Debates of Sept. 25th, 1997

Speech From The Throne

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to seniors benefits we are under great consultation now with seniors right across the country.

The fact is that 75 percent of Canadians will do better. Nine out of ten senior women will do better. We are bringing in these fundamental changes so that middle income and low income Canadians can be assured of a decent retirement.

I would ask the hon. member to hearken back to the last time there was reform, when the Conservative Party sought to bring in pension reform on the backs of the lowest income earners, on the poorest in the country. We will not do that.

[Jean Dubé, Progressive Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the government is going to let the Minister of Finance take money from Canadians instead of stopping the waste of their hard-won earnings.

Can the Minister of Human Resources Development explain to us why his government is intent on punishing a generation of Canadians in retirement when it has taxed them to death during their working years?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, what the reform has done was to respond to a need, specifically the need to ensure that there would be pensions in the next century, without having to pay an exorbitant price for them. That is what we have done. We have penalized no one, on the contrary, particularly not those women they speak of. Nine out of ten women will benefit from this reform. This is a reform which was necessary.

We are the first industrialized country faced with these changing demographics to address this problem with such courage. I believe that this government's courage in solving problems by addressing needs, not only for the next few years but for the next generations needs to be recognized.

International Trade

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.

In my constituency of Oakville I am receiving letters of concern about our negotiations toward a multilateral agreement on investment.

Is the minister prepared to ensure that there will be public consultations on the MAI and, if so, what mechanisms is he planning to use?

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the hon. member for her question.

Currently we are engaged in negotiations to set rules and regulate the investment portfolio because today there are over 1,300 different bilateral investment agreements. In fact Canada has either signed or negotiated up to 50 of the agreements. There is a need to multilateralize.

At the same time I am sensitive to the hon. member and other hon. members. Obviously we need to do that in an open and transparent fashion. That is precisely the reason we have sent members of Parliament information packages, briefed our trade critics, offered briefings to our caucuses, as well as indicated to—

[The Speaker]

That would bring to a close our question period for today.

Business Of The House

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the government House leader to advise the House of the nature of the government's business for the remainder of this week and into next.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague across the way for this excellent question.

The House will continue debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne today, tomorrow and Monday. Tuesday shall be an allotted day. On Wednesday the House will consider a motion by the President of the Privy Council to establish a special joint committee to consider a proposed amendment to the Constitution regarding education in the province of Quebec.

I expect to conclude the address debate next Thursday and Friday.

While I am on my feet I wish to inform the House that it is the intention of the government to refer Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act that was presented to this Parliament earlier today to committee before second reading pursuant to Standing Order 73(1).

Points Of Order

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing me on a point of order arising from question period. You will have guessed that it has to do with the expression used in question period on which you intervened. It has to do with the expression “picking the pockets of Canadians”.

Mr. Speaker, I have looked in Beauchesne's sixth edition, page 142, the section on unparliamentary language. Unless I am mistaken—and I have not had a lot of time to examine precedents, as you will agree, Mr. Speaker—I have not found it in Beauchesne's. In fact, I think it is an expression that I have heard in this House before. It is an expression that I think is widely understood by members in the House as not being derogatory if that is not the intent of the person who is saying it.

I would respectfully submit that the expression used by the member was an expression that should be allowed.

[The Speaker]

Many times in the course of the give and take in the House of Commons certain words are used and sometimes, as your Speaker, they seem to be inappropriate. I do not know if this word is in Beauchesne's or not, but sometimes it is the tone used with the word and sometimes it is circumstance, that causes disorder, etc.

I hope the House would indulge me at the beginning. I will have a look at Beauchesne's again of course. However, I would prefer that we use words that are less inflammatory.

I will surely look at the precedents and refresh my memory. If it is necessary I will come back to the House. With that said, this point of order is over unless the member has another point of order.

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did want to add a very brief comment because I think it is relevant to the way the House will operate and how you will, from the Chair, deal with these matters.

I simply wanted to add that I find the same to be true for the word “bamboozle”. I would appreciate if you would equally give consideration to that word in your research of precedents.

[The Speaker]

There are no words that I know of which of themselves are unparliamentary because they can be used in such a way that they would not be.

As your Speaker I have to decide matters during the course of the give and take in question period. Surely I should have enough room to make decisions on your behalf so that the debates can continue.

If the hon. member wants me to look up the word “bamboozle”, I will be happy to do that.

