Debates of Jan. 24th, 1994

Speech From The Throne

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I had discussions with municipal and provincial representatives in my riding about this very question and about the things they feel are needed in the area, obviously not just for a short-term boost but to lay a long-term foundation for business to succeed in our area.

It is my view that some of the projects I would like to see come forward in Halifax West would respond to that need and help business be more successful. For example, there are a couple of business parks that do not have adequate access to highways. If they had that access they could be much more successful because transportation needs for any business are absolutely essential.

If trucks on the road are going over potholes all the time or if they cannot get access to highways quickly, that is a cost they are paying.

In fact, one should be looking for ways to minimize those costs and improve the ability of business to do business. That is what I am looking for in these programs. I will try to push forward the things that will help my area.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Okanagan Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in my reply to the speech from the throne to first of all congratulate you for being elected as Speaker of this House. Second, I would like to congratulate the right hon. Jean Chrétien as Canada's 21st Prime Minister.

My special thanks go to the people of Okanagan Centre who elected me. I consider it a real honour to be able to represent them. I will do the best I can to honour the trust they have placed in me.

The primary question facing this Parliament is how do we get the Canadian economy going again? I will address that question from three perspectives: first, by recognizing the need for innovation; second, the acceptance of research and development as an engine of economic growth; and finally, to begin the answer to the question, how can we get that job done?

This Parliament can be Canada's defining moment of the 20th century. As members of this Parliament, we have the opportunity to raise Canada's social and economic aspirations to higher levels of individual social responsibility and accountability.

To do so the government must establish an environment in which the wild government spending of the past is tamed and brought under control. If the government fails to bring its spending under control, it will also fail to motivate individual Canadians to act responsibly and be willing to be held to account.

As a society we are in danger of falling into a kind of cultural tyranny in which minds uninformed by traditions and standards are easy to shape by whoever is driven by a strong ideology. They may not be sympathetic to unity, honesty, integrity and fiscal responsibility. Those were the values that made Canada great.

To become more specific, in order for Canada to stimulate new momentum in the economy, some fundamental changes must be made in organizing our economic pursuits.

First of all, we need to understand that we have a new economy in which huge profits are no longer possible simply by making and moving things. The main producers of wealth and economic production have become information and knowledge, specifically biotechnology, artificial intelligence, the business of space and the creation of new materials, including ceramic composites and combinations of metals or plastics with fibres.

Second, we must note the accelerating development of knowledge and its application in various sectors of the economy. We need to realize that Canada's electronic industry is bigger than its pulp and paper industry, that the computer services industry employs more people than the auto industry and that more people in B.C. work in communications and telecommunications than in forestry, that more Ontarians are employed in business services than in the construction industry and more people in Quebec have jobs in the health and medicare fields than in construction, textile, clothing, furniture, auto, forest and mining industries combined.

These realities demand we give high priority to the acceptance of research and development as an engine of economic growth. What is required to do so? First of all, it would require utilizing the results of systematic studies of material sources, administrative structures and organizations.

New sources and applications of capital must be found and employed. It will be necessary to adopt new ideas about the relationships between public and private organizations, between various levels of government and between private organizations and government. Second, it will require a government that establishes an entrepreneurial attitude toward politics.

Last week our leader, the hon. member for Calgary Southwest, challenged this Parliament to be a House beyond precedent. It is in that spirit that we require entrepreneurial politicians who will undertake innovations that promise substantial political profit while running the risk of potential loss. With such an orientation the major requirement of government is to do what is right, just and fair. Then government is in a position to create an environment that encourages and provides for the exercising of initiatives by private citizens to apply their individual and collective skills, creative talent and knowledge in making Canada the successful nation that it can become.

What must be done in order to achieve that job? First, we need a change in attitude. We need to establish and maintain an educational system that trains entrepreneurs. We need a government that will establish and maintain an economic, social and political climate that assists Canadians to become able and successful entrepreneurs without removing all the risks.

Our families need to develop an attitude that will encourage our children to become resourceful and self-sufficient. We must nurture an attitude that supports community leaders who understand, speak and demonstrate personal responsibilities and accountability. These are leaders who know and accept the need to balance reward with the cost of taking risks and who are willing to pursue a new approach because it promises greater success.

Second, we need to think big. We need to think in the longer term which means long enough to permit the innovations a reasonable chance for success but short enough to discourage lethargy and bureaucratic stonewalling. We need to think beyond our respective families, friends, associates, shareholders and subsidiary companies. We must think beyond our constituencies, regions and perhaps even beyond the boundaries of

Canada to ensure that as many people as possible will benefit from the new approaches.

We need to develop a new role for government. We need a government that acts as a facilitator and not a benefactor and regulator supreme. We need a government that adopts principles of development that encourage growth and the application of private efforts as opposed to pandering to the pressures of self-serving special interest groups.

We need a new role for the federal government that rejects the insidious pressures to centralize power yet provides leadership and guidance for all Canadians in their pursuit of harmony, health, happiness and financial independence.

By changing our attitudes, thinking big ideas and establishing a new role for government we are building on a solid foundation that some have called ordered liberty. By that I mean a state of peaceful harmony and a constituted authority that provides for each of us the freedom from captivity, imprisonment, slavery or oppressive control.

It is this ordered liberty that has given us excellence in art, discovery in science and has undergirded the ethic of work and the ethic of service. It has tempered freedom and internal restraint, inspired public virtue and the inner impulse to do good and has sent legions into battle against disease, oppression and bigotry. It has built hospitals and orphanages. Finally, it has given mercy a human face.

To preserve that ordered liberty Parliament must regain its sense of duty and moral, as well as legal, obligation and accept its responsibility to do what is right.

