House of Commons Hansard #10 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was riding.

Topics

Speech From The ThroneGovernment Orders

2:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

Do I have unanimous consent to end the questions and comments period?

Speech From The ThroneGovernment Orders

2:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Speech From The ThroneGovernment Orders

2:10 p.m.

Liberal

Beryl Gaffney Liberal Nepean, ON

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to stand in the House representing the people of Nepean and starting my second term along with you.

In the last few days I have heard many members speak of how beautiful their ridings are. I am sure they are all beautiful. I am not going to claim Nepean as being the most beautiful riding in the country but I will claim that its inhabitants are the most beautiful people in the country.

Over the years I have represented the people of Nepean first as a 10-year municipal politician and before that as an 11-year employee of the city of Nepean. Now I am their federal member. I have been representing the same people for 26 or 27 years. It is a very great privilege for me to be again representing them. I want to thank them for giving me this great honour to be in the Parliament of Canada.

One of the things that we members of Parliament have to do is be very flexible. I was not on the Speaker's list to speak today but our whip said: "Could the member for Nepean please be put on the Speaker's roster". I had to suddenly scurry around, get some notes together and sound reasonably intelligent. I hope I can do that and keep members awake at the same time.

When listening to Canada's Governor General deliver the speech from the throne on January 18, I was struck that just about every area where changes would take place would not only have a positive effect on the country as a whole but they had a

very specific interest to the people who I represent in the city of Nepean.

While I was a municipal and regional councillor a few years ago, as I mentioned, I chaired the region's health committee. I am pleased this government considers preventing illness is just as important as caring for people with illnesses.

This government is committed to the Canadian health system as we know it, one that is cost effective and sensitive to the needs of all Canadians. To show just how serious we are in this area, the Prime Minister will personally chair a national forum on health. We are cognizant of the fact that health care is under the purview of the provinces, and yet at the same time we know that the Canada Health Act clearly outlines the federal responsibility.

I was especially pleased this government recognizes there are gender differences in the health area. We are creating a centre of excellence for women's health to ensure that women's health issues receive the attention they deserve. As well, prenatal nutrition programs for low income pregnant women will be created and expanded.

I would like to express to the 37 women in the Liberal caucus how delighted I am to have them as colleagues in the House of Commons. They represent a diversity of backgrounds, reflecting the true Canada. At the same time, I welcome the women in the other parties, the Reform Party, the Bloc Quebecois, the New Democrats and the independents. I welcome them all to the House of Commons. I look forward to getting to know them better as members of this House. I believe that regardless of party, we as women have a common goal in ensuring that our gender is properly represented in this country.

This government will address the staggering problem of poverty among aboriginal children through our specific head start program. This is something I am very excited about. It is something that has been absent forever and it is something that should cause us all to hang our heads in shame, that we have allowed this to go on as long as it has.

During the election campaign the Liberal Party in our red book-and we all love to quote the red book-stressed the importance of job creation and economic growth. The speech from the throne again stresses its importance. As I went door to door in Nepean during the election campaign, just about every household had a story to tell, and they were not happy stories. It might be a son or a daughter or a husband who had been laid off, or a university or college graduate unable to find employment. I was greatly bothered by this. The despair they felt with the economy and high unemployment deeply affected me.

It is very important to me that this government continues to view job creation as its main priority. Yet I do not know of anyone who is not concerned with this country's indebtedness. We have to get the economy moving and get people back to work and at the same time we also must address our indebtedness. For these reasons and despite extremely difficult fiscal restraints, the Liberal government has chosen to undertake a major co-operative program of infrastructure renewal in this country.

As I mentioned before, when I was on municipal council I was also on an organization called the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. I was a director representing the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. This is an umbrella group representing approximately 900 Canadian municipalities. The organization for years had been petitioning the federal government to be part of a tripartite agreement in infrastructure renewal.

When I was elected to Parliament in 1988 I, along with my colleague from Ottawa Centre, formed a national Liberal task force on infrastructure. We travelled the country and met with individuals. We met with the business community and we met with the civic leaders, inviting their opinions on such a tripartite agreement.

We as co-chairs presented our report to the Liberal caucus and it was as a result of our findings along with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' recommendations that the infrastructure program was put in place.

Why do I make this point? I am not making it to blow my own horn or to bring attention to myself. I am bringing this point forward to you who are backbenchers or to you who are in opposition-and I am still a backbencher here-I want you to know that every person in this Parliament can make a difference. Never be afraid to stand on your feet and say what you really believe you can do in this House, because you can make a difference. You have got to keep pressing it.

Speech From The ThroneGovernment Orders

2:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear.

Speech From The ThroneGovernment Orders

2:15 p.m.

Liberal

Beryl Gaffney Liberal Nepean, ON

The federal contribution to the infrastructure program will be very tangible and very significant. We are providing the provinces and municipalities with a total of $2 billion over the next two years. For the most part the federal contribution will be matched equally by the provinces and municipalities. This will provide for a total joint program of $6 billion and that is a very significant sum of money.

Another issue that had a major impact on me during the campaign concerned women at home. These were mothers who stayed at home. Over and over again it was repeated to me at the door by mothers who choose to stay home with their children

that they were not being given equal status to their counterparts who are mothers who went out to work.

There were two or three particular areas. One was with regard to child care. The mum who was at work was able to claim this on her income tax. The mother who stayed at home was not able to claim the child care on her income tax. The woman who went to work was able to pay into the CPP. The woman who was home was not able to and thus was not able to collect a pension. There are inequalities in the system that we must recognize. We must work to negate those inequalities.

I heard from small businesses about how they are overburdened with taxes. The amount of paper work just consumes far too much time, effort and money.

We heard about the banks and how they were just putting the arm lock on businesses and not allowing them to expand as they should. We know that they create 80 per cent of the jobs in this country. We know there are approximately 800,000. Would it not be wonderful if all of them could each hire one person? We must work with our investment institutions to solve the problems of inadequate capital in small and medium sized business.

The other evening I was at a dinner and the guest speaker was the human resources director for a local high tech company. He said the universities today are not graduating engineers suitable to his high tech company or they are not graduating enough engineers. They were going to the U.K. to hire engineers for a Canadian high tech company.

I find that absolutely disgraceful. I hope that our government will work with our schools, colleges and universities to ensure that we are putting out engineers or whatever profession is needed in the market today. The market is changing from day to day so our universities must make sure that our young people's education is headed in the right direction.