I hope that when I make decisions of this nature, that you will grant me enough room. My intentions are to see to it that the House functions properly. I will not intervene any more than I have to.

We are going to go to tributes. I recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona who will be saying a few words about a very dear colleague of ours who passed away, Mr. Stanley Knowles.

The Late Hon. Stanley Howard Knowles

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when the last Parliament adjourned we were still fortunate enough to be in the company of Mr. Stanley Knowles, the former member for Winnipeg North Centre. However, as everyone here will know, shortly after the general election of June 2 Mr. Knowles passed away just short of his 89th birthday. At that time he was honoured appropriately on the Hill.

In addition to the special honours that he received at that time from the House, from the government and from the Canadian people in a massive overwhelming way, we have a tradition in this place of paying tribute to former members. It is at this time that I would like to pay tribute to Mr. Knowles, the former member for Winnipeg North Centre, whose association with this place stretched over 50 years, 55 years from the time he was first elected in 1942 up until 1997 when he was still serving as an honorary officer of the table, with the exception of the four years that he spent out of office from 1958 to 1962. But he first ran for Parliament in 1935.

Obviously it was a tremendous span of association with Canadian politics. He was someone who I think was regarded almost universally as one of the great parliamentarians of our time. We will miss him and we will miss having him here with us. Of course as New Democrats we especially regret that he was not here to enjoy our return to this Parliament with the status of an official party. I know that my leader expressed similar sentiments yesterday when she spoke to the Speech from the Throne.

Stanley Knowles was a great defender of veterans, of the poor, of women, of anyone who needed help, of anyone who should have been the object of our compassion, either individually or as a society. He saw government as something that could play a positive role in the economy and in the creation of social programs. He fought especially for the elderly and for pensions and for a decent public pension system in this country and he lived to see many of his dreams realized.

Unfortunately he also lived to see the day when some of those dreams began to unravel as part of the policies adopted in recent years. So many of us here, inspired by his work and by his commitment to such things, intend to continue that work and to defend and to promote the ideals that he represented in this place.

One could talk about Stanley Knowles for a long time and never say the same thing twice because there is so much to say about the former member for Winnipeg North Centre but we only have a brief time here today.

I want to extend on behalf of my colleagues and I am sure on behalf of everyone our condolences to his family and our great appreciation of the gift that they gave to us, all the hours that Stanley Knowles spent in this place day after day, night after night.

I remember seeing him the night before his stroke. It was 11 o'clock in the evening in the hallway of the sixth floor of the Centre Block. He always paid attention to Parliament and cared about Parliament and cared about what Parliament was doing and how it was doing it. If there is one thing we can say about Mr. Knowles, it is that he always carried out his duties with a great deal of honour, dignity and a respect for the parliamentary process. We mourn his loss here today and pay him tribute.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able take part in this tribute to the memory of the late Hon. Stanley Knowles.

He was a vigorous spokesman for the elderly, for the poor, for the less favoured people in our society. He was an outstanding expert on the procedures and the rules of the House. He was one of the ornaments of the House of Commons in this and in previous generations. He will be very much missed. It will not be the same when we look toward you, Mr. Speaker, and do not see Mr. Knowles sitting at the table as honorary clerk, as the proceedings unwind.

On behalf of the Government of Canada I would like to extend deepest sympathies and condolences to the family, the children and grandchildren of Stanley Knowles.

He will be very much missed in this House and in our country.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I also join with other MPs in paying tribute to the late Stanley Knowles.

Mr. Knowles' contributions to this House and to Canada are well known. His consistent advocacy of social legislation to help the old, the sick, the young and the poor, his advocacy in defence of democracy mainly through the development and the improvement of the rules and procedures of the House, his contributions and accomplishments as a social democrat are a monument in themselves and there is little we can do to add to their lustre.

There is one other dimension of Mr. Knowles' life and career that we should not lose sight of in praising his accomplishments as a social democrat. Stanley Knowles began his career as a minister of the Christian gospel. All the old western populace movements, Réal, Social Credit, the Progressives, the CCF, which later became the NDP, all had a spiritual dimension to their beginnings and their mission.

Mr. Knowles, like his friends and collaborators J.S. Woodsworth and Tommy Douglas who were also Christian ministers in the Methodist and Baptist traditions, was a part of the social gospel movement, a movement that true religion encompassed not only the vertical relationship of individuals to God but also the horizontal dimension of service to one's fellow man.