With that sense of duty intact we must sharpen our focus and perspective by looking beyond the confines of this House. We must have a vision that is bigger than balancing the budget, extends beyond social and economic safety nets, embraces new ideas and arouses creativity. It is a vision that not only brings about reparation but also progression.

It is such a vision that will establish hope and instil a renewed sense of confidence in Canadians who will carry this country forward to a prosperous and new economy.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I join with other members of this House in congratulating you on your election as Speaker. I also extend my congratulations to the government and to all other members who were successfully elected in this 1993 election.

I would also like to publicly thank the voters of North Vancouver for placing their trust in me as their representative in Ottawa.

Prior to and during the election campaign I distributed more than 20,000 pieces of survey cards to North Vancouver residents so that I could find out what their concerns were on a wide range of national issues. The number one concern by at least 10 to 1 was a desire for the government to eliminate the deficit. The people of North Vancouver clearly understand the relationship between government deficits and high taxes and they understand the relationship between high taxes and the lack of job creation by the small business sector.

There are a significant number of home based businesses in North Vancouver in addition to the established base of light industry, shipbuilding and wheat, lumber and coal export facilities. The owners and workers of these North Vancouver businesses will be searching the throne speech looking for signs of fiscal responsibility and future tax relief. The small and home based business sector in particular will be looking for signs that this government will facilitate the availability of capital that is needed in order to establish new businesses and to foster growth and employment.

The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood mentioned this earlier today and I am pleased to offer some additional suggestions for capital for small business in my speech. The Red book accurately points out on page 48 that a major problem facing small and medium sized businesses is that they cannot find capital or that the capital they find is too expensive. I applaud the recognition by this government that capital availability is a problem for the small business sector and I commend it for its efforts to try to find a solution.

However, one of the solutions proposed in the red book on page 49 would place taxpayers' dollars at risk by eliminating personal guarantees for loans under the Small Businesses Loans Act. Instead of encouraging bona fide business ventures and viable businesses this policy could encourage the funding of poorly researched projects and even scams. We will have difficulty convincing our constituents that we are responsible guardians of the public purse if we approve such a measure.

The second proposal, on page 49 of the Red book, confirmed in the speech from the throne is to use $100 million of our tax dollars to help establish a Canada investment fund to "seek out projects and technologies in which to invest".

This approach has all the trappings of yet another government agency which would concentrate on spending as much of our money as possible in the shortest possible time.

If this project goes ahead I would urge the government to first, advertise openly across Canada for experienced private sector fund managers and not make political appointments and second, make sure the managers are held accountable for the performance of the fund and that they will be expected to deliver a profit back to the public purse.

There are those who would say that it is easy to criticize without offering alternatives and for that reason I offer a number of distinct alternatives for considerations by the government.

First, the single most important action that could be taken by this government is to gain control of its expenditures and eliminate the deficit. This would bring the promise of future tax relief and future tax reductions for both companies and individuals in Canada. The result of tax deductions would be the freeing up of billions of dollars each year for use as investment capital by the business sector. There would be no need for government funds or the elimination of personal guarantees on loans. It is quite likely that $100 million in tax cuts would yield more wealth producing economic activity than $100 million of taxpayers' money targeted for a Canada investment fund.

Second, the government could support changes to the RRSP investment rules which would permit individuals to invest their RRSP contributions into private financing and investment companies which specialize in funding for small and home based businesses. Such companies are already familiar with the market and could act as a vehicle for the encouragement and development of new business. The government would of course be involved in the setting of maximum interest rate levels and could require that a set percentage of the funds be committed to research and development. This would help deliver on other promises in the red book regarding research and development. No taxpayers' money would be required for this alternative.

Third, the government could permit the establishment and licensing of RRSP qualifying mutual funds which would lend part or all of their capital in leases and loans to home based and small businesses. Since banks appear to be reluctant to become involved in the provision of venture capital this area of new business financing should be opened up to investment. The banks would probably quickly follow suit and establish their own mutual funds when they saw the response to competition for RRSP and other investment funds.

Fourth, the government should actively seek and act upon input from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Canadian Federation of Independent Business and other coalitions of small business which have already brought together banks and business people to discuss concerns over the supply of capital. These organizations should be encouraged in their initiatives to help small business become aware of sources of financing other than banks.

Finally each member of this House could seek input from the home based and small business community as to the best ways for government to facilitate the availability of venture capital. A simple advertisement in our local newspapers in each riding requesting input could produce a wide range of practical ideas. The government could then base its final decision on feedback from business groups and individual members representing their ridings. There would be no need for expensive commissions to tour the country and yet all interested in Canadians could have an input into the process.

There is ample evidence that voters want a say in the way they are governed. They should be encouraged to become involved. We should take more direction from their input and we should properly represent their position on issues before this House.

I urge the members of this House to support freer votes so that a legislative direction more in keeping with the wishes of the constituents can be possible and I urge them to support more creative ways of improving capital availability to small business. These two measures together would contribute toward finding solutions to the great problems which face us as legislators in Canada today.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Madam Speaker, I begin by congratulating the member on his opening remarks in the Parliament of Canada and I would like to respond to his constructive ideas.

First, the objective of eliminating the 25 per cent personal guarantee under the Small Businesses Loans Act at that time was to try to put further stimulation into a reluctant bank sector which already had in my view a very generous government support provision under the Small Businesses Loans Act.

The member's point is one that we will discuss. Perhaps if we can get the banks to shift their attitude and start lending money to small business then maybe that provision will not have to be touched.

I want to deal with another aspect of the hon. member's speech which had to deal with getting private funds either through RRSPs or just private funds, not financial institutions, that might be used to help small business. Under the Small Businesses Loans Act if someone with a private fund wants to lend money to small businesses eligible under the act then there is a provision in the act for such funds to be considered by the governor in council. In other words this means they are decent people who meet the approval that they are solid operators. I applaud this idea because it would be a way of providing more competition to the reluctant banks.

