House of Commons Hansard #9 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was riding.

Topics

Business Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

10 a.m.

Kingston and the Islands Ontario

Liberal

Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, there having been discussions among the parties, I think that the House will unanimously consent to the following motion:

That the ordinary hour of daily adjournment be extended to 10 p.m. this day and that, during the extended sitting, no quorum calls or dilatory motions shall be received by the Chair; and

that if, on Friday, January 28, 1994, at the conclusion of the debate on the motion for an Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, a division is demanded and required, such division shall be deferred until 6 p.m. on Tuesday, February 1, 1994, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 45(6).

Business Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

The Speaker

Does the parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

Business Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Business Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, our party has indeed granted consent, and I would like to point out that we may have created a precedent in holding the vote in the evening of Tuesday. I hope that we will have an opportunity to discuss, within the framework of parliamentary reform, the issue of concentrating votes on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays so as to allow hon. members of this House the opportunity to work in their respective ridings on Mondays and Fridays, which would make it a whole lot easier for all of them to do their job.

Business Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

The Speaker

Is it agreed that we have unanimous consent?

Business Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Business Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

The Speaker

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Business Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

Jim Jordan Liberal Leeds—Grenville, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me this morning to present a petition signed by residents of my riding of Leeds-Grenville; residents from places such as North Augusta, Addison, and Spencerville.

The petitioners are expressing their abhorrence at the crimes of violence which, as we all know, are on the increase in Canada. These petitioners are asking for amendments to be made to our laws to prohibit the importation and the distribution and sale of what is known as killer cards.

The petitioners would like to have the manufacturers of these killer cards informed that they will be stopped at the border and destroyed. The manufacturers should be so informed before they try to export these things into Canada.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

Ronald J. Duhamel Liberal St. Boniface, MB

Mr. Speaker, I have one petition to present this morning. The petitioners point out that single income families with special needs children should be eligible to claim child care expenses on their income tax. They feel these families are discriminated against for their decision to remain at home with their children.

They point out that there is often a significant cost incurred by families advised by physicians to place their children in day care centres catering to special needs children and these costs remain the same whether the family has a single or double income.

The petitioners believe this policy is unfair and discriminatory. They ask that it be reviewed and if possible that something be done in the forthcoming budget.

The House resumed from January 24 consideration of the motion for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his Speech at the opening of the session.

Speech From The ThroneGovernment Orders

10:10 a.m.

Laval West Québec

Liberal

Michel Dupuy LiberalMinister of Canadian Heritage

Mr. Speaker, the Throne Speech contains a paragraph that is devoted to culture, heritage and the Canadian identity. The paragraph states that the Government will announce measures to promote these essential national values.

One might wonder how such a short paragraph can respond to the challenges facing a department that is as wide-ranging as the one I am honoured to head. So a few words of explanation seem to be appropriate at the beginning of this parliamentary session.

Straight away, the very name of the Department of Canadian Heritage poses a problem. What do we mean by "Canadian heritage"? How can we justify grouping together in a single department elements as diverse as communications, the status of women, cultural industries, official and heritage languages, multiculturalism, national parks and sites, State protocol and amateur sport?

If we take the term "heritage" in its widest sense as meaning all of the combined property that enables each of us to see ourselves as an individual who belongs to a group or country, we can see that the department's name is fitting.

Today we can no longer restrict the meaning of heritage to the legacy of the past. Far more than a simple collection of traces left by history, the country's heritage is first and foremost the manifestation of the connection among members of a community and of its distinctiveness inside the global environment. Thus it is closely associated with the question of a country's identity.

In this perspective the seemingly vast range of activities supervised by the Department of Canadian Heritage is justified.

I can see three broad structures that will lead us to the same goal. First, the management of our natural and physical heritage: our national parks, our historic monuments, and our heritage canals.

Second, the management of programs that protect official languages, that promote the status of women and amateur sport, and that enhance our society's culture in other ways.

Third, the management of cultural development in Canada, and of means of communication which are of the utmost importance, not only in ensuring that we remain independent, but also as potent tools for economic development.

I would like to describe each of these three structures in greater detail. Our heritage appears at first glance to be a collection of historic sites, composed of 36 national parks, 750 historic sites and nine canals, located in all parts of the country. This sector is of enormous economic importance as it generates annual revenues of more than a billion dollars and provides jobs for around 30,000 people.