I think of Stanley Knowles as a servant of Canada, as a servant of his party, as a servant of this House and a servant of the common people. But I also think of him as a servant of a higher master.

It is an honour to pay tribute to him today in all the dimensions of his service.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure, on behalf of Bloc Quebecois members, to join with my colleagues in paying tribute to Stanley Knowles.

When I became a member of this House, in 1984, Mr. Knowles had just ended his last term as an active member of Parliament. A few months earlier, the Prime Minister had offered him, with the unanimous consent of the House, to sit at the clerk's table. So, during my first years in this Parliament, I often had the opportunity to consult with him. He became an effective conciliator between the leaders of the various parties, as well as a knowledgeable consultant to each party and an exceptional advisor to the House.

No Bloc Quebecois member currently in this House has had the honour of sitting with him. However, most of us have heard about him since 1993 and seen him sitting at the clerk's table in the past few years. Everyone knows of his tremendous efforts to introduce social measures in this House.

Mr. Knowles' religious background eventually led him to run for office. Sometimes he would say, and I do not know for sure whether he was joking or not, that it was easier to change laws than souls. This is why he went into politics.

He was elected to Parliament and quickly became an expert on procedure. I think his great parliamentary skills were confirmed during the famous pipeline debate, in 1956. In addition to being an expert on procedure and a man who devoted his political career to the poor, Mr. Knowles was also a good organizer and he had the ability to bring people together. This led him to create the New Democratic Party, in 1961.

It was said that Parliament was not his second home, but his main residence. Stanley Knowles was a man of conviction; he was always prepared to fight for the poor and the elderly. He was a man of courage, in spite of his physical frailty. He suffered from multiple sclerosis, but this never stopped him from fighting for the poor.

He was an honest man, respectful of and respected by his political opponents. In a sense, Stanley was the conscience of this Parliament. He will remain a legend in Canadian politics.

To his family, his friends and his party, I express, in my own name and on behalf of my colleagues, our most sincere condolences. I conclude with this beautiful line from the great French author Alexandre Dumas, who said “Those whom we have loved and lost are no longer where they were, but they are still everywhere we are”.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the tributes the public paid to Stanley Knowles earlier this summer here in this building and in this city and in Winnipeg stand as a monument to a politician who cared deeply for his community and for his country.

Behind the legend there was a mortal who saw his public duty, who was prepared to engage in public life to change things, and millions of Canadians benefited from his efforts, the poor, the veterans, the aged, to name a few.

Mention has been made of the high honour the House gave to Mr. Knowles by making him an honorary officer and giving him a seat at the table. People who watched the proceedings of the House perhaps remember him in that capacity in his latter years.

As we set out at the beginning of this new Parliament perhaps it would be best to remember Stanley Knowles as a politician, a political warrior who was armed with the strongest armour that any of us can have, a writ of election and a seat in the House of Commons of Canada.

It gave him the ability to confront the issues of our time as he confronted the issues of his with determination, unfailing courtesy and hard work. The families of politicians inevitably pay a price for this dedication. I hope that the pride that they are entitled to feel at the end of Mr. Knowles' life tempers the sense of loss which, regardless of age and its infirmities, must still be great indeed.

He was a House of Commons gentleman, a politician, a parliamentarian, and we are better in this country because of his dedication to Canada. On behalf of my party here, our deepest sympathy goes out to Mr. Knowles' family. We want to say that we honoured him greatly and we still do in the remembrance of him.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today also on behalf of my colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, since both of us share in the privilege of representing a constituency that Stanley held for 38 years.

Our only regret today as we take up our rightful places in this Chamber is that Stanley Knowles is not looking over at us from his place at the centre of the table in this Chamber. We know that nothing would have made Stanley Knowles happier and prouder than to know that his constituency, one for which he worked so long and hard, had come home to the NDP on June 2, 1997.

The member for Winnipeg Centre and I, and I believe all of my colleagues in our caucus and all parties in this House share in the responsibility of carrying on the legacy of Stanley Knowles.

We know it is impossible to fill his shoes but we can strive to be like him, fighting for social justice with honour, pursuing righteousness with kindness.

We also know that the best way to carry on his legacy and honour his work is to try to maintain the high standards he set for all of us, the standards of fighting persistently for social justice and always doing it with honesty and integrity. It is our turn to carry on the torch of Stanley Knowles, to carry on his fight for security for seniors, for equality for all people and hope for a better day.

