, buy a house and contribute to society, and that does not make you happy.
The federal government should take a lesson from the Quebec economic summit, where, in a show of solidarity, unions, employers, the government and community organizations all agreed on one thing: there must be a clear and precise job creation target. When did this government agree to set a job creation target like the deficit reduction it had set for itself? It would be a good objective for this government to tell us what it is prepared to do, so that in one, two or three years, the unemployment rate in the country would go down by 2, 3 or 4 per cent, and so that we could see the impacts on quality of life and social expenditures. It would be interesting for Canadians to see their Prime Minister rise in this House and say: ``Our challenge will be to ensure that Canada's unemployment rate goes down by 2 per cent over the next two years''. This is in fact what labour federations are asking of the Prime Minister. To then see the whole government administration work toward this objective would be of significance.
This is the type of concrete measure that is required, not a speech from the throne in which there is nothing to really change the situation, and in which the government relies on market forces. The result is that those who are solid enough manage to survive, which is fine, but those who are less gifted and who had less opportunities through their education do not. This government evaluates its performance on how it provides an opportunity to the strongest ones. However, a society or a government should assess its record based on the opportunities it provides to each and everyone to make a contribution.
Society should be evaluated on how it uses its human potential. There are people who have not managed to complete their high school, who do not have a job and who have not been retrained. This government will be a good government the day it will make sure everyone is used to his or her full potential and is given an opportunity to make a proper contribution to society.
The speech from the throne alluded to this issue, but these were only words. There is no concrete action or result, and this is very unsatisfactory. As autumn ends and winter begins, a tour through our ridings will bring home the insecurity people feel about jobs and the problems experienced by seasonal workers in particular when they think of what they are facing next February and March with the unemployment insurance reform.
They called it employment insurance. What a terrible piece of marketing. Employment insurance should mean a system that makes it possible to guarantee employment to somebody who has potential and can achieve it. They change the name and the packaging, but the product is even worse than before. It is unacceptable, and the government will certainly be judged on it by the people. I urge the government, if it dares, to go before the public today on this issue. You can count on a very clear and very direct message from Quebecers.
There is another point I wish to raise, which involves something even more basic. It is the issue of this government's leadership. This is a government whose management style is short-sighted. Three years ago, the public elected 54 members of the Bloc Quebecois, a secessionist party, a sovereignist party that wants to create two countries within Canada. The message was not clear enough.
(1200)
The Prime Minister said that Quebec's problem was an economic one, that the government was going to create jobs and reduce the deficit and the problem would go away. Except that there was the surprise of October 30, 1995, when they realized that, despite everything, 49.4 per cent of Quebecers had voted for sovereignty. That shook them to their short-sighted roots. For almost a month, they had been saying: ``This time it is really serious. We had better make promises, something must be done''.
The morning after the results were in, they started to say that the only thing the federal government could do was to table a little resolution in the House about distinct society, thinking that then the effort would have been made.
I was never an admirer of Mr. Mulroney, but compare the effort he made in the past to unite Canada with this lack of response to the emergency situation created by the referendum. There is a world of difference. The present government lacks leadership with respect to the situation in Quebec. It is not surprising that Quebecers are the only ones in Canada seriously dissatisfied with the federal government at this time: 68 per cent of them are dissatisfied with the performance of the federal government.
Despite a period of economic growth, despite the fact that there has been at least some progress in the battle against the deficit, is there not a message here which the federal government ought to receive, to which it ought to adjust, on which it ought to make some proposals? Yet nothing is forthcoming. There are no proposals, and they are saying that they will react only once they have come up against a wall. This strikes me as a truly aberrant situation. People are waiting for concrete actions from this government, proof that it is going to react.
To give another example, in the throne speech, reference was made to the pertinence of reforming the way shipping is managed in Canada. The diagnosis is fairly obvious, in my opinion. The federal government has been letting its facilities deteriorate for the past 30 years. The proof of this is that, today, 80 per cent of facilities are more or less useless, because they have never been properly developed. They have just been patched up here and there, over and over.
We are in a problematical situation. The government says that changes must be made, and the first statement made, one which we agree with, is that the job of management was done by people who were too far away from the action, who could not possibly know what the concerns were in each region, who could not do any separate marketing, who could not allow facilities to compete with each other. Solutions had to be sought across Canada before the government could finally grasp that some latitude must be given to these facilities, but there are still many aspects that have not been settled.
The address in response to the throne speech offers me the opportunity to tell the government that there will still be much to be done when the transportation bill is examined in the report or third reading stage. Since Confederation, this field has been characterized by a great deal of political partisanship. Every riding has its own story of someone who was port master because he was a Tory, another who was port master at another time because he was a Grit. These situations have never been settled.
Yesterday in committee I proposed an amendment to ensure that the people appointed are qualified, and it was turned down by the Liberal majority. I was not calling for the minister to stop making appointments, not calling for him to no longer be able to choose between candidates, but only for assurance that they were qualified. Once again, the system took too long for adjustments to be made, and for actions to be taken accordingly. This is a specific problem relating to partisan politics, and one that is important to the public. It is important for the government to show evidence of acting justly.
There is something even more fundamental involved as well. In this reform, there is a provision for the regional ports, the ones that are doing business, but not necessarily on an international scale, to be able to be turned over to local interests.
(1205)
We have tried, and we must keep on trying to add components to the legislation that will remove the arbitrary, political element and ensure that decisions to invest in Baie-Comeau, Cacouna, New Brunswick or western Canada are not made on the basis of the political colour of their representatives but on the basis of economic interest. The government should use the economic profiles and statistics compiled by officials with the Department of Transport and interpret them intelligently.
Another important aspect is to ensure that ports without any commercial economic activity except a ferry service like Rivière-du-Loup to Saint-Siméon or Trois-Pistoles to Les Escoumins on the North Shore-can be sold at a good price without any interruption of service. This is a good example of the imperfections in our system and the need for reform. Ignoring the need for reform reflects a major lack of leadership on the part of the Canadian government.
If no guarantees are given, we may get some outlandish situations. For instance, the federal government may decide it will no longer maintain a harbour facility, it may decide to get rid of the port of Rivière-du-Loup, for instance, even if the ferry offers an essential service recognized by the Government of Quebec and there is a subsidy for this service.
The federal government, which is responsible for wharves, might decide it no longer has the money and no longer wants to
maintain the facility. The region would then be in a totally unacceptable situation. The government has to move, to react, to implement concrete solutions.
I admit that in this particular case, Bill C-44, there was a lot of consultation. Suggestions were made which were adopted, but many aspects remain to be settled. I hope the government will find a way to do that.
To sum up, should Canadians be satisfied with what they heard in the speech from the throne and the way it has been implemented?
My answer is what people on the street, at the barbershop or the cornerstore are telling me. They ask where are the jobs all these government projects were supposed to provide. They ask me what is happening. Why do they not see any results? People no longer believe that millions of dollars have been cut and millions invested. They want to know if their neighbour will get a job, if any positive result will be achieved anywhere.
In a riding like mine, Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, it will be a few more months before we can see if the government action was successful in any real way. We will have to wait and see if the transactions which are supposed to allow the local community take charge of the port facilities in Cacouna and to ensure the future of the ferries between Rivière-du-Loup and Saint-Siméon, and between Trois-Pistoles and Les Escoumins will come through. That is what matters.
Regarding the employment insurance reform, a bill providing for the conversion of seasonal workers' contribution to the economy will have to be tabled. Seasonal workers must be able to find work during the winter. The government has increased the number of weeks required to qualify for benefits while reducing the benefit period. If only the negative aspects of the UI reform make it, we are headed for a major social crisis. I urge the federal government to find solutions and listen to those organizations that make suggestions.
