House of Commons Hansard #80 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was quebec.

Topics

Government Response To PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10 a.m.

Kingston and the Islands Ontario

Liberal

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to petitions.

Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

10 a.m.

Liberal

Charles Caccia Liberal Davenport, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

This report concerns Bill C-23, an act to implement a convention for the protection of migratory birds in Canada and the United States.

Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

10 a.m.

Liberal

Gordon Kirkby Liberal Prince Albert—Churchill River, SK

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development in both official languages.

Your committee has considered Bill C-16, the Sahtu Dene and Metis Land Claim Settlement Act and has agreed to report it without amendment.

Marine Transportation Security ActRoutine Proceedings

10 a.m.

Acadie—Bathurst New Brunswick

Liberal

Douglas Young LiberalMinister of Transport

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-38, an Act to provide for the security of marine transportation.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Income Tax ActRoutine Proceedings

10 a.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-256, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (transfer of income to spouse).

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to present my first private member's bill in the House of Commons. I would like to thank the member for Madawaska-Victoria for seconding my bill.

The bill would amend the Income Tax Act to allow one spouse to split or to pay up to $25,000 to the other spouse who is managing the family home and caring for at least one dependent child who has not commenced full time attendance at school.

The initiative would recognize the value of work in the family home and would give parents the option of providing direct parental care to their children. It would allow the spouse in the home to be eligible to purchase RRSPs and therefore provide a more equitable retirement income opportunity. Both jobs and day care spaces would be freed up by the initiative by those who could now afford to leave the workforce and remain at home to care for their children.

It is a great honour to present the bill to the House. I look forward to discussing it with my colleagues to garner support for what I believe is an important initiative.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

Rex Crawford Liberal Kent, ON

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition from the residents of Kent.

The petitioners request that the federal government support an ethanol plant in the city of Chatham, Ontario, an area devastated by free trade and NAFTA agreements. Jobs will be

created in sustainable development and environmentally friendly agricultural outlets.

The undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call on Parliament to maintain the present exemption on the excise portion of ethanol for a decade, allowing for a strong and self-sufficient ethanol industry in Canada.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Kingston and the Islands Ontario

Liberal

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

The Speaker

Shall all questions stand?

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:05 a.m.

Reform

Preston Manning Reform Calgary Southwest, AB

moved:

That this House strongly affirm and support the desire of Canadians to remain federally united as one people, committed to strengthening our economy, balancing the budgets of our governments, sustaining our social services, conserving our environment, preserving our cultural heritage and diversity, protecting our lives and property, further democratizing our institutions and decision making processes, affirming the equality and uniqueness of all our citizens and provinces, and building peaceful and productive relations with other peoples of the world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to this motion which addresses the issue of Canadian unity from a positive and federalist perspective.

The motion has two parts: an affirmation and a description. The first part simply calls for the House to strongly affirm and support the desire of Canadians to remain federally united as one people. Surely this is a proposition which every federalist in the House can and should support.

The second portion of the motion is a brief, shorthand description of what Reformers believe should be some of the distinguishing characteristics of that federal union as we move into the 21st century. It is a shorthand description of a new Canada which our members will expand on in the course of the debate.

Please note that there is nothing negative in the motion. The motion does not criticize the government so that government members cannot and should not regard it as a confidence motion. Nor does the motion contain any implicit threat to Quebecers who for whatever reason may have given up on federalism.

The motion is simply a positive affirmation of the desire of the vast majority of Canadians to remain federally united and a shorthand description of some of the characteristics which can and should distinguish such a union in the future. The motion is worded generously enough and is of such positive intent that a majority of the members of the House can and should support it.

Why do we present the motion to the House? It is because we perceive a growing vacuum on the national unity issue, a leadership vacuum. If it is not filled with a positive vision of federalism and a reasoned response to the separatist challenge, the danger is that it will be filled with constitutional delusions and incomplete or inflammatory responses to the separatist challenge. That will harm Canada and every province and territory of Canada.