We mourn the loss of a great Canadian, a founding member of the NDP, the conscience of Parliament. But his work, his words, his fighting spirit live on. The best way we could pay tribute to Stanley is to use his own words, words he delivered in 1930 in a valedictory address to Brandon College.

To paraphrase his words, as we stand here in this Chamber our thoughts go back to the pioneering spirit of Stanley Knowles who struggled and sacrificed for this institution here in this place. His memory seems to hallow the very ground on which we stand.

The House resumed consideration of the motion for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

Speech From The Throne

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to be back here. I will be sharing my time with the member for Shefford. I want to congratulate you on your elevation to the Chair. Most if not all of us would agree that you are a learned student of this House. I would say you have mastered the rules of procedure and you are very diplomatic in your skills and in handling numbers. Congratulations.

I want to thank my constituents for sending me here and for placing their trust in me. I want to let them know back home that I will do the very best job I can to represent them in this House.

I want to mention my riding a little before I begin my address to the throne speech. My riding is called Charlotte but it contains seven counties either in whole or in part. The name Charlotte really does not do justice to the description of the riding. One of the things that we will be entertaining is the possible name change for the riding to reflect those folks who live in some of the other counties.

The throne speech was a big disappointment to me. It was filled with vague generalities and all kinds of platitudes with not a whole lot of meat or substance. I do not think many Canadians could find satisfaction in what they heard in that speech the other day, in particular when we note that Canada is going through a high rate of sustained unemployment. We have had 87 months of unemployment at a rate of over 9 percent which is absolutely unacceptable.

It is often said that the essence of life is hope. I do not think there was much hope in the document of the other day. Canadians, in particular Canadians from Atlantic Canada and some of the poorer parts of Canada, would not take a whole lot of comfort in it.

It is interesting that last week when the Leader of the Opposition was interviewed by a newspaper in Atlantic Canada he alluded to some of the poorer parts of his province which sometimes we do not understand.

I think that some of the hurt that is being experienced in the country knows no bounds. I can talk about Atlantic Canada but there are other parts of Canada that are also going through some pretty tough times.

It is often said that a real measure of a government should be how it deals with its poor, its elderly and its sick. After examining this government since 1993, I would add to that list the youth of Canada. The government has failed miserably. It cannot seem to grasp the reality that there are a lot of people hurting.

When we listen to the finance minister I believe he assumes that since everything is well on Wall Street and Bay Street, that everything is well in the rest of Canada. But let me tell the House it is not. That is one of the reasons the House did make some changes which were reflected during the election period.

As members have returned to the House there is a decrease in the size of the majority of the government which it enjoyed in its first mandate. I believe that was for a very particular reason. I believe it is because there are lot of very disillusioned people.

In the United States over the last 10 years there has been an 11 percent increase in real incomes. In the corresponding period in Canada there has been a 1.3 percent decrease in real incomes. There is something wrong when that happens and the government has yet to figure out what it is.

When we take a look at the unemployment rates in the country we are in the same situation. Our unemployment numbers are exactly double those of the United States. There are many reasons for that obviously. But I think one big reason we have had that sustained unemployment rate in Canada is a lack of vision on the part of the government.

The government has been blessed by many things, some of them completely beyond its control or which it had nothing whatsoever to do with. It has been blessed with a period of economic growth since it took office but that has not actually been translated into real jobs. It has been blessed with very low international interest rates, which has played well for the government in terms of debt reduction, which again has nothing to do with the government itself. It has been blessed with some financial measures which any government could have fared better with than what it has.

Immediately on taking office in 1993 it proceeded on the route it is famous for, downloading its problems on to another level of government. It certain did that. If we measure the reduction in spending in Ottawa since 1993, over 90 percent of that has been downloaded on to the backs of the provinces. The statistics will tell us that only 2 percent of the cuts came out of downtown Ottawa and its government departments. The rest was downloaded on to the backs of the provinces.

Health care is an example. A 40 percent cut in health care transfers to the provinces. That translates into a figure of approximately $8 billion. What the government and its finance minister and the prime minister forgot is that there is only one taxpayer. When they download on to the provinces they have to do one of two things, accept the download or download themselves on to the backs of the municipalities, again forgetting there is only one taxpayer. That has hurt us in Atlantic Canada. It has hurt us in a number of ways but particularly in health care.

I do not think there is anyone in any part of this country who could stand up today to say with any degree of confidence that our health care system can sustain those types of cuts. If we measure what we have today versus what we had 10 years ago, there are a lot of Canadians who are very worried.