In my riding, there is a coalition of forest management companies. They are developing a plan, not to artificially create employment or to pay seasonal workers to do nothing, but to provide them with an extra three or four weeks of work, either in the spring or in the fall, through solutions involving forestry, processing forestry products and developing new products in order to achieve interesting results. This is my heartfelt cry to the government in this respect.
We have fought long and hard against employment insurance reform. If the government wants to send a clear message to the regions, where there are many seasonal workers, telling them that there is not only bad news in this reform, time is running out. Act quickly, this is your last chance. The people in my riding will judge you by your actions.
(1210)
In reply to the speech from the throne, I think we can say, and I will conclude on this, the federal government has shown a blatant lack of leadership in terms of reducing the deficit for instance, by failing to cut back where it should have. In the area of employment, the proposed solutions are not the right ones and, on the constitutional issue, Quebec is being ignored and, to some extent, insulted. If the federal government's attitude does not change, the best solution will be to go our own way, because Quebecers are very patient.
Twice already they asked Canada to change course and come up with proposals and twice Canada declined. The third time will be the right one. The Canadian economy will be completely reorganized and the Canadian territory will be divided in two countries, so that Quebecers can finally make decisions on what is important to them and for their future.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the hon. member from the Bloc for a very constructive critique of the government's throne speech. I would like to dwell on one item that was in that throne speech which is of particular importance to his party and his party's objectives.
There was a vague promise made by the Prime Minister months ago when the speech was given and I cannot remember the exact details, that all Canadians would have a say in the next referendum on separation. It is an issue that is very important and I would like to have the member enlighten me and clarify a few things because I am confused about two or three things that happened in the last referendum.
The hon. member indicated in his speech that 49.5 per cent of Quebecers voted yes-it was very close-and that should send a signal to Ottawa. I agree with him. The government is not listening. It is not listening to westerners or to Quebecers and I agree.
I disagree on what the solution is. I do not think it is separation. I am concerned about that. I would like to see Quebec stay in Canada. I would like to see Quebecers and the Bloc Quebecois argue for Quebec in the best interests of Quebec like an opposition party can using those tools to help it.
I found the question in the last referendum to be ambiguous and convoluted. It was not a simple, straight, direct question of the citizens of the province of Quebec. I can verify that with the surveys, the information that came to me from the people who write stories in Le Devoir, which said that 39 per cent, or a high percentage of Quebecers did not really understand what they were
voting on. They thought Quebec could separate and still stay in Canada and have some sort of economic association.
I do not know why there has to be another referendum. Quebecers have voted twice on this issue and twice Quebecers have said to stay in Canada. Should the people of Quebec want another referendum and the member does get another referendum, would he agree that a straight, simple, direct question would be better and clearer for everybody? There would be fewer arguments, fewer flare ups. The question would be in French and English along the lines of: Do you want to separate from Canada, yes or no?
If the answer to that simple and direct question were to be yes-which I hope it would not be-would the member explain to me what the plan is of the Bloc Quebecois? How and when does it plan to negotiate the separation agreement and terms? If there is no mechanism in place, which there is not now and it is not legal now as nothing in the Constitution allows for a province to secede, when do the negotiations start? Who does the negotiations? How does the Bloc Quebecois propose to settle issues, for example the size of the debt, the type of currency, access for Canadians through the province to the east coast. Issues such as those are extremely important.
Those are the questions I would like to be enlightened upon by the hon. member.
(1215)
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Reform member for his question. I find it very significant that this question was asked by a member of the Reform Party. In fact, the Liberals are not asking questions this morning. I wonder what is happening; they seem to be ashamed of the throne speech.
It is the kind of question Canadians should ask themselves. Such questions must be raised outside Quebec so we can search for a solution and decide how the matter should be settled.
They are asking if Canadians will have a role to play in Quebec's next referendum. I myself think Canadians have a role to play now. If you want to show the people of Quebec that this country has a future, it is up to you. It is up to the Canadians to put their proposals on the table. But without any proposals, we cannot give you any answers, or even make suggestions. There is no leadership in this government. No one has made any significant proposal. What is clearer and more shocking to Quebecers is that this government's reforms are all superficial.
Back in October 1995, things were heating up as minor proposals were being made left and right. One month later, they started to forget. And then last month, the Prime Minister repeated what he was saying in the fall of 1993: that Canada's problem is an economic one; that once the economy recovers, Quebecers will understand that Canada is the greatest country in the world and they will stay.
Even if Quebec and Canada's economic situation were the best in the world, the fact is that a process is taking place in Quebec. A people is moving forward. A people is slowly learning. The numbers went from 40 per cent in 1980 to 49.4 per cent last year, and if the federal government does not meet their expectations, this people will choose to become a sovereign state.
It will do so following a question whose wording will have been decided by Quebec's National Assembly, the only parliament in which Quebecers form a majority. This view is shared not only by the current premier, Mr. Bouchard, but also by the leader of the opposition, Daniel Johnson, and by the leader of Action démocratique, Mario Dumont.
All Quebecers agree as regards the question. We are mature people. We do not live in a banana republic. We put a question twice. The first time, in 1980, we asked Quebecers for a mandate to negotiate. Forty per cent of the voters were prepared to merely let us negotiate. Last year, 49 per cent of them wanted us to build a country and to offer partnership to the rest of Canada. This is a very significant progress, because had we asked the same question last year as we did in 1980, the result may have been 55 or 60 per cent. This is an assumption, but one that could well reflect reality. In any case, Quebecers are making progress and sending a clear message to the current Liberal government.
So, the question will be decided by the elected members of the Quebec Parliament. Until then, Canadians should tell us what they want. They have time to make proposals to us.
The Canadian confederation is not unchanging. Since francophones and anglophones have been present in North America, we have had three or four different forms of government: Upper and Lower Canada, the Canadian Union and the Confederation. We must find formulae that are right for this economic entity. With the new rules of the game, such as the free trade agreement, this is very obvious.
When I travelled through western Canada with the transport committee, this was brought home to me very strongly. Now, all trade runs in a North-South direction. Everyone is asking us for railway lines and highways that go south. This will bring about a fundamental transformation of Canada, independently of the options offered by politicians. This is therefore something that must be looked at. Quebecers and Canadians must behave like mature adults and tell one another that, in future, they wish to function in a different manner, work differently together.
Therefore the question ``Are we going to separate or not?'' does not strike me as the right question to ask. The question Quebecers should be asked should be: ``Is there a formula that you would like to see, because the present one does not suit you?'' Basically, what they have always wanted is a sovereign state, with all decision-making powers in Quebec.
It must be recalled that what Quebecers agreed to in 1867 was cultural and educational security, but we continued to grow and mature and now we are prepared to take over all responsibilities. Since I have been transport critic, I realize just how much the fact that Quebecers do not have jurisdiction over transportation has created major problems for them. Not because Canadians systematically have it in for Quebec, but because decisions have been taken that favoured east-west development rather than north-south development, for example, which was devastating for Quebec's economy.
(1220)
This is where it starts to get interesting again. Our challenge, on the eve of the twenty-first century, whatever form Canada takes, will be to develop this north-south link, but we must adapt our political institutions to this new reality.
I will conclude by saying that our greatest criticism of the present Liberal government is that it lacks the basic leadership to resolve the problems of the year 2000. Sorting out this year's problems is not too bad, but a government's responsibility extends further. It must also have a vision of the future, and this is where the Liberals do not make the grade.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to say a few words on the government's throne speech, which I find most appropriate at this time.
When the Liberal Party formed the government in 1993, the country was, in my opinion, headed toward disaster. We were dreadfully in debt. Before our time, the whole idea had been to spend, spend, spend. The mortgage on the country, in other words the national debt, was increasing madly. Every year we had a deficit which was getting up near $50 billion.
Suddenly, in 1993, the new Liberal government was faced with a situation calling for an economic program that held out some hope for Canadians, some hope for young people, some hope for their future and for the future of Canadian workers, and in particular some reassurance for seniors about government programs.