On the specific notion of the RRSPs as a possibility being shifted into small business as a part of the program, we will make sure the Minister of Finance and his staff hear the member's remarks and we will look at it.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member opposite for his comments and the suggestion this morning that each of us as members should phone our bank managers and request that they help the small business sector.

I think it is a great suggestion. I am sorry I did not mention it earlier, although I should say as a small business person prior to coming to the House I wonder whether my bank manager might think I had other things in mind when I ask him to do that.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to react to the speech of the first Reform member who spoke during the 20-minute period.

He seems to think we need a new federal economic leadership. I have my doubts on that matter. I could mention many examples in my riding of situations where when the federal government took part in an operation, it became more complicated and less efficient.

I referred to a few such cases in my speech as critic for regional development. Let me stress the importance of reducing duplication in this issue. The best leadership the federal government could show would be to withdraw from certain areas in which it has been floundering for years while doubling the costs.

During question period we spoke about training. I think manpower training is one of the best examples. But there are also many areas of federal jurisdiction to consider. For example piers along the St. Lawrence. The federal government reneged its responsibilities in that area for over 20 years while spending money on matters that should have come under provincial jurisdiction. I think that it could easily have spent the necessary money to ensure that we have installations that meet the required standards instead of the opposite.

I therefore feel that it is important, when reflecting on the throne speech, to make sure that this government really has the will to reduce overlapping of jurisdictions. The issue is mentioned in the throne speech, but without any details on how this would be done. I believe it is very important for the House to seriously consider ways to reduce overlapping.

As far as I am concerned, in the end, real initiatives are taken at the local level. I would like to point out that, in some areas, we should give ideas a chance to bloom. For example, in La Pocatière, in my riding, there is a research centre on public transportation and a centre specializing in physical technology. If those centres had been planned by national thinkers, they never would have been located in La Pocatière, but probably somewhere in the Montreal area, or worse yet, outside Quebec.

So, what I wanted to tell the member is that, ultimately, the federal government might best show leadership by staying within its own jurisdiction.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The time for questions and comments to the member for North Vancouver have terminated. Because the Chair neglected to give the five-minute allocated time to the member for Okanagan Centre and since the member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup directed his question to that member, the member may give a five-minute response, if he wishes.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Okanagan Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was totally unaware that those questions were being directed to me. I thought they were to the member for North Vancouver. I was really diverting my attention to other matters and therefore cannot immediately respond to those questions.

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order. Since the hon. member did not take up all his allotted time, may I respond?

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

No. The hon. member may ask questions.

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

I will ask a question with a preamble. Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the first member who spoke for the Reform Party.

In his speech, he mentioned seven or eight points, and I certainly share some of his opinions. He indicated the need for renewal through the infrastructures program. He also mentioned increasing government funding for research and development and also said that the government should control-this was very important in his speech-its spending to create the right economic climate for creating jobs.

He also said a few words about education and manpower training.

He referred to the feelings of freedom and sense of duty Canadians should have if they were to be more progressive and creative. He also asked this government to provide the requisite funding for small and medium sized businesses to invest and create jobs.

However, and that is my question, the hon. member will have to admit that to meet these objectives, which are quite praiseworthy as such, we need a compassionate government that does not attack those who are less well off or the neediest in our society or the middle class to get all the money it needs to boost the economy. We need a government that is not afraid to cut the tax shelters enjoyed by some families and corporations. I want to ask the members of the Reform Party to support and join the Bloc Quebecois in asking this government to guarantee that

Canadians will be able to keep their vested rights with respect to social housing, health-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the question and comment period for both speakers of the Reform Party has expired. Resuming debate. The hon. Minister of Public Works has the floor.

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Madam Speaker, let me begin by joining with other members of the House in conveying to you and to Mr. Speaker my best wishes in your election as Speaker and deputy speaker of this Chamber.

In the weeks and months ahead, Madam Speaker, there will be many challenges you will have to face, but I hope you will be comforted in the knowledge that members of all political parties have demonstrated quite clearly their desire to maintain civility without having to sacrifice anything as it relates to our ideology.

There is no greater honour in a democracy than to be elected to represent one's fellow citizens. There is no greater obligation than to work together to try to create a better life for every person in the country.

I do not share the political philosophy of members opposite but I respect their right to hold their beliefs and to enunciate those beliefs. I hope that on many issues we can find common cause and common ground as we seek to build a better future for our children and our grandchildren.

May I say a special thanks to the people of my constituency of Cape Breton-East Richmond who have granted me the privilege in four general elections of representing them as their member of Parliament in this the highest court of the land. I acknowledge that privilege but I remind them, as I do all other members of this prestigious House, of the words of Edmund Burke when he said:

You owe them much more than your industry; you owe them your judgment.

The communities in my constituency were established by people who dared to dream. My constituents are the descendants of men and women who faced adversity and persecution, men and women who came to Canada seeking opportunity, tolerance and a better life. They sought a decent standard of living and they sought a fair chance to play their role in building a better country.

In 1994 the challenges are different but the dreams remain the same. The residents of my riding and indeed all Canadians seek economic growth, compassion, social programs and a generosity of spirit. Canadians want a government that shares their concerns, a government that respects their views and their dollars, and a government that helps them to fulfil their dreams.

In the speech from the throne the government did not promise miracles. We cannot solve all the problems overnight, but we can and we must take steps to foster new economic growth. We can and we must take steps to ensure integrity and openness in our actions. We can and we must move to solve problems with creativity and co-operation. We can and must treat individuals all across this country, regardless of their differing political philosophies, with dignity and with respect.