The answers to some of these problems are not easy. There is no question about that. It requires some ingenuity on the part of the government to recognize that there are problems out there which must be dealt with.

In Atlantic Canada we are not talking about handouts; we are talking about strategic investment into the area of the country that has the greatest amount of unemployment. In some parts of Atlantic Canada the unemployment rate is over 30 p. cent. The government has to do something about it. Just downloading onto the backs of the provinces, particularly the poorer provinces, is not going to solve the problem.

We have the brain drain of Atlantic Canada. We educate our youth only to find that they have to move out to get a job. The old expression is that Atlantic Canada is a nice place to live, provided you can get a job. There is nothing in the throne speech which would give Atlantic Canadians, particularly young Atlantic Canadians, any degree of hope.

It is incumbent on this government to take the message which was given to it on June 2 and respond to the needs of Atlantic Canada.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the speech of my colleague from the Conservative Party with interest and was unable to detect, in the part I was able to hear, any personal opinion on the matter of the amendment to the amendment by the Bloc Quebecois.

I have two questions for my colleague from the Conservative Party. Does the hon. member acknowledge that the Government's legislative program denies the existence of the Quebec people and its culture? In responding to this question, can he tell us whether he will in fact vote in favour of the amendment we are proposing? And even more fundamental than that, does the hon. member acknowledge the existence of the Quebec people as a people? Such recognition would make it possible to reach a solution to the constitutional problem which has been with us for more than 30 years.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

I believe that one of the best things the government could do for Canada—and obviously Canada in my eyes includes Quebec, a healthy Quebec, a Quebec that is as vibrant as we want to see the rest of Canada be—would be to get the economy moving in a way that brings everyone in.

As I mentioned before, the government is taking a lot of pleasure in the growth in the stock market and how well Bay Street and Wall Street are doing, but it has forgotten that consumer confidence in Canada is at an all-time low. The sustained rate of unemployment is hurting us. Ordinary Canadians have no confidence in the future. That includes the citizens of Quebec.

Anything we can do to help in creating a healthy, vibrant economy and anything that we can do to improve the lot of all citizens in the province of Quebec, English as well as French speaking, I am in favour of it and this party is in favour of it.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know that time is short so I will simply move to one of the member's statements and that was that there is only one taxpayer. The member probably will know that in the province of Ontario the Mike Harris government has extended a 15 percent tax decrease to the residents of Ontario.

The member believes there is only one taxpayer. Would he not agree that the impact of so-called downloading has not been as severe as he might suggest simply because the government feels it is important to have given that tax break notwithstanding any changes from federal transfers?

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, if I were a member from Ontario I think I could stand up here and boast about the economy of my home province, but unfortunately I am not from Ontario. Obviously that is one of the reasons why the Liberal Party won every seat, with the exception of one, that of my colleague just in front of me. It is because the people very seldom reject a government if the economy is moving well as evidenced in just about every election in the United States and Canada in the last 100 years.

If I were living in downtown Toronto or Oakville, Ontario I would agree 100 percent with what the member has stated. They are basically satisfied with the government.

This country as a whole is what I am worried about. That wealth and industrial prosperity has not spread across this country in the directions that we would like to see it spread. It has not spread north, east, or west in some areas. As I mentioned earlier in my speech, even places in British Columbia and Alberta have their problems, but in Atlantic Canada we have serious problems.

One of the things that the government does have to take a look at is a reduction in taxes. We are proposing a reduction in payroll taxes, those employment insurance taxes of which the government today is sitting on a bank roll of somewhere between $5 billion and $10 billion and using that for goodness sake to reduce the size of the national debt, which is ridiculous. The government is putting the problem right on the backs of the unemployed, the very people it should be helping.

[Diane St-Jacques, Progressive Conservative, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate you on your appointment. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the people of Shefford for the confidence they showed in me in the recent federal election. I want them to know that I will work with all my heart to defend their interests.

To return to Tuesday's speech from the throne, the government has revealed its political intentions. Satisfied with the current state of the country and unable to offer Canadians a national vision with clear objectives for the country as a whole, the Chrétien government has certainly set out its intentions, but without structure or time frame.

Not only does the speech not put forward any creative vision enabling us to move into the 21st century, but it fails to respond to Canadians' real concerns. The speech is a Liberal speech, the same one they have been dishing up for years. It says nothing to me and enables them to improvise, as they always have. They turn whichever way the wind blows, taxing, cutting, taxing, spending.