This sector lies at the very heart of our tourism industry and it is the envy of the international community, as we are at the forefront of what is known as "eco-tourism". One single statistic illustrates the popularity of these sites among tourists: in 1992, some 27 million people visited Canada's national parks and sites.

They are, of course, associated in our collective psyche with the beauty of our country. But they are also benefitting from the growing emphasis that western societies are placing on environmental quality. I feel, therefore, that they must follow the principles set out in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

Choices will have to be made and all parties, including the federal, provincial, municipal and territorial governments, will have to work together to make these choices. For instance, we want to make progress toward our goal of establishing land and marine base parks in all our distinct ecological zones. We also want to increase the number of historic sites which must serve as witness to all facets of our history.

In this respect I will encourage the unveiling of new areas of our collective history such as those related to women and native people, but we are facing as well severe financial constraints.

Some degree of self-financing might well open up some interesting avenues, but we must avoid the indirect consequences of over-commercialization. My role in this will be to safeguard the ecological and commemorative integrity of this important component of our heritage, as well as to make judicious decisions about its development.

I wish to share a few thoughts regarding the benefits that lie with a diverse society such as ours.

The history of our country is closely linked with successive waves of immigrants and the interaction between newcomers and the existing society. How immigrants adapt to the Canadian way of life will always be a major factor in the development of the Canadian identity.

The challenge is how to integrate diverse cultures with our existing cultures without melting them down into a single mould, thereby assimilating them out of existence. We must promote the development of a wholly Canadian identity as a rallying point for diverse cultures in support of a blueprint for a society based on consensus and continuity with our history.

Let us face the facts. The coexistence of cultures throughout the world is one of humanity's greatest challenges as this century draws to a close. Every day we hear people talk about racism or ostracism, both of which are exacerbated by hard times. This is a global phenomenon from which Canada is not exempt. We must consider the dangers inherent in self-centred attitudes. We must keep in mind the benefit Canada can derive from the diverse cultural makeup of our society.

In a world increasingly focused on economic and cultural globalism, our diversity could be to our great advantage as we strive to maintain our place in the community of nations.

We have to respond to this wave of intolerance that has swept western countries with better information about the advantages of cultural diversity. Perhaps we should begin with the very young and, together with the provincial governments, as they have jurisdiction over education, explore new ways of responding to the irrational violence that a fear of someone from a different culture may engender.

A foundation on race relations will be established precisely in order to throw new light on productive exchanges between the numerous ethnic groups that make up our population, the old and the new, and to unite the forces of multiculturalism around a cultural identity that is specifically Canadian. It might also be worthwhile to make more effective use of gatherings like the Canada Games and transform them into an authentic illustration of Canadian diversity by incorporating a cultural component.

I take this opportunity to remind the House that athletes from coast to coast are getting ready for the Lillehammer Winter Olympic Games. We all know how exciting it must be for them to represent their country at such an outstanding event. I am sure the House will join me in wishing them all the success in the world.

I might add that, in my opinion, the preservation and the promotion of our official languages does not turn Canada into a tower of Babel. Let us keep the individual freedom to use the language of our choice, but recognize that the English and the French languages give us access to two of the greatest sources of world culture. They are part of our national heritage that the government must maintain and develop.

Allow me finally to express a few thoughts on cultural policy. Culture is neither an abstraction nor a decoration. It is above all a viewpoint on the world and a manifestation of our civilization. There can be no identity without culture and this is recognized in the Liberal Party's plan of action: "Culture is at the very core of our national identity. It is the basis of our sovereignty and the pride of our nation".

In an era of trade globalization and fantastic breakthroughs in information technology, our cultural resources have become powerful tools of economic development. In 1992, the cultural sector contributed about 22 billion dollars to the gross domestic product. It employed nearly half a million people, which represents an employment growth rate of about 21 per cent between 1987 and 1992.

As impressive as it may be such growth must not mask the problems facing our cultural industries. These industries do not have access to the capital and market they need to compete on their home turf with the major producers of mass culture, mostly our neighbour to the south, the United States. This is why I think it is of paramount importance for Canada to maintain its freedom of action under the international agreements linking us with the United States, Mexico and our GATT partners. We achieved success in this respect and we can now bring new policies to the forefront.

In the past we have set policies in place to stimulate production, strike a better balance with foreign products and pave the way for greater creative expression from our artists. We made great progress. Nevertheless I do not think our traditional policies alone will be enough to surmount the challenges presented by the globalization of cultures, by financial constraints and by the revolution of the communications field. We will still be called upon to adapt our policies and to be innovative.