The Prime Minister made clear throughout the election campaign his belief that we need to kickstart our economy. We are attempting to do just that with the new national infrastructure program which was announced by my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board. This program will create thousands of new jobs in a matter of months. It will help build the roads and bridges we need to link our country together and to move our goods and produce. We need modern infrastructure to compete in the modern world.

What is so encouraging about this particular initiative is the degree of co-operation shown by provinces and municipalities. To my knowledge this is the first time in our country's history when we have crafted such a complex economic program with such speed and indeed such goodwill. I hope this is a hallmark for future efforts in which all of us in government work together to achieve effective and efficient results for the good of the country.

As an Atlantic Canadian I want to note the significance this government attaches to the fixed link. The fixed link is a transportation initiative which will integrate the economies of Prince Edward Island with those of New Brunswick and thereafter the rest of the country. This, the largest of the building projects, will provide short-term jobs and long-term economic growth for that area of the country. I may say in a personal way it will provide hope to an area which suffers from unprecedented levels of high unemployment.

The whole thrust of the government's agenda is to give every region, every province, every community and every person a chance to be part of the economic mainstream. We want to knock down the barriers that keep Canadians from having a fair chance at success. That is the simple principle behind our plan, Madam Speaker, something to which you have spoken yourself personally in the House and indeed across the country, the introduction of a prenatal nutrition program. We think that babies have a right to be born healthy. Frankly I find it shocking that in a country as rich as Canada we have infants born sick just because their mothers were too poor to eat properly during pregnancy.

Equally distressing are the conditions of poverty in which so many aboriginal children live. Is it any wonder that children fall asleep at school when they do not get one decent meal a day let alone three, when they live in rooms without heating, when they do not have proper winter clothing? I hope all members of Parliament, regardless of political ideology, will support the implementation of an aboriginal head start program so that we can end this national disgrace.

We cannot expect people to make a meaningful contribution to our society if we do not create the conditions that allow them to make that contribution. Surely it is the responsibility of Parliament to show forceful leadership in creating those conditions.

I cannot help but reflect upon some words spoken by the new Speaker of this House in 1981 when he said: "I want Canada to excel in spheres in which we are particularly gifted. I want us to produce goods better than anyone else. I want us to celebrate the forms of artistic expression that best reflect our soul. I want us to pioneer to branches of knowledge and to develop an even more humane social system".

It is wrong that one million children use food banks in Canada. That is why the Government of Canada will announce an action plan for major reform of the social security system in this country. It is wrong that senior citizens are afraid to walk down the street. That is why my government will bring in measures for community safety and crime prevention.

It is wrong that large numbers of women and children are battered and abused. That is why my government will introduce measures to combat that high level of violence. It is wrong that law-abiding citizens are victimized just because they look different, sound different or act different. That is why my government led by the right hon. Prime Minister will act to fight racism in hate crimes across this country.

The notion that every Canadian is entitled to certain basic standards of life is central to our identity as a nation. I am proud to live in a country where we take it for granted that we actually care about one another. I am proud to live in a country where universal health care is regarded as a right and not as some sort of specialized service for the wealthy of this country.

The decision of the Prime Minister to create and to chair the National Forum on Health is based on the belief of our party, the Liberal Party of Canada, that medicare is the cornerstone of social programs in this country.

Only when all Canadians have access to decent health care do all Canadians have an opportunity to forge a decent life for themselves and for their families.

As the minister responsible for housing, I am pleased to say that the government will immediately reinstate the residential rehabilitation assistance program. This was a commitment that we made in the election campaign and a commitment that was reaffirmed in the throne speech given just a few days ago.

Over the next two years, the Government of Canada will provide $100 million in loans and grants to allow low income Canadians to bring their homes up to health and safety standards.

The emergency repair program will furnish assistance in rural and remote areas of Canada. RRAP for the disabled will allow Canadians with disabilities to make changes they need to their homes to guarantee their fuller participation in the mainstream of Canadian society.

I have asked the provinces and territories to share the cost and to deliver RRAP in a spirit of partnership and co-operation. It is my hope that we can create more jobs and provide more help to hundreds of thousands of Canadians across this land.

We are announcing this quick action in order to gain the immediate economic benefits that the renovation program will provide. Later this week I intend to propose improvements in the program to provincial and territorial housing ministers.

Our aim is to put Canadians back to work. Our aim is also to invest in short-term projects that provide the foundation for long-term economic growth. Our aim is to introduce policies and programs that allow all Canadians to benefit from that long-term economic growth.

The government's fundamental view is that we can only solve Canada's deficit problem when we are on track with creating long-term jobs. I am perfectly aware that money for any government programs comes from hard-earned taxpayers' dollars. As the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, I intend to respect that fact. I will do my best to eliminate waste within my departments as well as other governments. I look forward to receiving the suggestions of hon. members which I am sure will be made in a very constructive way.

Canadians are entitled to cost effectiveness and accountability for how their money is spent. We are moving toward greater fairness through open and electronic procurement systems. My officials and I will work with the provinces and others to establish an open purchasing policy across our respective governments.

What is equally important is to ensure that small and medium sized businesses have a fair opportunity to do business with the Government of Canada regardless of where they may come from.

On that note, a small business for instance in my riding has a difficult time knowing where to get the application forms or even who to call. Anyone who has ever flipped through a government phone book knows what a frustrating process this

must be for small and medium sized businesses. That is why we will work to bring centralized business service centres to each of our regions. Small businesses should be able to get all of the information, all of the help and all of the forms in one place.

My hope is that we can work with the provinces and business groups to provide information for them at the same locations.

Small businesses in Atlantic Canada, the west and the north pay taxes too and they deserve a fair opportunity when it comes to bidding on contracts paid for by the taxpayers of this country.

I do not pretend that the new government procurement policies will on their own revitalize the poorer regions of this country, whether they be the north, the west or indeed the Atlantic. We know that our problems are much deeper than that.