It has been a real pleasure to speak here on such short notice in this House of Commons this afternoon. I thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Speech From The ThroneGovernment Orders

2:20 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon to address this House and take part in the debate in reply to the throne speech. I want to start by congratulating the Speaker and all those who sit in the Chair in this great chamber.

I would also like to congratulate in a very special way the Prime Minister and our government on the contents of the throne speech. It was clear from day one that the government intended to follow through on the commitments made to Canadians during the election campaign in its famous red book.

A day rarely goes by without someone in my riding contacting me to request a copy of this celebrated document, this famous red book. It has become, if you will pardon the expression, a bible of sorts on how to restore the confidence of Canadians in government.

I admit that when we made this document public during the election campaign, I was a little worried, as were many candidates, about the risk we were taking by laying out our agenda for all to see.

But the wisdom of the leader of the Liberal Party, today the Prime Minister, in deciding to approach the Canadian electorate in such a way has been confirmed. Canadians took a close look at our platform.

And they said: yes, generally we like what we see. I know that not everyone agreed with every aspect of our program, but they told us, yes, here is an election program. Finally, someone has the courage to tell us what they intend to do, and we are prepared to trust people who are open and have nothing to hide. Therefore, I want to congratulate the Prime Minister once again for taking this stand.

I also want to thank the electors of the riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell for their support during the last election. They have chosen to return me to this place, which is very special for me and for all those who are here and indeed for our electors.

A former Prime Minister, John Diefenbaker, once said there was no greater honour for a Canadian than to have this privilege of representing his or her fellow constituents in the highest court in the land, the Parliament of Canada.

I agree with that. I espouse that theory and I will attempt again to live up to those expectations of my constituents who have chosen to send me to this highest court in the land.

The makeup of the riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is somewhat unique. My riding is home to some 100,000 people, 65 per cent of whom are Franco-Ontarians. Francophones thus make up the majority linguistic group in my riding. They are not assimilated. Nor have they lost their language and culture. In fact, 92 per cent of my constituents were born in Ontario. They have preserved their language and culture, despite what some of the members opposite might claim from time to time.

Of the other constituents of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, approximately 35 per cent are English and about 5 per cent are of other languages and cultures.

In Glengarry-Prescott-Russell there is the township of Cumberland. I had the opportunity of serving the people of that area since 1976 since I was first elected at the municipal level. I was re-elected to represent them in 1978 and in 1980. In 1981 I had the honour and privilege of sitting in the Ontario legislature and in 1984 I was elected to this House of Commons. I was

re-elected in 1988 and again in 1993 to represent the people of my area.

I owe a special thanks to the people of Cumberland township who allowed me to begin this career of public service.

I also have the honour of representing the counties of Prescott and Russell and for those of you who are somewhat familiar with the region, Prescott County was part of New France prior to the Constitution Act of 1791. The Township of Longueuil used to be the Longueuil seigneury before the Constitution Act. As those members on the other side who are historians know, there was also a seigneury in Kingston, the Frontenac seigneury.

I also have the honour of representing the people of Glengarry. Glengarry is a very special place in the history of Canada. It was there in 1784 that Sir John Johnson came from the United States with the United Empire Loyalists, or as they were known in those days the empire loyalist refugees.

That is what they were. They were people who took refuge and who came back to be under British dominion and who left the Mohawk Valley, came north across the St. Lawrence River and established the community of Williamstown. Williamstown in Glengarry was named after Sir William Johnson, the father of the founder of the community Sir John Johnson to whom I have already referred.

They established that community where the Northwest Company was subsequently established. The people of Williamstown then went on to explore other parts of Canada. They were people like Simon Fraser, Thompson, Johnson, and Alexander Mackenzie. They all lived in Williamstown in Glengarry. I am very proud to have the honour and privilege of representing such an historical place as Glengarry. I offer a special tribute to the people of Glengarry county.

There is a building in Glengarry where Sir John Johnson made a request of Governor Haldimand at Quebec for a special designation for his part of the colony which was then Quebec. He wanted a special region to be founded where the people would be able to have English laws under which they would live. This is because after the Quebec Act the Quebec civil code existed and land tenure was of the seigniorial kind and so on. He wanted his residents to have English customs, laws and land tenure.

I would make the argument that he wanted to establish a distinct society for the anglophones who had just moved into that part of what was then the colony of Quebec. He got it. It was called the Constitution Act of 1791 that established what then became the province of Upper Canada and it occurred right there in the village of Williamstown in the great county of Glengarry that I have the opportunity to represent.

The people from Scotland then came as a result of the highland clearances when the English barons decided to clear the highlands of Scotland to make room for sheep. Many people again became refugees. They crossed the ocean and came to Glengarry county to join with the United Empire Loyalists to form that great community that still exists.

Still today there are some few people in Glengarry who speak Gaelic. In many cases, of those who do not speak it, one would swear from their accent that they still do.

I have the very special honour and privilege of representing that area. I also have the honour of representing the native community of Akwesasne, a community which has been in turmoil, and still is, because of cigarette smuggling.

Some may say that it is nobody's fault but their own if Akwesasne natives are facing that problem, but that is not true. They too are victims. Consider the young resident of Akwesasne who was coaxed by the criminal element into carrying shipments of cigarettes across the Saint Lawrence River to earn $100, $200 or $300 a day and then buy a car or whatever else young people dream about, especially those who are out of work. He and others like him are victims of this smuggling business. Let us never forget that.

The smuggling problem is an extremely serious one. Yesterday, a minister in the Ontario Cabinet said that it was the kind of problem that existed only in Quebec. With all due respect, that is not true. Nearly 40 per cent of cigarettes in Ontario, not Quebec, are sold illegally. One out of every four illegal cigarettes in Canada travels through my riding, across the Akwesasne River.

Finally, every single day 1,000 cases of cigarettes enter Canada in my riding alone at $1,000 profit per case. That is a million dollars a day that the criminal element makes. Tomorrow morning when we all wake up we can think of it in the following way. Last night the criminals made another million dollars in eastern Ontario by profiteering at the expense of all of us and at the expense of those whom we represent.

Speech From The ThroneGovernment Orders

2:35 p.m.

Reform

Val Meredith Reform Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC

Madam Speaker, in response to the throne speech I would like to congratulate the government on its commitment to introduce

measures to enhance community safety and crime prevention. During the election campaign my constituents considered that criminal justice reform was one of the major issues. My constituents made it quite clear that they expect this Parliament to bring greater protection to society.