Our new policies will always seek to stimulate the production, the marketing and the distribution of our cultural products at home and abroad. We are preparing legislation which should allow our authors, producers and performers to earn a decent living.

I hope to update the Copyright Act so as to take into account new technologies that have changed the way cultural products are distributed and to recognize the rights of creators. We must also diversify the funding sources of our cultural industries. We absolutely need a better marketing plan for our cultural production at the international level.

In addition to being composed of two linguistic groups, the Canadian market is too small to ensure that our producers and creators survive and thrive. A global cultural market is coming into existence and Canada must promote in that market its unique production whose international reputation is well established.

I wish to remind the House that the department of heritage also has the mandate to ensure Canadian participation in international exhibitions. I was thrilled to learn that the last Canadian manifestation of this kind, which took place last year in Taejon, South Korea, has proven to be most profitable because for the first time Canada relied on the economic partnership.

Furthermore, the evolution of our society prompts us to review the operation and the mandate of our great cultural institutions. Among them, broadcasting is without doubt the most popular and most powerful cultural tool. More than 99 per cent of Canadians own a radio, 99 per cent a television set and more than 75 per cent a VCR. That shows the immense power which these media have at their disposal.

In this perspective, it is important that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation find its proper place as a public broadcaster and that a funding mechanism better suited to the present situation be put in place.

The government will announce shortly the appointment of the new president of the CBC.

The government's commitment to Canadian strategy for an information superhighway is a good sign for our cultural industries. The information superhighway will be more than a technological infrastructure. It will be a powerful vehicle for Canadian content. It will enable us to distribute our cultural products more effectively and make them accessible to all Canadians.

This initiative will naturally be in keeping with our Canadian cultural policy. I will soon begin working on this project with my colleague, the Minister of Industry.

Just as important for our creative industry is the Canada Council. Cultural products are not just consumable and exportable goods. They are, first and foremost, the works of artists, creative men and women without whom the cultural industry could not survive.

The Canada Council's function is to support those artists when they start on a project or do experimental work. It also provides a fund that offers financial stability to the performing arts, theatre, ballet and orchestras. It is therefore vital that we ensure maximum efficiency on the part of this institution which is essential to the promotion of the creative spirit in Canada.

Given the shift toward globalism which marks the end of this millennium, we must rely more than ever on our creative men and women to provide us with a feeling of identity and a sense of belonging.

It is clear that the mandate of the Department of Heritage is a challenging one lying at the very heart of the major issues facing our country today.

Now more than ever Canada's cultural complexity must be seen not as a problem but as an asset at a time when opening up to the rest of the world is just as important as preserving our own identity.

Whether it is our historic sites, our national parks, the achievements of our athletes, the influence of our artists, the diversity of our population or the success of our cultural industries and institutions, all these things highlight our willingness to excel as a people.

I intend to bank on this huge wealth and particularly on the younger generation to ensure our country holds an enviable position at the dawn of the third millennium.

It is no doubt clear by now that the Department of Canadian Heritage, far from being obsessed with the past, is instead looking toward the future. It is resolutely concerned with the important challenges which face the societies of today.

I have faith in Canadian men and women, and I call upon them to take up these challenges and help our country to advance in the world of tomorrow.

Speech From The ThroneGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Bloc

Nic Leblanc Bloc Longueuil, QC

Mr. Speaker, first of all I must congratulate the member and minister on his election in Laval-Ouest. This time he was luckier than in 1988, when he was my opponent in Longueuil. I am pleased to ask him some questions in accordance with his responsibilities as Minister of Canadian Heritage.

First, as he spoke about multiculturalism, it would seem that multiculturalism has not necessarily been a success, because we seem to have created ghettos between cultures instead of promoting the integration of citizens. We know that it takes about twice as long to integrate new arrivals in Canada as it does in the United States.

There is definitely a major problem with multiculturalism. I know that in Montréal at the moment there are conflicts between different cultures and it is my impression, and also the opinion of some experts, that multiculturalism is something that has created ghettos instead of promoting integration.

Second, he also spoke about creators and copyright. I think that Canadian legislation may not protect creators' copyright adequately. If we want to make it possible for our creators to do more, we must First protect what they create. We must promote what they create; that is how we are going to improve productivity and create new products from both the cultural and economic points of view.