The truth is that the economic problems confronting, for instance, the four Atlantic provinces are powerful. However, I am absolutely convinced that the will of Atlantic Canadians to overcome those problems is far, far more powerful. I can say that the Government of Canada will show the leadership to make Atlantic Canada prosper indeed in the years ahead.

I know that members from other parts of Canada face difficult economic adjustments in their communities as well, but I point out to Atlantic Canada, which has been doubly hit and doubly hit hard, the recession of the last few years took an especially harsh toll on my region because of our narrow economic base and our competitive gap with the rest of the country. What is more, the collapse of the east coast fishery is wreaking havoc on the livelihood of thousands upon thousands of families. Six hundred communities in Newfoundland and in Cape Breton are losing their economic mainstay and some feel they may even lose their dignity.

The groundfish have disappeared but the will to survive has not. The federal government will work tirelessly with the provinces and the industry to help the people affected to find new job opportunities. We will put an end to foreign overfishing. In that regard, I salute the Prime Minister and my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who has assumed responsibilities for this particular dossier and is showing leadership both domestically and internationally.

We are going to need goodwill from other Canadians. I urge Canadians to understand the difficulties which interprovincial trade barriers pose not only to Atlantic Canadians but to all Canadians. The Atlantic provinces for instance face a $5.7 billion trade deficit with the rest of Canada. We need your support for the Government of Canada's commitment to eliminate barriers to trade within Canada and, if so, it will benefit all Canadians.

The lack of equity capital remains one of the most serious road blocks facing Atlantic businesses and indeed all businesses across this country. The private venture capital industry is virtually non-existent in Atlantic Canada. We need to work with the private sector and investors to find means of allowing entrepreneurs from the Atlantic region the same access to capital as other Canadian businesses.

Each province in the Atlantic has exciting possibilities for creating and trading new products and we will work with each province to build upon those various strengths.

My province of Nova Scotia for instance has a rapidly growing software industry that stretches from underwater acoustics to support centres of higher education.

We are modernizing and upgrading our tourism in Cape Breton and Halifax, if members do not know it by now, has the potential to become the hotbed of music in North America.

Like every other Atlantic Canadian I am a realist, a realist about our problems we face but an optimist about the future. Like other Atlantic Canadians I believe that the Government of Canada has a major and constructive role to play in justifying that optimism and helping us reach the future.

If we are to become world-class traders and if we are to build upon Atlantic Canada's potential in knowledge-based industries, we need to implement the programs as outlined in the speech from the throne.

I know that as I speak here today other members of this House of Commons do not believe in an activist government, do not believe in job creation programs, and do not believe in our task to help generate new employment for our constituents. But I believe.

Like many others of my generation I came to maturity as an admirer of the late Senator Robert F. Kennedy who once said: "Have you ever told a coal miner that what he needs is individual initiative to go out and get a job where there isn't any?"

This government believes it must support job creation and it must provide people with the tools and skills to create new jobs and to obtain those new jobs.

If we want Canadians to seize the opportunities of the future this Parliament must seize the opportunities of today. If we want Canada to tap its full potential we must allow every Canadian to tap his or her full potential. If we want to restore respect for government we must make government a force for economic and social renewal. We must make government a force for growth and, as the Prime Minister has said so often, we must make government a force for good.

We are very blessed in this country. I look forward to working with all members of Parliament to use those blessings wisely and to make certain that each and every one of our citizens from each and every part of our country has a chance to share in those blessings.

Madam Speaker, may I close my remarks by thanking you, congratulating you, and congratulating new members of this House.

For those who have spoken in this debate I am certain they have spoken with sincerity and with conviction. Although we will attempt to practice civility in the weeks and months ahead I assure hon. members opposite that that should not be interpreted in any way as a consent for sharing the ideologies which they may and I may pronounce from time to time.

I seek your respect. I will give you the civility which it deserves but in turn, Madam Speaker, I expect no less than those members opposite.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by thanking and congratulating the Minister of Public Works for his speech. He gave us his opinion on a number of questions of public interest, but he kept rather silent on other issues of direct concern to his department.

I would like to ask him first about questions directly related to his portfolio and then talk about infrastructures, which involve several departments, and finally ask him a question about parliamentary life.

I will start by asking him why, as minister responsible for public housing, he does not try and reassure the people of my riding and many other ridings in Quebec and Canada, many of whom have signed petitions reflecting their concern as to the governments's intentions regarding social housing? Will the present government follow in the footsteps of the previous one?

Among the issues he did not deal with, although they are of direct concern to him, there is the recent decision of Canada Post, for which he is responsible, to buy Purolator. I would like to know, given the various ideological trends, where this decision fits in the larger government strategy.

Also, I would like the minister to tell us whether, as a member of cabinet, he feels that the infrastructure program will be enough to bring about a significant reduction of unemployment in Canada?

Finally, something about the last few words of the minister regarding respect towards members on the other side. I would like to know whether he is among those, on the government side and in cabinet, who seem to doubt from time to time the total legitimacy of Bloc Quebecois members in Ottawa, who were sent here by the will of the Quebec people expressed during the elections of October 25.

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Cape Breton—East Richmond, NS]

Madam Speaker, I believe the hon. member asked four questions.

First of all let me congratulate my colleague and thank him for this kind of intervention. Perhaps I can respond to his four questions in reverse.

When the hon. member talks about the legitimacy of the Bloc Quebecois and their interventions in this House, I want to refer him, not to some rhetorical speech I gave outside of this Chamber, but to Hansard . If he were to check Hansard , he would find that in my capacity as the opposition House leader I defended on the floor of this House the right of members of the Bloc Quebecois in opposition to speak in this Chamber and to express their views no matter how difficult I found those views to accept. I believe Hansard will report that in 1991 in response to Jean Lapierre, a former member, I outlined this very clearly.