The past month has provided ample evidence of the existence of this vacuum and some of the delusions and inflammations which it encourages. It is said that nature abhors a vacuum and so should Parliament. Reformers offer this motion and a list of questions which we will be forwarding to the Prime Minister later this week as our contribution toward filling this vacuum with something more constructive and forward looking.

The Reform Party was originally created and is presently supported by discontented federalists.

We are discontented federalists.

We got our start in the west and have gradually increased our support across the country by appealing, for example, to people who are appalled at how the federal government spends money and accumulates debt. Our supporters are for the most part people who reject constitutional models or public policies based on alleged partnerships between racial and linguistic groups and who long for constitutional arrangements based on the equality of all citizens and provinces.

Our supporters are for the most part people who deplore the lack of effective, regional representation in Ottawa and the unwillingness of the traditional federal parties even to consider, let alone embrace, such democratic reforms as genuine free votes, citizens' referendums and initiatives or recall.

This is just a partial list of the dissatisfactions of Reform supporters and hundreds of thousands of Canadians with status quo federalism. We can therefore identify with other Canadians, including Quebecers, who have also become dissatisfied or disillusioned with that status quo federalism.

This brings me to the major point of difference between ourselves and the Bloc. Rather than reject federalism or the concept of a federal union of all Canadians, we are committed to reforming federalism and overcoming the systemic problems, chronic overspending, inequitable constitutional arrangements,

top down decision making and policy making, the things that have brought status quo federalism into disrepute.

We have weighed both status quo federalism and separatism in the balance and have found both wanting. This has driven us to seek for a vision of a new and better federal union of Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, we have evaluated separatism and the existing federal system and we believe that both of these formulas are imperfect. This examination has prompted us to seek a new and improved federal union for Canadian citizens.

There are two ways to bring into being a new and better vision of a new Canada as a federal state. One is to assemble the first ministers in federal-provincial conferences attended and advised by various academic and interest group elites to focus exclusively on amending the Constitution. This was the approach taken in creating the 1982 Constitution, the Meech Lake accord and the Charlottetown accord. It failed to produce a vision or a form of federalism capable of inspiring a deeper commitment on the part of Canadians to the federal union.

The other approach is to go to hundreds of meetings, big ones, small ones, quiet ones, noisy ones, with the rank and file citizens of the country and to ask these simple questions: "What kind of country do you want to live in as we approach the 21st century? What kind of country do you want your children to live in? What do you want the distinguishing characteristics of that new and better Canada to be?"

Reformers have done this over the last five years, mainly in the west and parts of Ontario. We intend to continue to do this in the west, throughout Ontario, in Quebec, the north and Atlantic Canada. We have found that if we ask these questions and listen carefully to the responses Canadians will share their fears, their dreams and their aspirations with us. If we ask them they will answer.

In the dreams and aspirations of individual Canadians and groups of Canadians we will find the substance, the raw material from which to create a composite picture of a new and better Canada of the 21st century.

We have developed shorthand phrases to refer to the distinguishing characteristics of this new Canada, some of which are summarized in our motion. For example, there is the simple phrase "strengthening the economy". In the context of the 21st century this means establishing a truly internationally competitive economy, knowledge based, service oriented, environmentally sustainable, capable of providing good jobs and good incomes for all our citizens.

To get to that destination the new economy of the 21st century requires the implementation of certain public policies: fiscal policies to lower the cost of government, tax policies to pass on the benefits of this reduced cost to taxpayers and encourage job creation, trade policies to eliminate barriers to trade including internal barriers to trade, educational and training policies to produce an internationally competitive workforce.

To get to that destination the new economy of the 21st century may also require constitutional changing: a constitutional requirement to balance government budgets, a strengthening of the federal commerce power and a new division of responsibilities on education and training.