Yes, the government did want to make cuts.
[English]
The bond market had a very negative outlook for Canada in 1993. The interest rates were going up and one wondered if the international bond markets would keep on giving us a triple A rating. We were near collapse, going in the other direction, and not even getting requests for the purchase of bonds.
A program had to be instituted to put our house in order. That is exactly what has happened. The deficit has kept going down, down, down.
The government does not create jobs. It did that in the past and it is only short term when it occurs. What we have to do is establish a climate for jobs and that climate has to be the proper economic climate.
Our program was disciplined in cutting some programs. We are downsizing government, not shutting down government. That is the difference between us and some members of the opposition. We do not want to shut down government.
We have to stop giving to everyone who thinks that all they have to do is write to the government requesting a grant. We have to do this in a reasonable fashion.
This morning the interest rates decreased again. We have not seen interest rates like these in 40 years. People can now borrow to buy a home or to invest in some other fashion. That will create jobs. That is good. People can now spend money. It is affordable to borrow money in order to invest it. It is not to borrow money to have fun, to be wasteful. It is for investment, for example, in a home. Equity will build in that home and when it is sold in the future the owner will be able to live on that equity or they will be able to leave it to their children. We have to think of leaving something to our children.
(1225 )
We had to downsize government. Government programs had to be cut. I had some concerns about that because my constituency is comprised of many public servants and people who have contracts with the federal government. As vice-chair of the government operations committee I was very diligent in ensuring there would be no abuse on anyone's part.
The program review was to cut programs in an effort to downsize the federal government. There was a question of a lump sum of money that was to be cut. Obviously some jobs had to be annihilated. We had to let go and make way for a better system. We had to improve the way in which we were working. This meant we had to abandon those activities that did not need to keep going.
We privatized in areas where the private sector could do better. For example, we privatized many activities that were once under Transport Canada. We developed Nav Canada and a great number of public servants who once worked for Transport Canada were transferred to this new private sector organization.
The media interpretation was that 45,000 jobs would be lost. I did not appreciate the fact that 45,000 employees would be laid off. Lately one newspaper reported that with the new calculations the
number could be more like 55,000. Obviously this has a very negative impact on the community. This made people in the national capital region business community very insecure and the economy slowed down quite a bit.
However, in the downsizing process the government made sure it did not maltreat its employees. We had programs like early retirement. The early retirement program was oversubscribed to. Many public servants, those who were getting close to retirement age, thought this was a wonderful opportunity to retire.
Others accepted the early departure incentive. They were mostly public servants, managers or middle managers who were interested in going into private business. They are now the people in the national capital region who are working for the government, doing some projects, working on contracts. They are now the private contractors in the region.
We have saved a great deal of money but I do have concerns. I want to make sure the government does not save money by downsizing on the one hand while on the other hand increasing by a phenomenal amount the money spent on contracting out. This is something I am watching for very diligently at the committee on government operations.
In September 1995 the unemployment rate in the national capital region was 10.1 per cent. That percentage has now gone down to 7.4 per cent, an improvement. People in the national capital region are starting to feel secure again.
[Translation]
They are at ease, can see that there is some future, and the Canadian government decided that the National Capital Region would not be a ``one horse town'', that it would have a mixture of private industry and public industry.
As well, organizations such as Systemhouse have sprung up, where former public servants have started up in high tech, and now the National Capital Region has a burgeoning high tech industry.
The National Capital Region has, in fact, now become the major North American centre for high technology.
(1230)
[English]
There is a balance between the private sector and the public sector now. I am happy to report that the public service is improving constantly in its effectiveness and efficiency. I am asking the government to make sure, though, that there is a renewal, that there is an opportunity for the young to be able to enter our reputable public service.
We have to make sure that there is an entry situation where young graduates can come to work with the federal government and, if not the federal government, work on contracts for the federal government. That is very essential. I appreciate the opportunity to address the House on the question of the throne speech.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I paid attention to the hon. member's speech. I can vouch for the excellent representation he gives to the people of Gloucester. He has been an excellent representative.
I would like to give him an opportunity. In the nation's capital, in the House of Commons, we often speak of billion dollar budgets. We speak about deficits in a very macro way.
We speak of the lowering of the deficit, the fact that we have not increased personal income tax, the fact that the crime rate has declined, as have interest rates. I would like the hon. member to give us a feel of what has happened in his community as a result of the policy directions that this government has undertaken in the areas I cited.
Mr. Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member from Toronto for his kind words.
In my riding, business is doing well. The private sector is getting contracts. There is a movement in high technology in my community. This afternoon, I will go to the opening of AMITA, a high technology group of about 50 employees that are starting a business in my community.
Almost every second week, a new business is starting, always in high tech. Because of globalization, we have to do things very differently. It is time for high technology.
We are very lucky that the national capital region a few years ago started in high tech. Now we are becoming the high tech capital above the American border. There is high tech in the United States and the other place is right here in the national capital region.
Private industry is developing. Both universities and the two colleges are producing specialists in high tech. Jobs are being developed to the point where, at this moment, we are told that thousands of jobs are available in high tech in the national capital region that have not been filled yet.
The universities and colleges are trying to produce as quickly as possible graduates to fill these jobs. This is a very big plus for our community. Things are going better and better all the time.
People feel secure. People feel a sense of hope. People feel that there is growth. By gosh, the national capital region is a heck of a nice place to grow and to have a family.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the speech of the hon. member where he talked about the advantages of lower interest rates. There is no question that low interest rates mean significant savings for consumers and businesses. It puts more money into the marketplace.
(1235 )
However, to only zero in on that aspect and to only point out its benefits, is wrong. That is only one sector of the population, only the borrowers of the nation. It is only people who can borrow money, qualify for loans or who already have loans in place. It is not all Canadians. It is not all good news for all Canadians. It is good news for those who have debts. It is also good news for this government because it is lowering the cost of its huge debt which does help all Canadians.
However, because it only benefits the borrowers, what message is the government giving to those who do not have loans and who do not borrow? What are in the policies of the Liberal Party for the pensioners who have had been reduced and have lost their senior age exemption? What about the students who do not have loans and cannot borrow money? What is the government-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Order. The hon. member has asked a question. I said it had to be very brief. This is five minutes questions and comments. Five are gone. I call on the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester for a very short reply.
Mr. Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, what we are hearing is the point of view of the Reform Party, a party that wants to shut down government and government operations altogether. It does not care about people who want to invest. In order to invest they need to borrow money. They have to roll money around. For these same people for whom Reformers say they want to protect the interest rates, they seem to suggest that the interest rate should go high.
The Reform members are looking at their buddies who have lots of money and they do not care about anybody else. Perhaps on Sunday morning they give a donation to the odd person. They only care about people with money. They do not care about promoting the economy and those who want it developed.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak this afternoon on the throne speech, a speech which reflects the real needs and concerns of Canadians.
The Liberal government's jobs and growth agenda has provided Canadians with renewed hope for the future and its agenda is focused on creating opportunity for Canadians, through a fiscal climate which encourages investment, through ensuring that our youth have the tools they require in order to fully contribute to Canada's growth and competitiveness and through strengthening our small businesses, a primary source for job creation and innovation.
Today we are faced with a markedly different fiscal situation than the one we faced when we took office. Interest rates are at the lowest point in 38 years and that means Canadians have new opportunities for investment and growth. All Canadians benefit from lower interest rates; from home owners to small businesses in my riding of Lincoln.
Inflationary rates are also at 38-year lows. Lower inflationary rates mean that Canadians can operate in a stable economic environment. They can more confidently plan for their futures.
Nowhere has the government's success in creating a stronger fiscal environment been more evident than in its efforts to reduce the huge deficit inherited when we took office. Indeed, getting the government finances under control has been the most effective way of getting interest rates down.