My third question has to do with the national parks. We know that for a long time Quebec has been calling for equity where national parks are concerned. We do not have our fair share of parks, and each time Quebec asks for new parks, there always seem to be a lot of problems. However, we have great open spaces in which excellent parks could be created, but it never happens.

What is the problem, and will the minister make the necessary efforts to ensure that we in Quebec can have our fair share of national parks?

Speech From The ThroneGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Liberal

Michel Dupuy Liberal Laval West, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Longueuil for his congratulations. I am delighted that we can continue a dialogue.

About multiculturalism, basically I agree with him. I feel that multiculturalism, the government's policy, must not create ghettos. It must not fragment our country. Basically, it must try to use its extremely rich and extremely valuable contributions to forge a grand Canadian culture. This Canadian culture will not be uniform. If we look at what is happening in the world, it is the countries that are managing to reconcile diversity whose progress is the most successful.

About copyright, I also agree with the member for Longueuil. I feel that the existing legislation is a bit outdated. It has not kept up with changes in technology, and that is exactly why I announced this morning that we intend to amend our copyright legislation.

Last, about the national parks. Quebec has remarkable natural and ecological areas and we want to develop national parks in Quebec. What may have slowed down the development of these parks is the fact that there is legislation in Quebec that does not allow the Government of Quebec to assign parcels of land to federal jurisdiction. That means that everything we do in Quebec, we do in co-operation with the Quebec government. As you know, when there are two governments that have to negotiate to get something done, things usually take a little longer.

That, then, is the main reason why plans for parks in Quebec may not have advanced as quickly as the MP for Longueuil would like.

However, I can tell him, for example, that there is a marine park we are developing at the mouth of the Saguenay that will be a model, not only of this co-operation between the two levels of government, but also of environmental protection.

Speech From The ThroneGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Reform

Randy White Reform Fraser Valley West, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. minister on his speech.

There are areas in Canada today that feel the government's policy on official bilingualism is expensive and unnecessary. In light of the comments of the hon. minister I would like to ask him whether he is aware of the real costs of the official bilingualism program. I would also like him to comment on whether another form of regional bilingualism would be more effective than universal bilingualism.

Speech From The ThroneGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Liberal

Michel Dupuy Liberal Laval West, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am of course aware of the cost. There will be opportunities later in the course of the year to look at estimates, discuss the figures and give them a close look.

I believe the Canadian model, if I may call it that, is a worthwhile model. In another career I lived in Belgium. I have seen there how the division, the linguistic border between two linguistic groups, has created many problems.

My vision of bilingualism in Canada is not to force every Canadian to be bilingual. It is a matter of personal choice. Those who want to be able to use their language in Canada should be given a chance to do so.

If we accept this as a principle, the issue which my friend is raising is really a matter of how you reconcile this with a decent control of expenditure. I shall be pleased to discuss this with him in the context of the estimates.

Speech From The ThroneGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Reform

Art Hanger Reform Calgary Northeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, my question for the minister is with regard to the definition of a multicultural Canada. It appears to me to be somewhat contradictory to state that immigrants under the present system are being integrated into Canadian society.

My understanding of what integration means is that an immigrant embraces the Canadian way of life and Canadian culture, while having the freedom to preserve his own culture, but if he chooses to do so he should have to do at his own expense, on his own time without government assistance.

Multiculturalism as it is now practised, emphasizes differences and tends to separate the different ethnic communities, while being funded by the federal government. I would like some clarification from the minister as to what he means by integration. There seems to be a problem with the definition. Multiculturalism and integration should mean two different things.

Speech From The ThroneGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Liberal

Michel Dupuy Liberal Laval West, QC

Mr. Speaker, we must of course be clear in our minds on the distinction between integration and assimilation. The comments I made earlier in my speech were very much addressed to assimilation.

In my view integration means that you enable the people who are newly arrived to become fully operational in our society. This is what they want and this is what is probably best for the existing community because they become active and productive members of that society. If we do not want to achieve that result through assimilation, we have to find ways of enabling them to contribute to our society while at the same time preserving their inner values.

This is not easily done. However, I think it is a public responsibility. We cannot leave every one of these people to fend for themselves.

We have been able to see how the attitudes of other governments create difficulties and ghettos as we were talking about earlier. If we can see it that way, integration is a desirable goal. It needs some government support. I doubt that assimilation will be achievable in our society today. We enjoy too many personal liberties and freedom to be totally assimilated and moulded.