I believe it is safe to say that all Canadians will not settle for anything less. Now that the government has raised the people's expectations that there will be change, this government must take action to meet their promises. Canadians must see that this government is serious about enhancing community safety. They will not be satisfied merely with new initiatives. Canadians want results.

While we welcome the government's commitment to introduce measures to combat the high level of violence against women and children, we hope the government is dedicated to a strategy based on reducing all forms of violence no matter the gender or age of the victim.

My constituency contains large numbers of retired individuals and teenagers. Members of these groups have expressed their concerns about becoming victims. They feel particularly prone to random and senseless acts of violence. While I encourage the government to proceed with its measures to combat violence against women and children, it must not lose sight of the fact that all violent crimes must be condemned and prosecuted with equal vigour.

In my maiden address to the House on Tuesday I mentioned an unfortunate growth in criminal activity was accompanying the rapid growth in my constituency. However the increase in crime seems to be far exceeding the growth in population. An example of this increase can be shown in the homicide statistics for the city of Surrey. Over the last two years there was a total of 27 homicides in Surrey. Over the previous five years there were only 24.

I will not dwell on the numbers other than to say that they are cause for concern. But numbers do not even begin to tell the story of violent crime. One of the most disturbing aspects of some of these homicides were that they were teenagers killing other teenagers.

I can tell this House it is not easy to listen to the parents of young victims of murder. Yet in my brief career as a member of Parliament I have had the occasion to meet with two parents who lost their children to violent crimes. I have to acknowledge the courage they had to come to me and talk to me about what it is that needs to be changed so that other Canadians do not have to have their children in the same situation.

Teenagers have been killed for their hats, their jackets and their running shoes. Others have been killed because their killers did not like the way they looked at them.

One father I met lost his son in one of these senseless killings in 1992. He, however, is fighting back. He and a group of his colleagues have formed the organization CRY, Crime, Responsibility, Youth. This organization has been among the most vocal groups calling for amendments to the Young Offenders Act. Despite the non-partisan philosophy of the organization CRY the recommendations of the group are quite similar to my party's position on reforming the Young Offenders Act. Changes must be made. The law has to be tightened up and violent teenage offenders have to realize they cannot hide behind the act.

The problem with the Young Offenders Act is inherent in the act itself. Most Canadians can accept the premise that a 14 year old who has shoplifted a piece of candy should not go to jail nor have a criminal record. However these same Canadians do believe there should not be such leniency for a 14 year old who shoots the store clerk while robbing the cornerstore.

Another incident that illustrates the ineffectiveness of the Young Offenders Act occurred in my riding late last year. On Halloween evening two off-duty Mounties were attacked and beaten by a gang of teenagers. In December a teenager visiting our area was stabbed at a local convenience store. One of those apprehended in the stabbing was awaiting trial for the Halloween attack on the Mounties. When this information became public I was inundated with calls from my constituents expressing their outrage at a judicial system that would allow this to happen.

I promised them that I would strive to bring changes to the law to prevent this from occurring again. I intend to keep this promise. The Young Offenders Act needs significant changes. Even the young offenders admit that the act is a joke.

The government says it will introduce measures to combat the high level of violence against women and children. However right now teenagers charged with violent attacks on women and children are being able to hide behind the Young Offenders Act. Young offenders convicted of violent attacks on women and children have received insignificant sentences because of the act. If the government is to live up to its commitment of protecting women and children, it is going to have to change the act.

I acknowledge the comments of the Minister of Justice yesterday that changes will be made. I and my colleagues look forward to working with him in making sure that those changes will indeed address the real problems.

The Young Offenders Act has certainly become a lightening rod for people's anger with the failure of the criminal justice system. However it is by no means the only piece of legislation that needs to be amended. Changes are necessary to the Criminal Code to allow for recognition of victim's rights. It is time for the victim of criminal activity to receive priority from our justice system.

Another area that must be addressed is the entire issue of parole. Supposedly severe sentences have frequently amounted to little more than slaps on the wrist because of the parole system. This has become particularly evident with the recent stories of individuals convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life, 25 years without parole. We now find that no parole for 25 years can somehow mean parole after 15.

When capital punishment was removed from the Criminal Code, Canadian police officers were assured that they would be protected. They were told there was a general deterrent effect in an automatic life sentence with no parole for 25 years for the murder of a police officer. Our police officers are now finding that those individuals who killed their fellow officers may now get out after 15 years.

As my constituency is the home to the largest RCMP detachment in the country, I would like to be able to assure these men and women that Parliament will pass whatever legislation is necessary to protect them.

Almost one year ago the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General of the 34th Parliament presented its 12th report entitled "Crime Prevention in Canada: Toward a National Strategy". The committee listed a series of recommendations dealing mainly with the development of a national crime prevention policy. The step is a positive one and perhaps long overdue.

However this is a long range plan. These crime prevention strategies may have an impact, but when? Will it be this year, next year, five years down the road, or maybe even ten years? Canadians do not want to wait. They do not want to hear about initiatives. They want results. I do not think that the crime prevention policies are going to provide the results in the short term.

In the long term we have to identify the root causes of criminal behaviour. We also have to develop effective means and measures of treating criminal behaviour. We have to continue to experiment and to try to address these issues.

Canadians are not prepared to accept the status quo until solutions are found. They want to feel safe in their communities today. They want the government to take immediate steps to accomplish this. The best way to accomplish this is by keeping violent criminals off the streets of Canada. While this may not be the most conducive means of rehabilitating criminals, we have to recognize that protecting the lives of Canadian citizens is paramount to the rehabilitation of violent criminal offenders.

My caucus colleagues and I are quite prepared to assist the government in developing policy that will provide Canadian society with protection from violent criminal activity. Canadians are expecting this protection. This government has promised it and now we have to provide it.

One area where government may not expect as much co-operation from us is its plan to restore the court challenges program.

Our party has a fundamental problem with a government that gives out scarce taxpayers' dollars to special interest groups so that they can turn around and sue the government. This program, which appears to be an infrastructure program for the legal profession, does not make sense in today's economic reality.

The government's position on justice reform has potential as long as the government attaches the right priorities. If it fails to acknowledge the priorities, the Reform Party will continue to lead the fight for society's right to be protected.

Speech From The ThroneGovernment Orders

2:45 p.m.