I respect the rights of all duly elected hon. members who come to this Chamber to have the opportunity stand in their places and to echo the sentiments they believe in. Equally hon. members opposite should not be fooled into thinking that because they make these statements, by a certain process those of us on this side will somehow concur with their ideology. That is not the case. I believe that Hansard will probably prove that to the hon. member. I will probably send him a copy so he can read it for himself.

The third question concerned the national infrastructure program. It will provide an economic benefit to Canadians across the country and will provide economic benefits in the province of Quebec. It will not be the panacea for all the ills in Quebec or in Canada. However it will provide a good solid base on which governments can build upon. That is why the President of the Treasury Board and the Prime Minister initiated this particular program on December 21 with the first ministers. As well, the treasury board has signed agreements with provinces across this country.

The second question the hon. member asks is with regard to Purolator. The hon. member is obviously a very wise, seasoned and intelligent individual. Far be it for me to question a quasi-judicial body which reviewed evidence for an extended period of time, called witnesses, examined them under oath and made a decision which it believed to be in the public good, which we as a government and as an opposition party would subscribe to now as we did previously.

Finally, I think the hon. member quite rightly made reference-I want to underline that-to social housing. Social housing is not just the prerogative of the Government of Canada. It is part of the jurisdiction of provincial governments, it is part of

the jurisdiction of municipalities and it ought to be the cause of many individual Canadians across this land.

My government, as confirmed in the throne speech, has put $100 million into social housing under auspices of the RRAP program. I have had discussions with ministers of housing across the country on ways to find additional moneys. At the present time I am dealing with my colleague, the Minister of Finance, other ministers of the Crown as well as provincial governments to see if we can ascertain additional dollars to address those kinds of situations.

In conclusion, I thank the hon. member for his sound and wise intervention. I hope that my answers fulfil some of the queries he has to some major public policy issues.

[John Nunziata, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Madam Speaker, first I would like to congratulate my colleague on his appointment to the cabinet. Having worked with him for the last 10 years I know he will serve the people of his constituency and the country well. I should also say how deeply honoured I am to be often mistaken for the hon. minister and it is only because we share the same barber.

I was encouraged by a statement the minister made. He said: "Every citizen is entitled to a minimum standard of living". The minister knows that at every national Liberal convention over the last 25 or 30 years the Liberal Party has endorsed the concept of a guaranteed annual income. The minister seems to be suggesting that is the direction this present government will go.

I would like the minister to expand upon the statement he made about every citizen being entitled to a minimum standard of living. Is he suggesting this government will finally fulfil a commitment or a position taken at national conventions over the last 20 years? Is he suggesting this government will finally move toward amalgamating the myriad of social programs in this country to guarantee every Canadian a certain standard of living?

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Cape Breton—East Richmond, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question and assure the House that I am honoured from time to time to be mistaken for the hon. member. In fact I have had the pleasure of using his name on a number of occasions of which I will not bring the details to the House.

The response to the question is no in terms of the guaranteed annual income.

The hon. member asks, how does a government which has a limited fiscal capacity achieve its overall objective of enhancing the opportunities of every Canadian. I want to say to the hon. member that although this has been passed by party resolution, as he knows, it is still under active consideration. However I think I would be misleading him if I told him that tomorrow announcements were going to be made with regard to the guaranteed annual income; hence my response of no.

The government is proceeding in many ways to achieve that particular objective. First and most important, the Government of Canada under the auspices of the Prime Minister has recognized that the major economic and social problems facing the country today is the creation of economic growth, not just in small pockets of the major centres but indeed all regions in all quarters of all provinces. So we would be working toward trying to create economic activity in all regions of the country.

A list of things are contained in the throne speech. Perhaps at another opportunity the hon. member would raise this kind of question so that I could give him more details, such as the pre-natal program, the aboriginal head start program, the RRAP program which has provided much needed housing in all regions of the country. There will be a variety of other programs ministers will be announcing in the course of this debate as well as in the debate when the Minister of Finance announces his budget.

[Michel Daviault, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Madam Speaker, for one who appreciates history, to be making a maiden speech in the House of Commons is definitely a solemn moment. We members of the Bloc Quebecois intend to create history and I think this is a very good time for it.

Let me take this opportunity to congratulate you on your election to this very important position you now occupy, let me offer you my best wishes and assure you of our total support.

I would also like to thank my constituents of Ahuntsic, a riding in the northern part of the island of Montreal where some eminent Quebecers from both political camps, federalists as well as sovereignists, have played a great role in the democratic debates over the Quebec issue.

Let me mention Mrs. Jeanne Sauvé, who was a member and then a minister representing our riding during a great many years, and the hon. Raymond Garneau, both federalists. Mr. Jacques Parizeau twice was a candidate in our riding and so was Mr. Jean Campeau who will certainly be the next Minister of Finance in Quebec. It is therefore a great honour for me to represent that riding.

As a critic for the Official Opposition on the infrastructure program, I would like to share with you some of my concerns on this program implemented by the new government. Everyone is saying the Liberal Party was elected because of the platform presented in the red book. That is where the infrastructure

program took form. But it is also in that same document that one can see clearly the confusion surrounding that project.

Indeed, since the government announced that infrastructure renewal program, those concerned do not know what to expect from the federal government. When you think about what the population expects in terms of economic development, you can rightfully speak of-

[John Harvard, Liberal, Winnipeg—St. James, MB]

Madam Speaker, a point of order. We are not getting the translation. I want to bring that to the attention of the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

We will check the matter right away. Thank you.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is there consent to suspend the sitting for a few minutes to look into the problem with regard to interpretation?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(At 4.17 p.m. the sitting of the house was suspended.)

(The House resumed at 4.19 p.m.)