There is a public responsibility. At the same time we are being humane toward people who want to retain some cultural values of their own.

Speech From The ThroneGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Progressive Conservative

Jean Charest Progressive Conservative Sherbrooke, QC

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate you on your appointment to the Chair and wish you every success in your new duties. The very fact that you were elected shows the admiration and esteem in which you are held by members of this House.

I would not want to miss the opportunity, during this reply to the speech from the throne, to thank the men and women of Sherbrooke who, for a third time, placed their confidence in me under circumstances in which the outcome was rather uncertain. I was elected for the first time in 1984, carried by a Conservative wave. This time, I was re-elected on the undertow, with the wind blowing in the opposite direction.

To new members of this House, I have to say, and my colleague from Beauséjour knows exactly what I mean, one has to go through both experiences to fully appreciate the privileges, the rights accorded to members of Parliament.

To the people of Sherbrooke of whom I am so fond and for whom I work relentlessly, I say thank you.

I am speaking also on behalf of a political party that occupied a different place in this House before October 25. Some members may have noticed our circumstances were quite different.

I want to speak very frankly and honestly about that because it is important for us to recognize and acknowledge the magnitude of that defeat. On October 25 a lot of Canadians went to the polls with a very clear determination to put aside the government and a political party that had been there for the last nine years.

I do not need to expand on the fact that they did it with a great deal of determination and with very little equivocation on October 25. That being the case it puts us now in a position is which even though we had 16 per cent of the vote, we have only two members in this House.

I do not quarrel with that. Those were the rules before the campaign. We did not complain about them then and I am not going to complain about them now. It also means that we have found a level of freedom that we had not anticipated.

I am the first to recognize that how we deal with that as a political force in this country and as the political force that founded Canada will determine our own future.

It is now up to us as Progressive Conservatives throughout Canada to live up to the high expectations that Canadians have set for us in the past and into the future. It is up to us to rebuild our party and to present ourselves as a national-I want to stress national-alternative to the governing party by the time the next election campaign comes around.

What I do know, having spoken to Canadians across this country, is that a lot of them, whether they are Progressive Conservatives or not, do feel it is very important that there be a national alternative to the governing party. They are concerned about the way Canadians view their country and that is something I feel very strongly about.

It means that our party will continue to stand on the principles it has always lived by. One is fiscal conservatism. We are a party that will promote fiscal conservatism because we do want a country that is able to afford social programs and continues to have a strong social conscience and also a flexible view of federalism. We think it is critically important in this country. We proved in our last nine years that we were able to practise a method of governing in the area of federalism that responded to the different needs of the regions of this country.

It was far from being perfect. I want to be clear on that. Anyone who would pretend that certainly would not meet with the approval of most Canadians, but there are real accomplish-

ments there and this new government will build upon many of them.

As I looked at the speech from the throne, and in responding to it today, I have to admit I had mixed feelings, very much so. I was a bit surprised.

I want to start by congratulating the members on the other side for their election and their success, in particular the Prime Minister. I do not share his views on a lot of issues, but beyond that I think a lot of Canadians have gained a certain admiration and respect for the fact that in difficult times he held tough. He made it through and won the confidence of Canadians. I want to congratulate him sincerely for that success. From a personal point of view I think that is quite an accomplishment.

As I read the speech from the throne I had mixed feelings for the following reasons. There are a lot of things in it that were left over by our government and were taken up by this new government, things that quite frankly the Liberals were not very enthusiastic to support when they were on this side of the House.

I went through the speech from the throne and had mixed feelings as I read the things the government was putting forward. In the seventh paragraph the speech reads: "In order to achieve this agenda integrity and public trust in the institutions of governments are essential". In the next paragraph the speech goes on to say: "My ministers will insist upon integrity, honesty and openness on the part of those who exercise power on behalf of Canadians".

This House has not sat for very long and already this commitment has been put to a very strong test. We have heard the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has been using government flight services and it has met with some controversy. We find today that the Minister for International Trade is in some difficulty over a fund raiser and the way it was presented. We also know that another member of that caucus has run into some difficulty regarding things he had done in the past.

I am not passing judgment on any of them, but is it not unusual that after only about 10 days I can stand in this place and recite three different areas in which the government has run into difficulty and with this in the seventh and eighth paragraphs of the speech from the throne?