Tuesday's speech from the throne contained at least one piece of good news. The government will soon have a budget surplus. The bad news is that Canadians will not see a cent of it. The Liberal government now has to repair the damage it did in its first mandate and reinvest in the programs it had previously cut.

You know, we should not be surprised, this is the Liberal style. We are here in the House of Commons to work together to build a better future for our country. The challenge facing Canada is of significant proportions and warrants all our energies and creativity.

We must build for our children a country in which they can grow and develop without going hungry and without lacking quality health care, in a context that will encourage them to excel.

My party, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, has developed a plan providing Canadians with a vision for the future that meets their aspirations and expectations, a simple, down to earth and unifying plan. Time has come to take new approaches and to offer new solutions. The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada has already come up with a plan that will give Canadians a vision, a down to earth plan for the future of our country.

However, a vision and a plan are not enough. Leadership is required to achieve key priorities. Our program for growth has three main thrusts: sound management of taxpayers' money; quality of life for our fellow citizens and, finally, initiatives for a brighter future. Quite simply, what sound management of taxpayers' money stands for is the need for any responsible government to introduce legislation to make fiscal balance mandatory, lower employment insurance premiums and reduce personal income tax. What people want is not rhetoric and empty promises, but action.

The government was in a position to act, but once again it sat back and did nothing. There is also a need to improve the quality of life of all Canadians. Our social safety net, which is the envy of many nations around the world, cannot be expected to withstand much longer the drastic cuts made by the government across the way.

Concerned with putting its financial house in order, the government, during its first mandate, brought all existing support programs and the Canada Assistance Plan together under a single umbrella called the Canada health and social transfer. Once again, concern about saving money took precedence over common sense, and government assistance was cut by $7 billion over four years with the results that we know.

Instead of federal transfers leaving the provinces at the mercy of the federal government's goodwill, we are proposing a tax point transfer to the provinces and territories to ensure stable funding. This way, provincial and territorial governments would be forever protected against cuts like those imposed by the Liberals. In addition, the public would receive services from governments that are closer to them and their situation.

We applaud the government's desire to end child poverty. Unfortunately, its efforts are directed more at the consequences of the problem than at the problem itself. There are 1.5 million children living in poverty in Canada. These children are poor because their parents are poor. Their parents are poor because the government has focused all its attention on one thing: the deficit. And all the while, Canadian workers, children and the elderly have been paying the price.

The government even admits in the throne speech that it has the means to improve our children's lives and that it intends to invest in their well-being. Let us remember that the money referred to by the government in its speeches has already been committed in the two previous years' budgets. Let us be clear: the government is promising us money it has already invested and it is promising to invest at least that much again.

Is this another of those elusive promises, like the 150,000 day care spaces, or will the federal government actually make a commitment this time? Of all the promises made by the Liberals during the election campaign, let us hope that those concerning children will be kept, and kept a little better than the motion passed in the House of Commons in 1989 to end child poverty by the year 2000. If the current trend continues, the child poverty rate will have doubled by then.

At the present time, over 1,500 food banks and hundreds of soup kitchens are waging the fight against hunger. Under the present government's plan, millions of children will still go to school hungry tomorrow. It is unfortunate that this sad reality is only brought home to us during electoral periods.

It is not surprising that election-minded politics like this have undermined the credibility of our institutions. When the public has regained faith in its public institutions, we will have the stability and confidence necessary to move forward. The country needs leadership with the courage to renew and revitalize the federation in order to show that it can work to everyone's satisfaction.

The premiers have agreed on a work plan and on the main areas of discussion. I am convinced that it is possible to find a basis for agreement. Canadians from all walks of life will not waste much time in extremist rhetoric, and they will demonstrate their attachment to Canada, I am sure.

It is time again for us to join forces around a common ideal. the polls clearly demonstrate that Quebecers have Canadian values at heart and want to remain within the country they helped build. Let us not get hung up on the words, the reality is clear. Quebecers are Quebecers, and just as proud to be Canadians.

What is less clear is that, in neither the last referendum nor the last electoral campaign, not even in the meeting at Calgary, was there any manifestation of leadership by our Prime Minister. I apologize for not mincing any words, but his leadership is worn out.

Our dynamic team, representing a new generation of politicians, will advance some constructive ideas which will rally the population. Rest assured that the only leader with a vision of the future for Canada is the man you heard yesterday, Jean Charest, and the true opposition which can speak on behalf of all Canadians is the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.