Reform

Jan Brown Reform Calgary Southeast, AB

Madam Speaker, when I rose to first speak in the House earlier this week I acknowledged your appointment to the Chair and extended good wishes to all of my colleagues here. Given the very serious nature of that peacekeeping debate, my focus was on a world far away. I commented from my heart on a rupturing world order. My thoughts today however spring from the heart of my political experience, and that is my riding of Calgary Southeast.

Calgary Southeast is a large urban riding made up of 20 small communities complemented by a setting of parks and rivers under a brilliant blue prairie sky, which I really miss today. Calgary Southeast is unique because it is a riding of difference. Its different business needs cover everything from large manufacturing and transportation operations to small mom and pop cornerstores. Its economic profile is different because it is home to some of the wealthier residents of Calgary as well as some of its most impoverished. However, the concerns of my constituents are neither defined nor confined by these differences, because they freely cross the income brackets.

The throne speech only briefly commented upon a plan for social reform to be completed within two years. This has great relevance for those differences I mentioned earlier within the riding. One could say it is a halting step for change when leaps and bounds are needed.

It would seem by the time the government gets around to implementing any changes the 1990s will be more than half over. Leadership is required but not to take us back to the standards of the 1980s, because our current economic situation just will not allow that. Our social security net can no longer continue to be championed by proponents of the status quo. Quite frankly, it fails the legitimate needs of Canadians as we move into the 21st century.

The challenge I bring here today is to re-think universality and what it means. I use the word challenge because I do not

have to impress on anyone the fragility of our social programs as we face a staggering federal deficit and debt.

There is a continuing and increasing sense of panic in our business communities and among the constituents I represent. It is rather like the panic you would feel if you suddenly found yourself unable to pay for this wonderful dinner you had just eaten at a city restaurant, after having been encouraged and invited to take whatever you wanted from the menu. Just imagine that the dinner is over, the last coffees have been poured and the waiter brings the bill. You have no cash. So you give the waiter your credit card, but he comes back saying that it is over your credit limit. You try to write a cheque but the waiter will not accept it.

So how do we explain this crisis in terms of a country? More important, how do we explain this crisis in terms of people?

I was elected on a platform that offers hope to all the people of Canada. But I can tell you one thing: No one is prepared for rhetoric any longer, nor for promises that cannot be kept. To realize that I only have to go back to my election campaign. I met so many voters on the doorsteps who were fed up, disappointed, either out of work or worried about job loss, or who were just plain mad.

I know from these neighbourhood experiences that politics and politicians had better move toward major social change and do it fast. There has been much talk, profuse public professions of social concern for those who are less able to care for themselves: the sick, the old, the unemployed and the poor.

This leads me to believe that the legitimate role of government is to do for people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all or do as well for themselves individually or through non-government organizations.

With our mounting debt, the provision of government funds for various groups and organizations is no longer an option. As this reality becomes accepted, organizations are lowering their dependency on the public purse and indeed are taking pride in being able to sustain themselves as associations providing valuable community service without the need for taxpayers' dollars.

I can give an example. One couple in my riding has dedicated themselves to just such an idea. About a year ago, they co-founded a centre for recovering drug and alcohol abusers. This centre differs from other programs in that it provides a haven for these people for a three month period while they find themselves moving back into the mainstream of society. The need for a centre of this type is very great and there is now a large waiting list in Calgary for the services that this centre offers.

There is no immediate possibility for expansion as operations are dependent solely on the fund-raising abilities of this group and after they have taken care of their operations there really is not very much money left over at all. However, my constituents are proud that they are making a positive difference and that they are doing it independently of government funding.

I also believe that Canadians have a personal and collective responsibility to care and provide for the basic needs of people who are unable to care and provide for themselves. We can no longer afford, either morally or financially, to provide all things to all people.

This notion of universality has bred entitlement over assistance for those who really need help to care for themselves. As an idea, universality has a major economic impact because it continues to feed the national debt, now a half trillion dollars. It is time for a new definition that does not include social programs being run by bureaucrats.

Canadian society is founded on the principles of fundamental justice. Therefore a new approach is to consider rational and compassionate care for the poor, the sick, the aged and the young, ensuring that 100 per cent of those who need help will receive it 100 per cent of the time.

I remember door-knocking during the election campaign and being asked over and over again about the Reform's plan to include old age security reductions as it moved to balance the budget. It was a hard thing for people to understand, but I explained that our plan called for a reduction and gradual elimination of those old age security payments to homes whose family income exceeded the national average income of $54,000.

Many people in my riding could never have imagined having money like that. If they did they said they would gladly forgo some it to assist those less able to care for themselves. However, entitlement has blurred the lines of real need and we find ourselves with an idea that is out of date and financially unworkable.

I believe in the common sense of my constituents. Nowhere is this better exemplified than by a group of seniors living in a Calgary Southeast provincially subsidized housing complex. They came to know me pretty well during the campaign because I would often stop by there and have coffee with them. They represent one of those groups who I see will need continued help and support through targeted social spending.

The last time I had coffee with them was just before the election. I was asked: "Will you come back and have coffee with us, Jan, after you're elected?" They had pretty positive sense there. "We want you to speak for us, to remember us, and to stop by once in a while so that we can see that you have not changed and that you are still the same". They expect no less than what I

consistently offered, the truth and a commitment to try which is what I offer here again today.

My experience with the people in my riding tells me that compassion must play a large role in the delivery mechanisms that support social services to Canadians in need.

In closing, I would like to say that our compassion, coupled with rational decision-making, will make the difference. It is simply a matter of acting on our vision. When you dream great dreams as big as this country the good happens and this is what captures the heart.

Speech From The ThroneGovernment Orders

January 28th, 1994 / 2:55 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Thalheimer Liberal Timmins—Chapleau, ON

Madam Speaker, as a preliminary matter, I would like to add my congratulations to the Speaker and the deputies. On a personal matter, I would like to thank my wife and family for their support and hard work during the recent election campaign. It was their efforts basically that brought me into this Chamber.

I would also like to thank all my hard workers and the people of Timmins-Chapleau for giving me their overwhelming support in the election. I can assure them that now as a member of the highest court in this land, I will do my utmost to serve them and this government.

I would like to tell you something about myself, Madam Speaker, and something about my riding. First of all, I am a young man born of immigrant parents. I was born and raised in the western community of Unity, Saskatchewan. My parents had emigrated from Germany and they farmed there. My friends from the west will recognize and remember where Unity, Saskatchewan is.