After program review and rationalization, we have brought government spending under control. Today, we have not only projected that the deficit target of 3 per cent of GDP will be met but this target will be surpassed and in 1998-99 the deficit target of about 1 per cent of GDP will be met.
Clearly the approach to restoring fiscal health has been measured, deliberate and responsible. It has involved carefully reducing spending, restructuring government and strengthening the economy. This approach continues to reflect the desire of Canadians to have their government develop a more sophisticated approach to deficit reduction. It has not imposed greater costs on the greater taxpayer by raising their personal income taxes. Nor has the approach been a slash and burn attempt to get government spending under control.
Borrowing on the backs of our children and grandchildren will soon be in the past. Speaking of our youth, they have been identified as being a vital resource in the continuing effort to stay competitive. Today many young people remain unemployed. Our youth are worried that the future will not hold jobs for them. Employers are saying that there are jobs but that they are having difficulty in finding the skilled labour they need in order to grow and compete. Experts are telling us that the pursuit of education is still important to success in the job market. Far sighted Canadians everywhere argue that the country cannot afford to squander the talents and creativity of our youth. I know that all government members are aware of these concerns and are actively seeking solutions. Clearly, young people need more help in making the transition into the working world. They need more help in getting that crucial first job.
(1240)
The government has doubled its summer employment programs. It has also made a commitment to work with the provinces and with the private sector. This type of co-operation is being encouraged at all levels. Canadians want to know that all their elected officials are working together, no matter what jurisdiction they represent.
In this process, partnerships are essential. Many Canadians have expressed that only partnerships can solve the short and long term challenges of youth unemployment. More needs to be done for our
youth and they can be assured that progress will be made because on this side of the House it has been made a priority.
Let me also address the role of small businesses in our economy and in our country. Small businesses are the backbone of the economic community of my riding of Lincoln. This fact is not unusual given that the small business sector is very important to the entire Canadian economy. Indeed, hope for our youth and for the future competitiveness of our country rests with a strong small business sector. Small businesses, including the self-employed, now account for almost two-thirds of all private sector employment and approximately 60 per cent of Canada's economic output.
As a small business owner, I know that the entrepreneurial spirit that drives the small and medium sized business sector needs to be encouraged and fostered because our economic well-being depends on it.
What is the small business community saying? It is saying that access to capital in the start-up and expansion phase is still very important. The banks have done some work in this area and they can point to areas of success where they have increased their access for small business. But the demand is still there.
Small businesses are asking for higher risk debt capital. It is a paradox that there are a number of small businesses in the community which require more funds for start up or for expansion, yet do not have the collateral to support the actual capital requirements. At the same time they have good export ideas. If the capital was available they would be able to expand their business and create employment, adding to the GDP of the country. We need more of what I will call high risk debt capital. We would look at the credit rating of a particular small business person and based on that rating the banks would provide the required capital.
As a government we need to continue to fight and to work toward eliminating the regulatory barriers and the paper burdens. We have made some progress in that area. It is still a concern of small business and the government will continue to work toward the elimination of regulatory barriers and paper burden.
As I mentioned earlier with respect to our youth, there is a need to access skilled workers. There is still a mismatch out there. The small business community requires skilled individuals. It has positions to fill and is crying out, telling us that Canada does not have the skilled workers to fill those jobs. We need to address that, in partnership with the provinces, with the educational and post-secondary institutions. Those are the partnerships that need to be forged to deal with the question of providing skilled workers.
There is also a call from the small business community for a reduction in payroll taxes, for some help in that area because they claim they will be able to create employment if payroll taxes are reduced. There has also been a cry for some direct incentives to hire new employees and for some type of program that would help the micro businesses that may need some assistance and some type of relief. This would allow them to hire the one or two people they need in order to continue to grow, expand and contribute to the GDP of this country, to their local communities and to their local economies.
(1245)
Those are a number of the issues and concerns brought forward by the small business community not only in my community but I am sure right across the country. This government will continue to work hand in hand with the private sector, with representatives of the small business sector to meet the needs of the small business community.
This government believes that the small business community is the engine and the backbone of the economy. We look to the small business community to assist Canada, to assist this government and to assist all Canadians in working, in being competitive, in being efficient and creating those employment opportunities and jobs. This government will continue to improve the climate for small businesses and certainly will allow them to continue to compete globally. This particular sector of our economy is crucially important.
In terms of what this government has recently done to assist in access to capital for the small business community, the Canada community investment program was announced some weeks ago. Communities from across the country are now participating in pilot projects. We in the Lincoln area were very fortunate to have had the opportunity to partner with the Hamilton, Brantford, Burlington, Haldimand-Norfolk area, along with the Six Nations in submitting an application for the Canada community investment program.
The government will go forward to provide infrastructure dollars to assist local communities in coming together to provide that increased access to capital for small business. Those in small business are the employers and they are the medium size and multinational companies of the future.
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague's excellent presentation. I note his tremendous interest and enthusiasm for small business and industry in his riding, but more so right across this country of ours.
Having had the opportunity to speak with many of the small business people in my constituency, they are telling me as their member of Parliament to stay the course and to encourage the Minister of Finance to stay the course, to continue to bring our financial house in order, to continue with those low interest rates,
to continue with a low inflation under control. That is what complements small business and the jobs that will go with it.
My question is based on the projections many economists and the OECD are making that among the G-7 nations, in 1997 Canada will actually exceed all of them in economic advancement and growth. Perhaps the hon. member for Lincoln would like to comment on this and on all the actions that have been taken, but is it enough? Are there other things we should be doing to encourage small business knowing that indeed those in small business are the ones that will produce additional jobs in this country?
Mr. Valeri: Mr. Speaker, certainly small businesses in the constituency of Lincoln and in speaking with small businesses across the country, they want us to stay the course. They want us to continue to fight the deficit, move to a zero deficit and continue to maintain those low interest rates and the low inflationary course we are on. Certainly they are very much in support of the government's macro approach to our economy.
(1250)
As mentioned by the hon. member, Canada will lead the G-7 in terms of economic growth in the coming years. In fact, yesterday in Toronto the Bank of Canada indicated that it expects in 1997 there will be growth in our economy because of the approach which has been taken, because of low interest rates and because of low inflationary measures.
What else needs to be done? Certainly we need to focus on the continued access to capital that small businesses need. We need to continue to focus on providing small businesses with the necessary skills and manpower which they need in order to continue to compete.
In order for small businesses to compete globally we need to assist them with the tools to export. We need to get small business into the export market in a much bigger way. This country does not have as many small businesses exporting as it should have. We will work to ensure that the small business sector has the tools which are required to penetrate those markets. We are doing some of that by using the team Canada approach. There is also information which we need to provide to the small business sector. We need to identify global markets for the small business sector. We have to do more of that at the micro level.
Those are a couple of things we need to do in support of the macro approach. We also need to take micro approaches for the small business sector.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments of the hon. member.
The previous Liberal government tried to control inflation with 24 per cent interest rates. That now seems to have been the wrong approach. Has the Prime Minister drastically changed his definition of what is right and what is wrong?
I heard this morning that our gross domestic product has only increased by 1.1 per cent in the last year. With the low interest rates, how can he make the comment that the government is on the right track? To me it seems that the gross domestic product has to increase by more than 1.1 per cent.
Mr. Valeri: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member fails to understand is that the approach we have taken and the reason interest rates and inflation rates are low today is that we looked at government structure, we looked at government spending, we went through the program review, we went through the restructuring of government and we reduced spending in government. We have said that we cannot be all things to all people. We have taken a targeted approach with respect to what government can do and does best. In doing so we have put in place the structural changes which have brought the lower interest rates and the lower inflation rates.
When this approach was being taken by the government a number of years ago, members opposite cried out and said that it would never work, that we needed to cut, slash and burn. That is their approach: Do it tomorrow; do it soon. They said that if we continued on the same track we would hit the wall.