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The Chair will be expecting a report from the Clerk regarding the interpretation problem. I want to advise the member for Ahuntsic that he is still entitled to his full allotted time of 20 minutes. He now has the floor.

[Michel Daviault, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Such an interruption during a maiden speech is rather startling. I will start again then, Madam Speaker. Once more, I wish you all the best in your new position. You may be assured of our full co-operation.

I will also remind the House that the riding of Ahuntsic, which I represent, has always been at the heart of the national debate in Quebec. It was represented by prominent federalists such as Jeanne Sauvé and Raymond Garneau. At the provincial level, prominent sovereignists such as Jacques Parizeau and Jean Campeau, whom I hope will be our next finance minister in Quebec City, ran for election in that riding. It is therefore a great privilege for me to represent it.

As opposition critic for infrastructure, I would like to voice some of my concerns regarding the program being implemented by the new government.

The Liberal Party of Canada was elected on the strength of its red book. The infrastructure project took form in that same book. And it is clearly from that policy paper that stems the confusion regarding this project. Indeed, since the infrastructure program was announced, those concerned have not known what to expect from the federal government. When you are aware of the people's expectations in terms of economic development, you are fully justified in asking the government for more details on what it intends to do in that particular area.

The tough economic times we are experiencing put all levels of government in an uncomfortable position. Given these trying circumstances, it is extremely important to look at how the needed funds promised by the federal government will be allocated and where the money will come from.

To begin with, I would like to refer to a statement made by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and which was reported in La Presse last November 21. Mention was made of the fact that the provincial governments were in such a weakened economic state that their powers to negotiate with the federal government were virtually non existent.

The minister stated the following: "So far, I have met with most provincial representatives and I have observed that their fiscal problems make them much more open to reason than they ever were during the last two or three decades".

This kind of statement by the minister leads one to believe that might is right and that the federal government intends to take advantage of the economic hardships of the provinces to once again infringe upon provincial areas of jurisdiction.

The Bloc Quebecois believes that the infrastructure program could lead to constitutional infringement and our party will denounce any kind of interference in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

Traditionally, the principal area in which the federal government has intruded to a significant degree for many decades is spending power. Spending power is linked to the federal debt which has surpassed the critical $500 billion mark. We object to this spending power and will continue to do so.

May I remind the government that section 92(8) of the Constitution Act, 1867 gives the provinces jurisdiction over municipal institutions.

The federal government is forever reminding us that the provincial governments will be responsible for implementing the infrastructure program. Why then is the federal government taking so much time to negotiate with the provinces to ensure that the money invested in the program will satisfy its criteria and requirements?

In his address in reply to the throne speech, the minister responsible for the infrastructure program, the President of the Treasury Board, emphasized the need for some elements of consistency and I quote: "All the provinces the federal government will review projects in relation to broad program criteria". The conclusion is obvious. In fact, the government is interfering with project management.

If the federal government wants to give good, solid proof that it will have no involvement whatsoever in this program, why not just give the provinces the money they were promised?

Madam Speaker, the federal government also keeps saying that the infrastructure program will stimulate job creation and boost the economy in Quebec and Canada.

By making this program the focus of their economic recovery policy, the government is displaying a glaring lack of vision and sensitivity to the real, basic needs for improving the economic performance of the provinces and Canada as a whole.

How could the Liberal Party think that such an ad hoc program could have a structuring effect on the economy while a more serious and carefully thought-out approach would have had a much stronger structuring effect by creating steadier employment?

I am thinking for instance of the HST project which is particularly promising both in terms of development for the economy of Quebec and Canada and in terms of industrial consolidation in high-tech sectors.

Another strategy which would have had a structuring effect for the consolidation of the industrial fabric in Quebec and Canada would have been to develop a national defence industry reconversion program. In these industries, production is already technology intensive and for the federal government to provide them with assistance through a reconversion program would have demonstrated a more structuring view toward brightening things up as regards the economy and the manufacturing industry.

I would be remiss to address the issue of infrastructure without mentioning the need for oneness in light of the recent negotiations between the federal government and the provinces.

Over the past few weeks, I have had to tell constituents who were enquiring about the state of the negotiations on infrastructure that the government was keeping us in the dark.

These hidden negotiations have led to confusion for which the federal government must assume responsibility. The umbrella agreements being drawn for each province-and we will revisit the issue after the Minister tables these agreements-contains grey areas on aspects as simple as the definition of infrastructure.

In fact, what constitutes an infrastructure? For some, infrastructure must be narrowly interpreted in terms of roads, sewers, drainage ditches and sidewalks. That is how this basic infrastructure project was defined. Others favour a wide and vague definition including cultural and community facilities, telecommunication highways, even congress centres.

This wider definition suggests that the moneys to finance this infrastructure could come from various government departments such as Public Works or federal regional development offices.

The nature of the projects chosen under the infrastructure program could not only confuse existing federal departments but also lead to a duplication of departmental efforts and to a waste of public funds.

In this regard it is conceivable that the federal government will be tempted to use the money already allocated to these departments, thus weakening the notion of new money invested by the Canadian government.

The Liberal Party cannot use old money to keep its election promises, or else its program amounts to a mere accounting exercise.

In fact, is the federal government willing to pay the grants in lieu of taxes in full to municipalities?

According to the UMRCQ, the Union of Quebec County Regional Municipalities, these grants amount to some $125 million. How much is it for all the provinces?

It is also easy to assume that the government will be tempted to reduce public spending in terms of transfer payments to the provinces and social programs.

The Bloc Quebecois denounces such practices, because the budget cuts to be made in the federal government must not be at the expense of the poorest people.

Together with my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, again I invite the government to set up as quickly as possible a committee to review public finances. This committee could identify major cuts that would provide the funds required to support needy people.