I received my primary and secondary education there and in the latter part of the 1950s I came east. I attended the University of Ottawa law school and graduated in 1962. At the conclusion of that I established my practice in Timmins, Ontario, where I have been to this date.

It was during the course of my university days here at the University of Ottawa that I had the good fortune of meeting my wife who was teaching school in Hull, Quebec. She is from Notre-Dame-du-Laus, Quebec. I am sure my friends to the left will know where Notre-Dame-du-Laus, Quebec is. At the time that I met her she could not speak a word of English and of course I could not speak a word of French.

We have now been married for some 33 years and I have learned some French, by no means perfect, but my wife has perfected the English language. Fortunately our children, all four of them, are perfectly bilingual. As a matter of fact our youngest daughter, who graduated from the School of Journalism at Carleton University in 1990, is now doing her masters at the University of Montreal.

That is basically who I am and where I came from. Of course I practised law in the city of Timmins since 1962.

Timmins-Chapleau is a very diverse ethnic riding, but basically has about a 45 per cent francophone population. The rest of the population are of various nationalities: Finnish, Italian, English and so on.

The base economies of the riding are mining and forestry. Without these economies there would be no reason for any human habitation in Timmins-Chapleau. As we all know, mining and forestry is a large part of the total Canadian economy, but since 1987, particularly in the mining sector, it has been all but gutted because of the policies, or lack of policies, of the previous government.

The mining industry is in a very serious decline. The ore reserves are almost at their depletion point. The mining industry advises us that unless we do something to revive and revitalize the industry, in a matter of four to eight years we will have another situation such as we have in the east coast fishery.

I attribute a lot of this to the previous government for cutting the flow-through shares initiated by the Liberal government in 1983. That program made available a large amount of capital for exploration. That capital has dried up since 1990. Now we are told by the industry that the total amount being expended in exploration is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $300 million, whereas to keep up mining reserves in the country we need a minimum of $800 million a year expended on exploration.

I noted in the throne speech specifically there was no mention made of mining. On October 15, during the course of the election campaign, the Liberal government released its very progressive and comprehensive mining policy. I know that everyone is happy with it and that it must be implemented. It is our task now at hand to implement the policies that were stated by the Liberals in October 1993.

It is my contention that a good place for the government to begin is by reintroducing flow-through shares. Aside from some abuses that took place under the program we know that it produced the capital required for exploration in the country. Since that program was gutted in 1990 all our capital has been going out of the country to Chile and other parts of the world where exploration has increased. This has been to our detriment and has resulted in the depletion of our ore reserves.

If the program were reintroduced by the government it would re-establish and regain the capital so urgently required for exploration. Although there have been critics of the program who said it was a run on the treasury, there are studies suggesting that the program was revenue neutral.

Let me give an example of what flow-through shares produced for the country. In 1988 in Val d'or, Quebec, there was a discovery made in the township of Louvicourt as a result of flow-through financing. That was a world class metal ore discovery. In the last two and a half years the company has spent

some $350 million to prepare the infrastructure to mine the property. I am advised that by July of this year the mine will be in full production. There have been many other discoveries, but that world class discovery alone will more than pay tenfold for anything that the flow-through shares may have cost the treasury over the time the program was in existence up to 1990.

It is my hope that, if not in the next budget, some future budget will include the reintroduction of that program with modifications so that abuses can be eliminated.

We have a lot of work to do in the mining sector. The people in mining have been working very hard. They have told us what the problems are. It is now up to the government to address those problems and to implement the policies in our mining statement on October 15, 1993.

I want mention something about the forestry sector because it is another part of the basic economy of Timmins-Chapleau. It contributes largely to the Canadian economy. I am advised that in the last three or four years the pulp and paper industry people have suffered great losses, some $2 billion to $4 billion. They certainly have my support, and I am sure many people will support them, in their efforts to delay the implementation of effluent discharge reductions that were to take effect in 1995 by two years.

I know my time is up and that I will have many more occasions to speak. I will address those matters later.

Speech From The ThroneGovernment Orders

3:05 p.m.

Ottawa West Ontario

Liberal

Marlene Catterall LiberalParliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board

Madam Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had in this House to congratulate you and your fellow speakers on your great success and to wish you good luck in the difficult task awaiting you.

Let me take this opportunity, in my first time speaking in this 35th Parliament, to say thank you to those who have helped me be here today to speak on behalf of the people of Ottawa West and, just as important, to speak on their behalf in terms of what is good for our country.

I want to say a particular thanks to my family who has for many years put up with a mother in politics. It certainly affects one's family life. It certainly makes it difficult, but it has helped me learn over the years as well how self-sufficient children can be when they are left in a bit of benign neglect.

Above all I thank the voters of Ottawa West who have again placed their confidence in me to come here to play an important role on their behalf in the future of our country. It is a good time as well to pay tribute to a former colleague in the House, the Hon. Lloyd Francis, who for 30 years won the seat of Ottawa West every second election and eventually served as its Speaker before his retirement.

As we begin a new Parliament I think back to five years ago when I walked in here for the first time and the first time I stood in the House to speak. In fact the first time I walked into these buildings, because these buildings are an important symbol for the nation, I had a tremendous sense of being part of a long history, of owing to many generations of Canadians who have sat in these seats before us the wonderful country that we enjoy and of owing another debt as well, that is a debt to the generations yet to come. When other parliamentarians sit in these seats decades and generations from now hopefully they too will have reasons to be proud of the country we in the 35th Parliament have helped to leave for them.

It is traditional in one's first speech in the House to speak of one's constituency and to relate it to the country. I suppose what is most important to me in this Parliament is that I represent a constituency in the national capital region. That is a fact about my community I have been proud of as long as I have lived here, and that is my entire life. We have a very special sense of responsibility in this region to the nation.

I have perhaps not felt it as poignantly as I have until last week when I sat in Parliament opposite an Official Opposition with a declared, avowed and loudly expressed purpose of changing dramatically the nature of this country, of removing from the country I have known and loved for 50 years a province that is essential to what this great country is all about.

I feel a special responsibility in Parliament to say that I am here to represent my constituents of Ottawa West. I am here as a member from the national capital region. I am here to speak for my country. That means I am also here to speak for its people.

It is important that we talk about dollars because they are the way we achieve the things we wish to achieve, but as we talk about dollars we must not forget that a country is really about people. I think of my own constituents and the messages I heard from them during the election campaign.