We did not hit the wall. Interest rates are low. Inflation is low. We are being heralded around the world as one country which has taken the direct approach and ensured that our economic fundamentals are in place. We will continue to prosper.
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Kootenay East.
I am pleased to rise in the House to speak on the speech from the throne, even though it has been nine months since the throne speech was first read. Instead of calling it the speech from the throne, maybe we should call it the old speech. We are here today talking about an old speech, with an old vision and old tired ideas that have not worked in the past and certainly will not work in the future. Ideas such as distinct society for Quebec. That was clearly and decisively rejected by Canadians across the country in the Charlottetown accord.
(1255 )
In the throne speech the government mentioned changing the law and making amendments to the Criminal Code. It seems that all we really got was some tinkering and not the major changes people talked about. All we got was some pretty thin soup. Canadians are asking, in fact they are demanding that government get tough on crime. For example, did we get from this government a victims bill
of rights? No we did not. Not until my colleague from Fraser Valley West introduced his private member's bill.
Our criminal justice system is in a state of disarray. It is out of touch. It is insensitive to the victims and their families. It is bureaucratic and moves slowly. We are all familiar with the phrase ``justice delayed is justice denied''. I have a fistful of examples from right across the country of how inefficient and soft our criminal justice system is on criminals.
I would like to zero in on one example from my riding of Yellowhead of how our criminal justice system works. It is with regard to the experiences of Judy and Don Thwaites who live in the town of Whitecourt, Alberta. It is a story I would rather not tell but it is very explicit of how our system works, or conversely, how our system does not work; hence my relating this letter in the House.
Judy and Don had a couple of children, including daughter Norma who on January 25, 1981 was 17 years old. On the mentioned date Norma, who was doing post-secondary studies in Edmonton, was home for a visit. On the night of January 25 Norma was strangled to death. Then her lifeless body was raped by Larry Read. Norma was left in a vehicle and her frozen body was discovered by the RCMP the next morning. These are the basic facts of the case. It is not necessary for me to describe in greater detail the utterly despicable action against this young woman, a 17-year old teenager.
The letter from Mrs. Thwaites does not go into detail with respect to the murder of her daughter but rather she describes the system and her dealings with the system. Her letter is addressed to me dated March 29, 1995, re Larry Gene Read: ``I am writing to you about the above person, Larry Read, and his actions against my daughter, Norma, on January 25, 1981. I would at this time like to give you a point by point account of what happened after Read was arrested for the murder of my daughter, Norma.
``Read was arrested within 24 hours of the murder of Norma in the city of Grand Prairie, Alberta approximately 170 miles northwest of Whitecourt or about 300 miles northwest of the city of Edmonton''. A common thread in Judy's letter is that she has great praise for the RCMP: ``We commend the RCMP for their prompt arrest and for the concern and caring they showed to our family not only at the time but in the years of agony and sorrow we suffered from that day until the present time. We were always showed consideration in every way through the arrest, preliminary hearing, two trials over a four year period and the sentencing. I would like the people concerned with the judicial system of Canada to know that about the RCMP.
``My husband and I were present at the preliminary hearing held in Whitecourt in May in 1981. It lasted approximately two and a half weeks. We were never called by any member of the court system to brief us on what would take place at this hearing''. My colleague's private member's bill remedies this complete omission of the victim.
(1300)
``We are never called by any member of the court system to brief us on what would take place at this hearing. Once again, we were told what they were able to let us know, legally, by the RCMP''. Then she asks a question: ``How come there is no provision made for the victims' families to enable them to handle this agonizing and tortuous procedure? After the preliminary hearing it was determined that the courts had enough evidence to proceed to trial. The trial was held in Edmonton and started exactly one year to the date that Norma was murdered''.
She goes on to say how despicable that was: ``I realize that the courts are very full, but that is gross injustice to the family members. Once again, we were never informed of what would take place. Indeed, we were never informed about the trial date. This information was provided by the RCMP investigations officer who was our sole moral support through all of this affair''.
Then she asks another question: ``Why is there no provision by the government to provide a person who would let the family know what has taken place over the past year, while waiting for the trial, and a run down on what to expect? I can appreciate that they cannot take the time for every detail but they could surely write a letter to let the date of the trial be known a few weeks ahead''. This is also a provision in the private member's bill, which is supposed to be in committee but I fear that is where it will rest for a long long time.
``During the trial we were never approached by anyone from the crown prosecutor's office to inform us what tactic it would be using to establish the guilt of the murderer. We did seek to speak to the crown prosecutor and he did reluctantly divulge a little of what he planned to use against the murderer. After the trial was over and the judge addressed the jury to let it know what constituted first degree, second degree and manslaughter he made a mistake in his address to the jury which confused it and resulted in the charge being reduced to second degree murder.
``Read was found guilty of second degree murder by the jury and it recommended that he be given the maximum sentence of 15 years in prison with no chance of early parole. The judge reduced this sentence to 13 years and we do not know why''. The Thwaites do not know why.
``Because the judge confused the jury when he was explaining what constituted what for the three classifications, Read was given a hearing for a new trial and he won that. The second trial was held four years after the first trial. It started in January of 1985 and once again was a nightmare for us.
``Some of the witnesses from the first trial could not be located. It was, to say the least, a catastrophe for us. The witnesses could no longer remember things that had happened five years before, and who could fault them?
``Once again, we were informed by the RCMP that there was a new trial. Not once were we written or phoned by any justice system official to tell us that we had to go to hell and back again. This lack of consideration by the so-called system is about as cruel as it can get''.
She asks another question: ``When are they going to quit mollycoddling these murderers? My daughter suffered amounts which I cannot bear to think about. Read has suffered nothing and is indeed protected from any pain by being placed in protective custody. When are they going to wake up to the fact that these pyschopaths are of little value to society?
``After the second trial was over and the jury found Read guilty of manslaughter, he was sentenced to seven years in prison with no chance of parole. That was a very hard blow to us, as you can well imagine. I was by this time in a terrible rage over the lack of justice by our so-called system which I had, like all other Canadians, believed in. I must admit I am a much wiser person now. There is no justice system in our country and people are beginning to conclude that what we have rather than a justice system in this country is a legal industry.
``Six years after Norma was murdered and raped by Larry Read, I finally found-my local doctor referred me because he could not help me to handle the rage I felt over all of the injustices I had suffered, and the terrible grief I felt over my girl not dying by an accident or by sickness, but because a human being had deliberately killed her for his own pleasure''.
(1305)
A Reform government would put the rights of the victim ahead of the rights of the criminal.
Here is what she has to say about getting some assistance: ``There is no one in Canada who anyone knew about at the time who had any training to help victims of this type of crime. I was indeed fortunate that I was referred to a Dr. Watson in Edmonton who was very knowledgeable about psychopaths. He told me that he was familiar with my case from discussions with his colleagues and by reading the newspaper accounts of the case. He was the first person to tell me that Read was a psychopath and that there was no cure whatsoever for these people.
``He also told me that he had never counselled anyone or had any training in counselling anyone who had suffered having a person murdered in their family. He did not know of anyone in Canada who had ever received any training, either gone to the U.S.A. or any place-''.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but I have been trying to signal him. His time has expired. I believe he is splitting his 20 minute segment with the hon. member for Kootenay East.
Accordingly, there is now five minutes of questions or comments.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, how did this lady respond to the help that she finally got from this medical person? Could the hon. member fill us in on that, please.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead): Mr. Speaker, there just was not any help available. He could not help her.
The case does not end there. Read received a seven year sentence. He was let out after six years and only a few years later, after he was let out on early parole, which happens again and again across this country, he again committed a heinous act that is tough to describe in this House.