Finally, Madam Speaker, the infrastructure program must not be used to reward the government's friends. The government must not intervene in the process of recommending and selecting applications for financial support under the program.

When we met with the minister on January 12, 1994, I proposed consulting all members of the House who are directly concerned with local projects, regardless of their political affiliation.

I also wrote to the minister on January 17, so that he could explain this point which was missing from the document received by all members as of Friday, January 14.

So I am satisfied, I admit, that the minister took this recommendation into account in his address on the Speech from the Throne on January 21.

Madam Speaker, I would like to make a final clarification on the true nature of the infrastructure program and its economic impact on the provinces and municipalities.

The federal government is championing this program. It pompously announces its absolute leadership in setting up this program.

It is important to recall that the Liberal government did not instigate this program; in fact, it was initiated by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, whose report addressing the renewal of basic local infrastructure was adopted in 1985. In reviewing the documents, we will see how far it goes. It was a project re-evaluated in May 1993 at nearly $20 billion over five years.

For example, the basic infrastructure renewal needs of the city of Montreal alone are estimated at about $1.7 billion.

I also wish to remind people that the federal government only pays one third of the total program cost. The provinces pay one third, as do the municipalities.

Madam Speaker, the federal government has not yet demonstrated, I remind you, that the money it uses will all be new funds, nor has it demonstrated that it will not use spending cuts in social programs and transfer payments to free up the new money needed to pursue its program.

The 33 per cent that the federal government invests is likely to be much less when the above-mentioned issues are taken into account.

By intervening in provincial jurisdiction, the federal government is unbalancing the municipalities' three-year capital works plans. To free up the money needed to start work in the next two years, will the municipalities have to draw on funds that were to be spent in later years, in 1996, 1997 or 1998?

In so doing, they will face chronic underfunding for future projects on later agendas, thus creating a sort of dependence that will of course suit any centralizing government.

Madam Speaker, I wanted to show in my first speech in the House one of the wrongs of federalism as traditionally practised by Liberal governments. Here is where the second part of the mandate we sought and received from Quebecers comes in, namely promotion of Quebec sovereignty.

In this statement on Canada's infrastructure program, I wanted to show the indescribable administrative mess we are living in as Canadians. This example in just one field of government activity is matched in almost all other areas. Duplication and infringement have become the rule and no longer the exception.

English Canada recognizes the primacy of the federal government over the provincial governments and that is no doubt why this same English Canada is less sensitive to federal infringement in provincial jurisdiction.

We are a long way from the spirit of equality, balance and mutual respect which characterized the Constitution in 1867. Although it respects the will of its partners, Quebec must not pursue that route.

In my opinion, Canadian federalism has become a model of administrative inefficiency, an inefficiency which undermines the system and severely affects the groups which should be served.

Political systems are tools used by communities to co-ordinate their actions. There is no doubt in my mind that we have to adopt a new regime if we want to get out of this situation.

And this is why the Bloc Quebecois will, during the next referendum, ask Quebecers to patriate its tools by proclaiming its sovereignty.

In the last week, we have heard a lot about the famous red book-probably as much as the Chinese people heard about Mao's red book during the cultural revolution-but I want to remind the government that people in Quebec voted overwhelmingly in support of the Bloc Quebecois and not the Liberal government's red book and, as such, gave their federal representatives the very clear mandate which we had sought, that is to defend Quebec's interests and promote its sovereignty.

[Nic Leblanc, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Madam Speaker, I can see from the speech the hon. member for Ahuntsic just made that he understands full well what the infrastructure program put forward by the federal government is all about. First of all, we have asked and we continue to ask that the money the federal government wants to spend be directly sent to Quebec. Hence, the provincial and municipal governments in Quebec would be able to effectively and responsibly manage this money according to their priorities. Maybe then there will be some money left for the real infrastructure needs of Quebec.

Again, the federal government is directly impinging on a jurisdiction of which it has no knowledge and on which it has no right, since, according to the Canadian Constitution, the federal government has no right over municipal affairs. But now, in a roundabout way, it will succeed in meddling directly in municipal affairs. For the first time in Canadian history, the federal government will directly impinge on municipal affairs. It is a shame, but the federal government keeps doing it.

The Liberal government at that time was the most centralist of all federal governments in Canada's history, and again, with this policy, this program, it will manage to stick its nose in the

sewers and under the bridges of our municipalities. Moreover, it will continue to line its pockets by awarding its own engineers and contractors all the small infrastructure contracts for the municipalities.

It is outrageous and unacceptable. So, the members of the Bloc Quebecois, just like the hon. member for Ahuntsic I am sure, will denounce the fact that the federal government is directly encroaching on the management of municipal infrastructures. One of these days, the federal government will have to recognize that the best way to achieve efficient management and to make municipalities accountable is to withdraw from municipal affairs to avoid overlapping and duplication. As you know, overlapping and duplication are very costly to manage and also very costly in lack of efficiency, in confrontation and other such things.

I do not understand why the federal government, which should know and should understand this, still gets involved in areas that are not of its concern.

It is a shame, Madam Speaker. I denounce it today and I hope that we, as Quebecers, will continue to work hard together so that this does not happen again, considering how terribly high the deficit now is. We have a $500 billion deficit and we know full well that it is due to the fact that the federal government is constantly interfering in areas that should be under provincial jurisdiction, that it is due to the centralization of powers in Ottawa. Canada's deficit began to grow under the Liberal government in 1970 and it has become outrageous. It went from $2 billion in 1970 to about $35 billion in 1984 and now stands at $45 billion. Nevertheless, the federal government insists on centralizing everything and it has even come to the point where it interferes in areas of municipal jurisdiction.

It is absolutely outrageous and I want to ask my colleague from Ahuntsic what he thinks of all that. I think he agrees with me, but I will let him explain in his own words.