I am not passing judgment but let us be very clear. Is it not very different sitting on that side of the House dealing with these matters from what it was sitting on this side? I see members on the other side nodding, admitting that is the case. Well, it is.

I hope that Canadians who are now going to look at this government will maybe see the previous government in a different light. I am not in any rush for that. I just know that the passing of time will deal with a lot of those issues.

Let me rapidly go over the things proposed in the speech. The second page refers to lobbying. On August 9 the then Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Kim Campbell, made a speech and in it promised a lobbyist registration act. How could I disagree with any action in that area?

The paragraph that follows talks about the credibility of Parliament and how we have to reform Parliament. In the same speech the same Prime Minister also made a commitment to parliamentary reform and the things we had to change. She gave a very detailed list of things we had to do. We have yet to see what the details of this government will be in this area, but I look forward to hearing what this government has to say, so I cannot disagree with that.

The third measure was about reform of MPs' pensions. Would we not know that on August 9 the previous Prime Minister also made the same commitment? However, she went a little further and said that we would change the pension system not only double-dipping but also pensions being taken before the age of 55. Therefore, we will wait to see what the new government proposes in this regard.

On the same page of the speech from the throne there is some allusion to small business and the Canada investment fund. In a speech given on August 27 by the then Prime Minister there was also an announcement made of the venture capital fund.

A venture capital fund was announced by the previous government on August 27 and later established. The Small Business Loans Act was also changed at that time.

There is a paragraph in the speech from the throne that really made me feel good, the paragraph relating to trade. I know my colleague from the NDP will appreciate this one because he has his views on trade and I do not think he has changed them. The hon. member has indicated he has not changed his views. Has he changed his view on NAFTA?

Speech From The ThroneGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

NDP

Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC

Not at all.

Speech From The ThroneGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Progressive Conservative

Jean Charest Progressive Conservative Sherbrooke, QC

The NDP has not changed its view on NAFTA. The paragraph reads: "Job creation and economic growth also require Canadian firms, especially small and medium sized businesses, to adopt an aggressive trading mentality to take advantage of export markets". I know my colleague does not agree with that. Mike Wilson has said that very often, in fact. Then it goes on to say: "With the successful conclusion of the Uruguay round and the implementation of NAFTA, the government will assist Canadian companies to translate improved market access into greater export sales". Well those were stock Tory speeches for the nine years I was in government and now they are taken on lock, stock and barrel by the new government.

To all those people who during the election campaign were told by their Liberal and NDP candidates that they were opposed to NAFTA, that they would renegotiate NAFTA and would change NAFTA, ladies and gentlemen, they were just kidding. They adopted NAFTA lock, stock and barrel. Not a paragraph, not a word, not one single dot was changed in the law that was passed in this place. The new Liberal government adopted the whole thing.

Do I disagree with that? No, I do not disagree. I support the government members in their change, in their transformation on the road to Damascus. What I find extraordinary is how little time it took them to do it. What a feat to be able to fight this in the House of Commons for years. Some members were not here at the time but I can tell them because I was on that side. They fought this. There were screams in the House. It was extraordinary. How many days did it take them? Was it 10 days, 20 days? Twenty days after being sworn in, NAFTA was the greatest thing since sliced bread. The conversion was extraordinary.

I want to be honest about this. Our colleagues from the NDP, although I disagree with them, did not change their minds. They have been consistent. I am sorry, I cannot say the same for the government side.

The same speech talks about internal trade. Internal trade is an important issue. I wish the government well because quite frankly it really points to the fact that this country is doing better at trade with other countries than it is within its own borders. In the end it does not make sense because Canadians are paying the price for unfair and unreasonable trade barriers in this country.

The new government proposes to deal with that issue in its speech from the throne. It meets exactly with the commitment we made during the campaign. It builds on what the previous government had done to complete negotiations of a committee of ministers of internal trade to eliminate trade barriers, to free the movement of goods, services, people and capital within Canada by June 30, 1994.

Last week I was delighted to hear the Minister of Industry, after meeting with his colleagues, reiterate and take up that commitment. It is a good idea. I agreed with it when we were the government. I still think it is a good idea.

To get back to trade, there is allusion to the Pacific Rim and Latin America. We had announced we were going to establish a foundation for the Pacific Rim and Latin America. It is the same thing.