In British Columbia, where he ended up, he went into a house where a 9-year old girl and a 12-year old girl were sitting. He beat them up, dragged them into the basement and, with a knife, cut their vaginas to their stomachs. He did not kill them but he certainly inflicted something upon them that will follow them the rest of their lives.
At the present time there is no provision of any kind in this country to look after the victims of violence. Hence our colleague's private member's bill to deal with that. It covers the things I have related thus far.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting as we are undertaking the continuation of this throne speech to take a look at the number of things that have changed and the number of things that have not changed.
Clearly the things that have not changed have been on the Liberal side. One of the most interesting things last year, when Canada came within 50,000 votes of no longer being Canada, was the reaction of the Liberals to that situation.
There is an old saying that if it ain't broke, don't fix it, but in this case it is broken and we must fix it.
There are three heads on a very bad penny here, the Progressive Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP. None of them have any new ideas. None of them are bringing any new information. None of them are taking any role of leadership to do things differently.
My colleague mentioned that the Prime Minister, in the three days before the vote, came up with the absolutely brilliant but totally discredited idea of distinct society. He did that and then brought it into the House of Commons. He forced it through the House of Commons. He also wanted to have a veto for Quebec.
(1310 )
Not being able to do that, we now have a veto for five regions which fundamentally gives a total constriction of any ability to ever change our country and the way we govern ourselves. That is what the Prime Minister has done. One of his more imaginative ministers, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Deputy Prime Minister, wants to return to 1967 to rekindle the wonderful national spirit we had. She has come out with the fly a flag program which was originally, according to an official in her department, going to be costing between $6 million and $7 million.
As was reported in the Globe and Mail, suddenly they have turned around and said that it was going to be $23 million. We then had the brilliant news the other day that it was going to be $8 million less than that. All we know is that we have over 600,000 flags being distributed willy-nilly all over the country.
As a matter of fact, there is an article in Le Devoir today that indicates that 15 of these flags were sent to people who had no interest in having the Canadian flag. The writer of the article says: ``Thank you very much, but I am going to put it in my bottom drawer''. My office is being inundated by people who are either indicating they have received flags, do not want them or have sent them back. In fact, my office has been receiving these flags to return to the minister.
This is the old vision. This is the cheerleader we have for a heritage minister. What of a new vision, a new vision that the Reform Party has? I quote the leader of the Reform Party:
For the past few decades, Canada has been governed by an ideology which holds that an overpowering, overspending central government is the answer to every problem, including that of national unity. The Reform Party is not afraid to fundamentally rethink the way our government works. Through decentralization and a greater emphasis on local responsibility, we believe we have a realistic plan that will build a stronger, more united Canada. It will help us achieve our common objective of keeping Quebec in the federation.Let us take a look at what happened in the lead-up to the last referendum. In 1995, of the people who were surveyed, this from the Globe and Mail dated October 30, 1995, 25 per cent of the people in Quebec still believe they could elect federal members of Parliament. Almost 30 per cent believed that they would be able to keep economic ties such as they have right now and over half believed they could keep their Canadian passports.
These things are not a given. They would have to be discussed and agreed to by all the people of Canada. There was no discussion about what was going to be happening should they determine that they were going to be voting in favour of separating from Canada. There was no discussion, no contingency plan and no explanation to the people of Quebec when they voted in favour separation what their vote would actually mean.
At that time, it must be noted, if we take a slice in time leading up to the referendum, the Reform Party was being vilified by all the old-line parties because this was a new way of thinking and they could not really get their mind around a new way of thinking. We were being vilified for saying: ``Just a second, why are we not having an exposure to the people of Quebec as to what the facts are? Why are we not letting the people of Quebec know that this is not a free ride?''
We are being vilified because they think we are planning for their separation. No. I and my party are committed federalists who demand that this country stay together and we will do everything we can to keep this country together. However, it will be kept together by truth, by exposure of ideas and by straight, candid discussions.
In a new Canada that the Reform Party would see, we would see a reduction in the size of tax requirements of the federal government. Right now in our nation, people through an underground economy and all sorts of devious means are walking away from their tax obligations because they believe taxes are too high and they do not want to be a part of it.
(1315 )
Let me make it clear, particularly to anybody in the revenue department, that I am in no way condoning the actions of people who walk away from their tax obligations. I am simply reporting that there is a tax fatigue within the country and people are doing everything they can to get away from it. It is becoming a serious problem in the way in which we relate to each other.
We would refocus the federal government's powers on 10 areas of national importance. We would reform federal institutions to make them more democratically accountable and sensitive to regional interests. We would introduce a triple E Senate, one that would give a counterbalance to the House of Commons, which is after all at least something of a form of representation by population. Ontario and Quebec have two-thirds of the seats concentrated in this place. A triple E Senate, through its equal representation, would give regional compensation to the power of the House of Commons. We would decentralize other governmental powers to give all provinces the freedom and resources to develop as their citizens choose.
Quebec is not the only distinct society. When we look around the country, Quebec has the distinctiveness of its language, but truly, are the Acadians not as much a distinct society? Truly, are the people who arrived in northern Alberta from Europe in the early 1900s not a distinct society? What we are talking about here is the demand, and a very worthy demand on the part of people across Canada to have more say and to get out from under the stultifying
umbrella of the federal government. That is the positive side and the direction in which we want to go.
On the other side of the coin we would also say that secession negotiations must respect the principles of democratic legitimacy, the rule of law and the interests of Canada. The right of Canadians within a seceding province to remain part of Canada and to petition Parliament for that purpose must be respected.
I quote a gentleman, Gilles St-Laurent from Quebec City, Quebec: ``I believe the people of Quebec would like to have more control over their own affairs and less influence from Ottawa. And that is why I think that Reform's plan to give more powers to the provinces is one of the most likely to keep Quebec in the federation''.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his remarks, but does he agree that the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society was not requested by the Bloc Quebecois nor by the Government of Quebec. This was a promise made by the Prime Minister, who also promised to entrench the concept of distinct society in the Constitution, but has been unable to keep his promise.
Quebec is a people and a nation, not a province like any other. This is the basis for any discussion and, as far as we can see, only a referendum on sovereignty will provide the necessary basis for future discussions from people to people.
[English]
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I disagree on one point and I fully agree on another.
When the member suggests that Quebec is a nation of people not like any other province, with respect I disagree. The reason I disagree is that undoubtedly there are a lot of people who come from families in Quebec whose ancestry has been in Quebec for a long time. Canada is made up of a society that to a greater or lesser extent is like that but of the 29 million to 30 million people in Canada about nine million people are recent immigrants. To suggest that the province is a nation because of there being a certain number of people who come from families who have been in that province for a long time, I cannot agree with the member.
(1320)
However I do agree that neither the Bloc nor the Parti Quebecois are asking for distinct society. It is very clear that what is going on here is the Prime Minister is attempting to fulfil a promise that is hollow and which has absolutely no value.
If we want to deal in reality, Quebec is a distinct society in many of its characteristics, in many of the ways in which people relate to each other and certainly in their joie de vivre, their joy of life. It is that joy of life in Quebec which I think adds to Canada's culture in a very wonderful way. Quebecers have a distinct society in that reality.
Here is the problem. The minute that we turn commonly used English words into law, those two words, distinct society, suddenly can become a club, a tool that can be used in ways we could never imagine. Because we put this into law in goodwill all of a sudden we might find that we are constrained.
For example if the CBC wanted to make cutbacks in programming, the CBC could be constrained. If distinct society was in the Constitution and was recognized legally, all of a sudden it could be argued that because the French programming was in support of distinct society and because that was constitutionalized, any cuts that were going to be made at the CBC could only be made in English services but not in French services in Quebec. I just cite that as one example.
The unintended consequences of the inclusion of the term distinct society in law is completely unknown. As a consequence it is a concept that should never ever be enshrined.
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to participate in this debate and to outline and expand on the speech from the throne.