I represent a very mixed constituency. I represent many very poor people. I represent many quite wealthy people. I represent many unemployed people. I represent many women trying to raise children on welfare. I represent many public service employees, although not as many as most people in the Chamber think. They are only one out of five jobs in this region whereas two out of three of them are scattered across the country. Members will find them in each of their own ridings working hard to serve their constituents as well. Nonetheless they are an important component of my constituency.

I represent a riding where a third of the adults are over the age of 65. The concerns of seniors in Canada are certainly a major concern of mine. I represent many small businesses, individual or family owned businesses, and a number of companies that are right in the vanguard of where our economy is heading in the high technology field. I represent the hopes and aspirations of all those people.

I sensed in this election as never before a distrust in our Parliament, a distrust in our institutions, a distrust in one another and a deep agony about our future. I look at this Parliament as a time for not only recovery of our economy but renewal of our nation. I look at it as a time of restoring our faith in one another and our faith in the future we have together.

I believe we do that by renewing our commitment to one another, by renewing our commitment to those young people out there who are fresh, eager and well educated but with no jobs to go to. I do not want to look back in the year 2000 and say that people who were young and unemployed in 1994 are still unemployed. The problem is that they are not young any more.

I want to give those mothers raising their children on welfare a chance. Too often I have been involved in trying to get them training programs, knowing how eager and how anxious they are to make a better future for themselves and their children and knowing that they are trapped in social programs whose design is no longer capable of helping them to become self-sufficient.

I want to make a difference in terms of how we spend our money and how we run our economy so that it leaves our children and our grandchildren with air they can breathe, water they can drink, and earth they can grow their food in.

Finally I want to make a contribution in Parliament to one of the major commitments of this government; a more open, participative type of decision-making. I suppose it comes from long years in municipal government but I believe the more we listen to the wisdom of the people, the better decisions we make.

I hear this talk about free votes, about referendums and recall of members of Parliament. The people of Ottawa West sent me here to represent them and their points of view. They also sent me here to help continue the dream of a nation called Canada. They sent me here as well to listen; to listen to the voices of the north, the west, the east, rural communities, urban communities, mining communities, fishing communities and to blend their voices with the voices of Canada. As we do in our caucus every Wednesday morning, we listen to each other and at the end of the day come out with plans and programs we believe are good for this country, not just good for me, my neighbour, my friends or even my constituency, only good for this country.

That is why they sent me here. That is why I am here. I am excited by the new voices I hear in this Parliament. I am excited by the new voices I hear in my caucus. I am excited by the opportunity of being on the government side of the House, to truly make a contribution in a more participative, a healthier and a more productive society, a society in which again we are committed to one another and not only to our own self-interest.

Speech From The ThroneGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Rocheleau Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC

Madam Speaker, since this is my maiden speech, I would like to congratulate the Speaker on his election and all members of his team on their recent appointment to their distinguished positions.

I would also like to thank the people of my riding of Trois-Rivières for having elected me as their representative in this House last October 25. The riding, with a population of about 62,000, includes seven municipalities, namely Trois-Rivières, Trois-Rivières-Ouest, Pointe-du-Lac, Yamachiche, Saint-Sévère, Saint-Barnabé and part of Saint-Thomas de Caxton. Located halfway between Montreal and Quebec City on the north shore of the majestic St. Lawrence River, my riding is highly urbanized but its western part includes very beautiful farmland.

Founded in 1634, some 360 years ago, under French rule, the city of Trois-Rivières is not only the major centre in the riding but also the regional capital of the Mauricie-Bois-Franc region stretching from the city of La Tuque, to the north, to Victoriaville and Drummondville, to the south.

Trois-Rivières is the site of a university with growing influence, two colleges, one diocesan centre, three hospitals serving the surrounding area, three television stations, four radio stations, a deep-water port, as well as a regional airport. It was long considered the pulp and paper capital of the world. However, with the decline of that industry, Trois-Rivières has been suffering and its unemployment rate now hovers between 13 and 14 per cent.

Trois-Rivières also boasts two historic educational institutions, currently serving as high schools, namely the Ursulines' College founded in 1700, whose well-preserved main building has become a major tourist attraction, and Saint-Joseph Seminary of Trois-Rivières where I completed my classical studies just like the former Quebec Premier and MLA for Trois-Rivières, Maurice L. Duplessis, and the current member of Parliament for Saint-Maurice and Prime Minister of Canada.

I would also like to take this opportunity to once again express to the Prime Minister my sincere congratulations on his election in the riding of Saint-Maurice adjoining that of Trois-Rivières and assure him of my co-operation on any regional issue that we may have to resolve together in the best interest of our respective constituents.

As the Official Opposition critic for Industry, I would now like to address a very important issue for Quebec and Canada, namely industrial development. The Minister of Industry is in the House.

Job creation must be based on a consistent industrial policy that will allow the Quebec and Canadian economy to stay competitive. The government's throne speech contains vague statements about helping small and medium-sized businesses by working with financial institutions to improve access to capital for these businesses. What they need is concrete immediate action and not policy statements. Small and medium-sized businesses have been hard hit by the recession and the single-minded inflation-fighting policy pursued by the Bank of Canada. It is a well-known fact that, during an economic slowdown, banks tend to turn their backs on small and medium-sized businesses.

In Quebec, small and medium-sized businesses generate 46 per cent of all private sector revenue, 1,200,000 jobs or 46 per cent of private sector employment, and 52 to 54 per cent of private sector salaries.

Quebec has always been especially sensitive to the needs of small business. Many small businesses that started off in their founder's garage have now become global enterprises, like Bombardier, Cascades and others.

The problem is that Canada does not have a consistent industrial policy. It is in fact impossible for Canada to adopt such a policy because economic conditions vary from one region to another. This situation locks the government into a piecemeal strategy suitable only for damage control and partial solutions. However, it insists on retaining economic powers that the provinces need in order to develop their own industrial policy.

We saw it clearly when the Quebec government tried to put in place its industrial cluster strategy. To carry out this strategy, the Government of Quebec did not have the powers it needed, like occupational training and unemployment insurance, to name only these.

We must admit the obvious: Canadian federalism does not work. Quebec can only achieve its full economic potential if it is sovereign. Only then will it have all the economic powers to implement a real industrial policy.