It just goes on. We had also announced changes to the Young Offenders Act.

There is another very interesting paragraph: "A centre of excellence for women's health will be established to ensure that women's health issues receive the attention they deserve". I am sure many members from the Reform Party agree with that. Probably totally.

Speech From The ThroneGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

NDP

Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC

Who wrote this throne speech?

Speech From The ThroneGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Progressive Conservative

Jean Charest Progressive Conservative Sherbrooke, QC

I suspect the same public servants who wrote our speeches from the throne with us probably shared their notes with the new government because on August 23, 1993 would you not know it, the previous minister of health announced that she would put forward a new bureau for the health of women. This was before the campaign and there is exactly the same commitment. I cannot disagree with that.

The last one I want to point to is the overlap in government. On September 2, 1993 the same commitment and type of initiative was put forward.

I am not going to quarrel with the government on those issues. I will support the government. On NAFTA, GATT, Latin America, Pacific Rim, all those issues, let us go right ahead. I will be happy to support the government in any way I can.

Speech From The ThroneGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

An hon. member

How does it differ from you?

Speech From The ThroneGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Progressive Conservative

Jean Charest Progressive Conservative Sherbrooke, QC

The government differs in key areas. How jobs should be created in this country is one example. That is an issue that the government campaigned on but that is where there are a few disappointments in the speech from the throne. The best question is where is the meat?

Where this government seems to have made a commitment is for the infrastructure program. It was going to build sewers and roads. What we are finding out is that the money is now going to convention centres. I do not have any problems with that but the municipalities wanted the money for roads and sewers.

Who exactly is going to make the decisions and how will that happen? Is there going to be an infrastructure program or not? Or is it going to be a slush fund, as seems to be alluded to in this secret memo I made public two days ago? The ministers of public works and human resources were fighting not only for direct control over the program as stated in the memo written to the Prime Minister by the Clerk of the Privy Council, but they also wanted federal control over all projects.

There was a question on this in the House yesterday and the Prime Minister did not answer. We know they are responsible for ACOA and western diversification. The Clerk of the Privy Council does not have to write to the Prime Minister to ask him whether they were responsible for ACOA and western diversification. They know that. We know that. He felt this issue was so important that he had to write to the Prime Minister to find out whether their mandate was to have control over all federal

projects. We have yet to know whether it is the minister from Nova Scotia who will decide whether New Brunswick gets this money there or elsewhere, not just for infrastructure but for other programs as well.

I have to admit I may agree on some things but there is a discrepancy between what was said during the campaign and what seems to have happened behind closed doors since this government was sworn in.

I was disappointed about a few things in the speech. There was no mention of agriculture or very little. I have concerns also about natural resources. I am very concerned this government may be considering taxes on petroleum products or a carbon tax. It may be tempted to go that route, but it would have to think very carefully because we already tax our resources in this area. We do that now. Any thought about such an initiative has to be very closely looked at.

On the deficit and debt there is a general statement but I guess we will have to wait until the budget comes forward to really find out where the government's mind is on this. What I do know and what I can say is that the government up until now has not been very forthcoming in the way it has masqueraded or camouflaged the numbers. There is quite evidently a deliberate move to increase the amount of the deficit for this year, to pump it up, to make the previous government look bad and make itself look better. That move is quite obvious.

I ask hon. members to take a second and think about one thing. Let us assume the situation is as the government says it is. We have had these situations before. I remember when we were in that same position as a government. What did we do? We froze spending for the rest of the fiscal year. That is what we did. Why is it that this government has not frozen spending, if not because it wants to pump that number up for political reasons?

Where does the Canadian interest lie in all of this? Where is the interest of the taxpayers?

I see the member for Chicoutimi. Let us ask him where lies the interest of Chicoutimi voters in all this if the government, instead of freezing expenditures, lets the deficit run unchecked as is the case right now. This is nothing new, I am not imagining it.

There is no need to worry that I will spring some new theory on him. The concept is simple enough. All the government needs to do is declare an immediate freeze on expenditures for the rest of the fiscal year, instead of letting the deficit grow to astronomical heights. This, however, it has chosen not to do. Why, do you ask? For political reasons.

Mr. Speaker, you are signalling that I only have one minute left. With your permission and leave of this House, I will end my comments promptly so as not to omit anything important, after which I will be pleased to answer questions and respond to comments. With your consent, I will then take five more minutes to discuss other subjects.