The Liberal Party is proud of its record over the past three years since it assumed its role as the government. Most of the commitments outlined in both the red book and in the first throne speech have been fulfilled or are in the process of being fulfilled.
The throne speech outlines our plan for action for the second half of the mandate. Yet it is not as much a new direction for the government to follow as it is an effort to build upon the accomplishments which we have achieved to date. In the first mandate the government laid the foundation for renewed prosperity. The throne speech contains the blocks on which we have continued to build. The speech from the throne concentrates on three main areas: security for Canadians; modernizing the federation; and jobs and growth. Without question each of these areas is of vital importance.
Security for Canadians addresses concerns which we all have about the future of our social programs. A secure safety net is of great importance to all citizens. When we ask Canadians what makes our country unique, they always point to the social safety net. Today programs such as medicare are part of the Canadian fabric and represent a fundamental value that Canadians cherish.
The Liberal Party understands the importance of the Canadian place in the future of these programs. It understands that for good reason it was the Liberal Party that brought these programs to life. As we all know, times have changed since their inception. As the throne speech rightly spells out, changes are necessary to ensure the continuing health of our social safety net. However, in the end
our reformed social programs must still protect those most in need and we will make sure of that.
(1325)
The second major thrust of the throne speech deals with national unity. The memory of last October's referendum remains strong in the minds of all Canadians. Canada must never again be placed in the position in which it found itself last October 30. However, the referendum results reflected a clear message. It was a message for change and this desire for change is shared in all parts of the country. The federal government agrees that fresh approaches are necessary and it will work with the provinces to ensure that the federation is modernized.
The government proposes to work with all its partners to explore new options. The Prime Minister has called on all Canadians to demonstrate openness and to be a part of these changes. The federal government has already made substantial changes over the past two years. It will continue to do everything necessary to modernize the Canadian federation further. In the end it is important to remember that what unites us as Canadians is far greater than what divides us. The values which we share are as relevant as ever.
While the referendum served to raise many eyebrows, the current trend toward nationalism is not a feature unique in our country. History has shown that many countries have successfully dealt with similar circumstances. While the tide of nationalism was high last October, the separatist threat will recede and the waters will calm once again.
Jobs and growth was the final theme of the throne speech. It is the area I would like to talk about in some detail.
Since the Liberal Party took office in November 1993, over 600,000 jobs have been created. The unemployment rate has declined. I can speak for my own riding where the unemployment rate was at 7 per cent or 8 per cent. Presently the riding which I represent has an unemployment rate of 4.7 per cent. I know it is not the same across the country but it shows that the trend is getting better with the downward spiral of unemployment figures.
The government is not about to sit back and rest on its laurels. More work needs to be done. That is why the speech from the throne targeted three main areas: youth, science and technology, and trade. Those are the key elements for the continued success of jobs and growth in the future.
It does not take a genius to realize that youth unemployment is far too high. While it has been said before, it simply cannot be overstated: The skills of our young people are Canada's greatest resource of the future. Young Canadians need more help to make the transition into the working world and more help to get that crucial first job.
To address this problem, the federal government will work in conjunction with the provinces and the private sector to create new jobs and new opportunities for youth. The throne speech outlined plans to double the size of the federal programs aimed at creating summer jobs in the past summer as it will in the future. The government has also challenged the business community to create jobs for youth.
In partnership with the provinces, the private sector and young people themselves, we will work to create job opportunities for young Canadians. By working together, the youth unemployment problem can be tackled.
The second element of the jobs and growth theme outlined in the throne speech is science and technology. Canada has the distinction of being a leader in the field of innovative technology. In today's global marketplace, that means more jobs, sustainable jobs and quality jobs for Canadians. However, strong leadership is necessary to ensure that Canada remains a leader in this field.
To ensure ongoing success in the growth area, the government will continue to support development in aerospace technologies, environmental technologies and enabling technologies, such as biotechnology.
The government will honour its red book commitment to launch a Canadian technology network to support technology diffusion. Just recently the Minister of Industry made that announcement. We will see these new high technology features being set up on the information highway. They will reach into areas of Canada which have never been able to access the information highway. The government has worked to improve access to the information highway in northern and rural areas. By providing support and leadership in these areas Canada will continue to enjoy its competitive edge in the world's technology marketplace.
(1330)
Another key element of the government's jobs and growth agenda is trade. In the last two years Canada's exports have soared. Month after month Statistics Canada has reported a substantial increase in our exports, but these good news stories have become commonplace in the business pages of our newspapers. If the figures are added up they reveal a true economic phenomenon.
In 1995 Canada's merchandise exports grew by over 20 per cent and its trade surplus by a dramatic 63 per cent over 1994. Adding to the good news is the fact that this rapid growth is diversified and is taking place in all major world markets. As a result of this robust expansion trade has become the single most important factor in creating jobs and growth in the past two years. We must now capitalize on our accomplishments and build on these successes. That is why the throne speech detailed a continuation of Team
Canada missions which to date have brought home more than $20 billion in new deals and as recent as yesterday this figure is continuing to climb in the billions.
As long as there are untapped markets Canada must be ever vigilant to seek new buyers for their goods and services. The government will also announce new measures to support export development in financing.
Finally, the government will continue to work to expand the NAFTA and work toward more world trade liberalization. More markets mean more sales and that means more jobs for Canadians. By taking a proactive role in creating markets for our goods, assisting growth sectors in the science and technology field and giving our youth the skills necessary to succeed we are ensuring the continued prosperity of our nation. That is what the speech from the throne is all about, continued prosperity. Each element of the throne speech deals with prosperity, and the success of each hinges on the others.
A modern and united Canada promotes stability. Stability enhances our potential for more jobs and growth. This continued prosperity allows Canadians to keep enjoying their cherished social programs and Canada as the envy of the world. By providing sound leadership and good government, as outlined in the throne speech, the Liberal Party is charting the course toward prosperity as we head into the 21st century.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech given by my colleague. I can assure you I do not fully share his satisfaction with the throne speech. If I may, I would like to recap in my own words the points he made and show the other side of the coin.
He spoke about safety, about modernizing the Constitution, about employment. He talked about social security in Canada, but he forgot to tell us whether social programs will remain unchanged despite all the federal cuts in transfer payments to the provinces.
On the subject of modernizing the Constitution, he spoke about national unity. He told us that, since the referendum, the government understands the desire for change. Not only has the government failed to table anything to meet Quebecers' demands, but the Prime Minister refuses to talk about the Constitution. He recently said he had done enough but, in our eyes, all he did was table a meaningless motion on distinct society.
As for employment, the government's record is not much better. They claim to have created 600,000 jobs, but the hon. member forgot to tell us that 800,000 have since been lost. And the unemployment rate proves it, averaging between 9.4 and 10 per cent.
(1335)
The hon. member admits that many young people are unemployed but that they will create summer jobs. In fact, summer jobs simply enable young people to earn the money they need to pursue their studies. It is mainly young graduates who are unemployed. That is where the future starts for young people. There is absolutely nothing for them in this.
We are told exports have gone up. Many of these exports are natural resources. In fact, it is the value added to natural resources that will create jobs for young people. The hon. member speaks about prosperity but forgets to mention the debt. What is slowing the economy down? Why is our unemployment rate so high? Simply because of the debt. I would like the hon. member to talk about the debt and how it could be reduced in the near future.
[English]
Mr. Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes a number of points, but on two of them I would like to send him back to a couple of classes for his addition and subtraction. Certainly when one comes from double digits in unemployment down to single digits there is a significant increase in employment in the country.
One of the things that is causing the lack of direct input into some sections of our country is the feeling of instability. The destabilizing effect of referendums takes its toll on certain areas of the country. I believe those who are part of that destabilizing effect have to take some of the blame for that.