I think that I can already hear our federalist friends telling us that Quebec sovereignty would mean isolation and turning inward. Nonsense, Madam Speaker. Quebec is a trading nation: about 40 per cent of its gross domestic product is exported to Canada and other countries. Why would it turn in on itself? Indeed, Quebec could even improve its access to its Canadian partners by becoming sovereign. The Minister of Industry himself said in his speech in this House last Friday that the rules governing interprovincial trade were rather like those of the GATT in the late 1940s, and that under NAFTA, it was easier to deal with the United States than with the other Canadian provinces. That means that a sovereign Quebec could trade more easily with the Canadian provinces. We are in favour of opening international markets and Quebec was a great supporter of the free trade agreement and of NAFTA.

Quebec industry is active in leading sectors like aerospace, telecommunications, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology in general, where Quebec is at the forefront of technology and compares favorably with any country in the world. Nevertheless, some Quebec industries have some catching up to do to remain competitive.

These industries are usually labour-intensive-textiles, furniture, clothing-and will have to adapt to face foreign competition resulting from the GATT and NAFTA. The negative impact of globalization of markets on companies and on workers in these industries must be minimized. We would have wanted to find in the speech from the throne conversion or modernization measures to help these industries remain competitive in a world of global markets.

Let us talk about industrial conversion. While the Liberals' red book made a big issue of it in the election campaign, there is not a word about it today or in the speech from the throne or in the speech by the Minister of Industry in reply to the speech from the throne. In this context, the danger facing us is that the federal government will show the same disregard as it showed by failing to help manufacturing companies adjust after the free trade agreement with the United States was signed.

Nevertheless, the red book said, "The end of the Cold War puts at risk. . .thousands of high-tech jobs. A Liberal government will introduce a defence conversion program to help industries in transition from high-tech military production to high-tech civilian production." Since then, not a word. This lack of action by the government regarding assistance to the less competitive sectors which will be affected by NAFTA and the GATT is not a good omen for the reconversion of military industries.

It must be realized that the end of the cold war has already had a major impact on the level of employment of that industry, both in Quebec and in Canada. According to the research group on military industries, in the five years between 1987 and 1992, the

military industry in Quebec lost 48 per cent of its total sales, as well as 11,000 direct jobs. This puts numerous businesses in high tech sectors such as aerospace and telecommunications in a precarious situation. These businesses urgently need help to develop civilian applications for their products.

Take for example the case of the MIL Davie shipyard, in Lauzon. This company, which specialized in building warships, is now threatened with closing. In fact, it has already been forced to lay off 600 workers since the beginning of 1993. If nothing is done, this shipyard could well be forced to shut down after it delivers its last ship to the Canadian Navy. Yet, the company has undertaken a process to enable it to switch from military to civilian production. Under the circumstances, in order to survive, MIL Davie in Lauzon desperately needs the federal contract to build the Magdalen Islands ferry along with some assistance to design a new multipurpose or smart ship. This is the exclusive responsibility of the federal government.

Given the current situation, the construction of a high-speed rail link along the Quebec City-Trois-Rivières-Windsor corridor is extremely important since this undertaking could have a considerable impact, from both an economic and technological standpoint.

In the throne speech, the government pledged to eliminate overlap and duplication in the different levels of government. In the industrial sector, the need to streamline programs and eliminate duplication is particularly glaring.

According to a paper commissioned in September 1991 by the Treasury Board Secretariat-so it must be accurate-on overlap and duplication of federal and provincial programs, overlap is, listen to this, Madam Speaker, a major problem affecting industrial sector programs. The vast majority of these programs have not been not legislated, but rather have been established pursuant to the federal government's spending power. The National Research Council, the Federal Business Development Bank, financial aid programs and business services programs, to name but a few, fall into this category. And these are facts contained in a federal government report.

The situation is serious. In its brief to the Bélanger-Campeau Commission, the Quebec section of the Canadian Manufacturers Association wrote: "The confusion caused by this duplication leads to a massive waste of energy, time and resources and creates a permanent climate of uncertainty, while industries expect their government to maintain a stable climate and establish clear rules so that they can make plans for their development."

Madam Speaker, it is not only the waste of public funds, which is itself a serious problem. Our businesses' competitiveness is being undermined because they must work their way through a bureaucratic maze. The services that we offer to our businesses must be subjected to a program-by-program, in-depth review. The federal government must understand that massive decentralization of the main economic levers is in the national interest of Quebec and Canada is needed and that it must stop interfering in areas where the provinces are better able to meet the needs of the population.

In the throne speech, the government also makes a commitment to present legislation to increase the transparency of the relations between lobbyists and the government. We are waiting with great interest to see what it will do in this regard.

I cannot conclude this speech without addressing, even if only for a few minutes, the basic reason for my presence here in this House. I have been fighting for Quebec's sovereignty since 1961. I have been both a player and a witness in the evolution, sometimes difficult, sometimes dramatic, of Quebec's sovereigntist movement for the last 33 years.

I would therefore like to pay tribute not only to those who have worked behind the scenes but also to the main pioneers who, from the early 60s, have succeeded in persuading thousands of Quebecers like myself of the merits of Quebec's political sovereignty.

I am thinking of Raymond Barbeau, founder of the Laurentian Alliance, of André D'Allemagne, founding president of the Rassemblement pour l'indépendance nationale (R.I.N.), of Marcel Chaput, a former federal civil servant, leader of the R.I.N. and founder of the Quebec Republican Party, of Pierre Bourgault, who became president of the R.I.N. and dissolved his own party to join, in the best interests of the cause, the Parti Québécois, newly formed in 1968 by René Lévesque, the great unifier who made the sovereigntist movement credible.

We must not forget another visionary Quebecer, Marcel Léger, who died last year. He set up the Quebec Nationalist Party, for which I ran in the riding of Trois-Rivières and which as early as 1984 offered Quebecers, especially sovereigntists, an alternative to the federalist forces to represent them in Ottawa. At that time, Quebecers preferred to try once again to renew Canadian federalism.

The speech from the throne says that the government will work vigorously to ensure that federalism meets the needs of Canadians. Madam Speaker, I will not hide my surprise from you on reading such a statement in 1994, as if it were something new.

However, Quebecers and Canadians have tried just that for 30 years, to ensure that federalism meets their needs. In the past 30 years, they have set up four royal commissions of inquiry to try to do that: in 1963, the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, which already recognized the existence of "two solitudes"; in 1977, the Pepin-Robarts Commission on Canadian Unity, hastily set up following the election of the Parti Québécois in Quebec; in 1981, the McDo-

nald Commission on Economic Union, which advocated more centralized control of power in Ottawa; in 1991, the Spicer Commission on the Future of Canada; and also the Castonguay-Beaudoin-Dobbie Committee in 1992. They all tried unsuccessfully to renew Canadian federalism "with honour and enthusiasm".

After 30 years of discussion and Constitution conferences, after spending thousands of hours and several hundred million dollars, after producing a mountain of reports, all we came up with was a miserable little agreement, the Charlottetown Agreement, which was rejected by everyone, but for diametrically opposite reasons.

We have come to a dead end trying to renew the Canadian federation. However, what the Bloc Quebecois is proposing is quite simple; sovereignty, that is the exclusive right within its territory for Quebec to pass legislation, levy taxes and be represented abroad, a right enjoyed by every other sovereign state.

The Bloc Quebecois has not come here to destroy a country, but to build a new one, the state of Quebec.

Speech From The ThroneGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Cape Breton—The Sydneys Nova Scotia

Liberal

Russell MacLellan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak on the speech from the throne. I feel it is perhaps one of the most important we have had in this century.

The previous government was able to postpone major decisions, things that needed to be done to bring this country to the point where it could reach its true potential. The people recognized that it had failed them. That is why it has only two members in the House of Commons at the present time. We can never forget that the people want good government. They want responsible government and they want their members of Parliament to give them the Canada that they envision.

We talk about unity. The single most important thing to provide unity in this country is good government. I predict that good government will hold this country together as nothing else will. If we can deliver what is in the speech from the throne, if members of this House can work together, then we can give to the people the government they want. We can also give back to ourselves and this House the prestige and the dignity that so befits this institution. Unfortunately this has not been the case in recent years. Largely it is because members of Parliament brought it on themselves.

We must look at what Canada needs. We need to deal with the debt and the deficit. Certainly when we have an economy that pays 35 cents of every dollar for no other purpose than paying the interest on the debt it must seem to Canadians of low and middle income, and indeed to Canadians who do not have any income, as an obscene use of funding. The people of this country, so many of whom are in need, are not having their needs addressed.

We must deal with the economy, but we must remember that we are here for the people of Canada. As stated in the speech from the throne says, we must look at providing a social system that meets the needs of the nineties. That is not to say we take away what Canadians need. It means that we look at our system, discover its needs and what Canadians need, how with our technological age we can better deliver the system and how we can generate, not only work but enthusiasm for Canadians in this decade.

Taking a life is a very serious thing. I want to say to this House that wasting a life may not seem as serious but it is very serious. That is what is happening to our young people who do not have jobs. They are going from one part-time job to another. In many cases this is the most they have to look forward to. This is a tragedy in the country that the United Nations said was the most beneficial and best country in the world in which to live.

We have a lot to do. We have a lot of self-searching to do. We must reduce the debt and the deficit but we must keep in mind the people of Canada.

In my area in Atlantic Canada there has been an absolute collapse of the ground fishery. All of us in this House are cognizant of the unemployment we suffered before this happened. However, add another 35,000 to 45,000 people who have lost their employment to that serious situation that existed before and it will give some idea of the devastation with which we are faced.

We cannot walk away from that. We cannot walk away from those people and their needs or from the aspirations of the youth of Atlantic Canada. We cannot walk away from the aboriginal people who are looking to this government and to this House of Commons to meet their needs. They have been asking for solutions for many years. We cannot abandon the people of Davis Inlet. We cannot abandon the people of northern Ontario who live in substandard housing.

The aboriginal people are a vital part of this country and we must work together to make sure that their living conditions and their future is something they can look forward to as we hope we will be looking forward to ours.

We cannot ignore the environment. We do not know what caused the devastating downturn in our ground fishery. It may very well be environmental conditions. It could be a melting of the polar ice cap which changed the temperature of the water.

These are the situations with which we are faced today. They have been postponed and then put on to us. However, we in this House cannot postpone them in turn because the time to deal with them is now. There is nowhere else to push these problems. We have to deal with them. We must again look to working on the deficit and the debt and also keep in mind that there are things with which we must deal now.

We must also look to the needs of people today with respect to crime prevention and safety on the streets of this country. This is a major concern.

I want to say that, until one evening, I did not realize how serious the fear was for women in this country who are walking on the streets. On that evening I worked until around 10 p.m. and then I walked down Sparks Street. I tried to cross Elgin Street before the light changed so I started to run. There was a lady ahead of me and she heard these running footsteps behind her. She turned around and I saw a look of stark terror on her face because she knew there was a man behind her who started to run.

The fact is that women in this country get off from work in the dark and take the bus at this time of year. When they get off the bus and every time they pass a tree or a hedge or another building they do not know who is behind those trees, hedges or buildings. Are the elevators safe in which they are going to travel? This has to be addressed.

We have to address the problems of the youth in this country and the youth crime that is so evidently displayed. We must deal with the criminals and the victims. We must start at the very beginning to address and anticipate what is causing crime in this country. The first part is dealing with the criminals and the second part is dealing with prevention. These two go hand in hand. These two are absolutely necessary. It has been said that for every $1 we spend on crime prevention we save $7 in incarceration and expense in our justice system.

These are formidable challenges for members of this House of Commons.

This is our opportunity to show Canadians that although we are faced with difficult decisions we can deal with them because as a unit, members from coast to coast to coast share a concern for Canada and its people.

We cannot talk about people in one region without talking about people in all of Canada. That is because the common thread in this country is the aspirations and present needs of these people and their children. These needs that seem to be unique to one neighbourhood have the same uniqueness in another. That means there is a common bond and there is no uniqueness. There is the common thread of personal safety and aspirations for their children. We all have the same joys and sorrows.

I therefore hope that all the representatives will have the same determination to put this country on the road to prosperity with the vision that Canadians hold for it.

Speech From The ThroneGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

It being 3.45 p.m., it is my duty in accordance with Standing Order 50(8) to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the motion.

The division is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Speech From The ThroneGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Speech From The ThroneGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Speech From The ThroneGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

All those in favour will please say yea.

Speech From The ThroneGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Speech From The ThroneGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

All those opposed will please say nay.

Speech From The ThroneGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Speech From The ThroneGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

In my opinion, the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Speech From The ThroneGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

Pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), the division stands deferred until 6 p.m., Tuesday, February 1, 1994.

It being 3.48 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 o'clock a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 3.48 p.m.)