The member mentions some other features. When one looks at our export markets and what we are exporting, take a very good look and see how much of that really is value added. I think the member will be very surprised to see how much of that component is truly value added. In his own province in particular, some of the things that have been going out of the province are valued added products that are sold well on the foreign markets, such as the aerospace industry, the making of engines for the aerospace industry.
There are many good stories about Canada. It is a slow spin-out. As recently as the past two weeks the Bank of Canada and other major banks have had a surge of money coming into Canada to invest and there is also the driving up of our dollar. These are all good signs that the Canadian economy has turned the corner. It is predicted that we will lead the G-7 in the next year in growth.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is so interesting today, on November 7, to be discussing the throne speech delivered on February 27, 1996. While we suspected that what the government was announcing was mostly window dressing, we are now certain of that.
Let me briefly remind you that the throne speech delivered by the governor general, on behalf of the government, had three major themes: a strong economy, the security of Canadians, and a modern and united country. One might say that it was wishful thinking on the part of the Prime Minister.
(1340)
We were just told again how strong the economy is. A major problem in this country, and not only in Quebec, is that a very large number-in fact an increasing number-of citizens do not think the recession is over, do not think Canada is the best country in the world, because life for them has become harder and their hopes have been diminishing.
What about the security of Canadians and Quebecers? This government managed to reduce its deficit, but who paid, who is paying and who will continue to pay? It is those who could least afford to do so, and it will continue to be these people. We can never say it enough: had it not made substantial cuts to unemployment insurance and social transfers, the performance of this government would not be the same, because this is where it took most of the money used to reduce the deficit.
Let me also remind you that we had two successive UI reforms, and that the government was elected by promising ``jobs, jobs, jobs''. But what did the government actually do? Its main initiative was to cut unemployment insurance and social transfers.
As for jobs, over 870,000 jobs would be needed to now have the equivalent of the number of people employed in 1990. A drop in the participation rate is a major reason for the lower unemployment rate. This is nothing to be proud of, since it not only means there are fewer people working, but there are also fewer people looking for work. These people did not all go back to school.
The result of these successive cuts to unemployment insurance is, and this bears pointing out, that in 2001 unemployment insurance benefits will drop by $1.2 billion in Quebec alone. These are official figures from Employment and Immigration, which has now become Human Resources Development, and the way it looked to me yesterday will become the Social Union Department. This means that those who are unemployed, in regions where unemployment is high, are helping to reduce the deficit. The regions and the people least able are contributing the greatest share.
What about the Canada social transfer? I would remind viewers that for years now we have been saying that we have seen fewer concrete investments, fewer research and development investments and less routine spending by the federal government in Quebec. Since the Conservatives dared to give the CF-18 contract to Canadair, the only other investment we have seen, accompanied by much fanfare, was an $87 million loan, which our colleagues beside us are still going on about.
(1345)
They say we are irritated because we have more than our share of people on unemployment and welfare and what we want are concrete investments. But they cannot even say that any more because the more cuts we see to unemployment insurance and welfare, the less so-called interregional subsidization there is. This is true for Quebec and also for the Maritimes, and I have never been afraid to say so. The Maritimes voted largely Liberal. The first reaction was deep cuts, followed by more cuts.
If there are members here who think that people must not be helped out of dependence, I am certainly not one of them. But if dependency is going to be reduced, communities must have something concrete.
The Canada health and social transfer is replacing what for years had been a kind of redistribution among poor and rich provinces in order to provide minimum living standards in all regions. It does not give them all the same resources with regard to education, health or welfare. Since their inception, these subsidies have been steadily declining. However, since the 1995 announcement, they have dropped substantially: seven billion dollars over two years. Of this seven billion cut, Quebec is absorbing more than a quarter because it has more than its share of people on welfare.
The worst part about this so-called social union is that from now on whenever there is an increase in the number on the welfare roll, which is bound to happen, there will be no increase in financial assistance. The average citizen believes that the recession is not over and that another one is lurking on the horizon. It might not happen next year, but it will one day.
In spite of all the rosy forecasts that the Canadian economy is on the upswing, our growth rate is only 1 per cent. A one per cent growth rate is not very far from zero growth. We are bound to enter another recessionary period, maybe in two years, and more people will be on welfare again. Who will pay for the increased numbers on the welfare roll? Quebec will, because it will receive no special assistance, and the other poor provinces.
When we hear the federal government talk about social union and preserving the social safety net, and in the same breath, congratulating itself on the success of its deficit reduction program, we cannot help but feel extremely angry. In fact, in the current context, the cuts in the unemployment insurance and the Canada health and social transfer make life harder for the unemployed, who depend on government assistance. This is even more shocking and frustrating as these cuts caused directly by the Canada health and social transfer and indirectly by the cuts to unemployment insurance must be made by the provinces.
(1350)
The cuts that are caused directly by the Canada health and social transfer, and indirectly by cuts to unemployment insurance, must be implemented by the Quebec government. Whether it is in the
area of education, health or welfare, putting an end to these subsidies will have serious effects.
The third part of the throne speech speaks about a modern and united country, but since social conditions have seriously deteriorated and nothing has been done for the recognition of the people of Quebec, of the nation of Quebec, I feel the speech from the throne is, at best, an exercise in fantasy.
I know that what I am saying might seem outrageous, but if some members here think that the situation we have had to put up with in Quebec is not extremely outrageous, they should think again. Since January, since the Liberal caucus, instead of a government which would make a place, a real place for Quebec and not merely enshrine a phoney distinct society in the Constitution when it cannot even be enshrined at present, a distinct society which we do not want and which is irrelevant to us, what did we get? We had to put up with a series of hidden, open, direct and indirect threats.
The only purpose of plan B, which we could say is called plan B after the billy club or the baseball bat, is to frighten us, to try to convince Quebecers they should not seek to become sovereign. The intent is not to make them feel better, to make a place for them, to give them some dignity in this country, but rather to frighten them. We know that, throughout history, this tactic has never worked.
Recently, probably because there is in election coming, they came up with plan A-``A'' as in ``attract''-a plan with little or no substance really. What is it all about? About entrenching the concept of distinct society in the Constitution and, to use the new terminology, creating a Canadian social union.
The Minister of Human Resources Development spoke in generous terms in his speech yesterday, but did not include Quebec in any way. Like the initiative taken by Ontario at the Jasper conference, this shows that Canadians, Quebecers excluded, want to renew Canada. I think it is great that Canadians discuss between themselves how their country could be run better and how social policies are managed. But one thing is clear: there is nothing in there for Quebec. Not only is there nothing for Quebec, but the two movements that have been developing for years: a movement for Canada's renewal by the provinces and a movement, which is getting stronger and stronger, of Quebecers that recognize themselves and want to be recognized as a people and a nation. These two movements are going in opposite directions.
(1355)
But every basis for recognition is there. It is all there, except for one thing: recognizing Quebec as a people and a nation, so that the Canadian provinces looking to reorganize their country to their liking-and this is both desirable and necessary-can do so without Quebec getting in the way, while Quebec gets reorganized on its own terms, with full powers, without Canada getting in the way, and that both countries can share the same economic space as well as other aspects, if they so agree.
Therein lies the real future, beyond the speeches made here. The truth, even when hard to take, must help us understand each other. It must prevail and allow us to create conditions whereby all of us will work at what is essential and urgent, at what our young people want, whether in Canada or in Quebec.
We will soon no doubt hear another speech from the throne. How soon? I do not know. Certainly before the next election. One thing is certain though: we will keep a close eye, as you know, on what the government does about the needs of Quebecers. We will continue to say, not only for the good of Quebec but also, and we are convinced of that, for the good of Canada, that there is only one way to finally build a future that will allow us, in Canada and in Quebec, to respect and to help each other, and that is through Quebec's sovereignty.
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, as it is almost 2 p.m., the House will now proceed to statements by members.