Defining and getting to that new economy of the new Canada is far more than a constitutional exercise but it may have constitutional aspects which cannot be ignored. In this resolution we have used simple phrases like "strenghthening our economy " as a heading. The words of the heading may seem trite and familiar but if one understands each of these shorthand phrases to be the tip of an iceberg beneath which lie all the public policies, private initiatives and constitutional changes required to actually bring into being a 21st century economy, then each phrase can be made to stand for something substantive and to fully describe a distinguishing characteristic of a new Canada.

Some will ask what this approach to defining a new Canada offers to Quebecers. The short answer to the question is that it offers Quebecers the same benefits it offers every other Canadian, including the freedom to develop and preserve cultural distinctiveness.

In short, the answer to that question is that this approach offers Quebecers the same advantages as all other Canadian citizens, including the freedom to promote and protect their cultural distinctiveness.

This approach offers to Quebecers as well as to all other Canadians the new jobs of the new economy, jobs which are more likely to be created and maintained if our bargaining agent in the new free trade world represents a market of 28 million people rather than 8 million.

This approach offers to Quebecers as well as to other Canadians tax relief, not the additional tax bills that will come from establishing a sovereignist government with national obligations, obligations to Canada, and new international obligations as well.

This approach offers to Quebecers as well as to all other Canadians financially sustainable social services. Properly designed social insurance plans which spread the risks over a

larger population and a larger financial base are more secure than those resting on smaller populations or economic bases.

The Reform approach to a new Canada also recognizes that Quebecers as well as other Canadians want to be treated equally under the law and to be free to preserve their cultural and linguistic heritage. When we ask Canadians they say they want both equality and freedom to preserve cultural diversity.

The problem in the country is not getting support for these objectives. The challenge is to reconcile them and to provide for the attainment of both within a single state. The approach recommended by Reformers is a two-pronged approach. First, in Canada's basic constitutional arrangements we should explicitly recognize the principle of the equality of the provinces and all citizens.

Federalists should be encouraged in this regard that the year end Decima-Maclean's poll taken immediately after the defeat of the Charlottetown accord showed for the first time that an absolute majority of Canadians in every province, including Quebec, support the equal provinces constitutional model over the founding racial groups model.

Second, in Canada's constitutional division of powers and in public policies flowing from that division of powers, we should make the preservation of cultural and linguistic distinctiveness a personal, private and provincial responsibility. The role of the federal government in such matters should be confined to the prevention of discrimination on the basis of cultural or linguistic grounds.

I have only scratched the surface of developing a fresh vigorous vision of a new and better Canada. My colleagues will expand on this vision. We look forward to the contributions of other members. My main purpose is to illustrate the process whereby Canada, the whole great sea to sea to sea federal union, can renew itself. We start by asking the people where they would like to go. We listen carefully. We construct public policies to move the nation in that direction. We offer more than the status quo. If our policies require constitutional changes, we seek those as well but only at the end of the process and not at the beginning.

This is what Reformers have endeavoured to do over the last five years on a limited scale as an extraparliamentary party. Now as a party with strong parliamentary representation and greater resources we are in a position to do more to pursue this vision of a new Canada and to establish a rallying point for those Canadians who wish Canada to remain federally united.

We shall do three more things to advance the cause of federalism in the months ahead. First, we are striking a new Canada task force within our party to further refine and flesh out this vision of a new Canada. This task force will include members of our caucus. It will seek additional input from people in parts of the country where we are not well represented. It will initiate a major teledemocracy effort on this subject in the early fall.

Second, we are establishing a contingency planning group to prepare a reasoned, principled, federalist response to all those troubling questions and issues which the threat of Quebec secession raises for Canada. A list of the questions which this group will address will be released this week and the terms of reference of this contingency planning group will be established before the end of June.

Third, we will bring together the results of this work, a fuller and more complete vision statement of a new Canada and a reasoned, principled federalist response to the issues raised by separatism for presentation to the country at our national assembly here in Ottawa on October 14 to October 16.

This is what Reformers are doing to fill the national unity vacuum with a positive vision of the future and a reasoned, principled federalist response to the threat of separation. Our question to the government is: What is it going to do more than defending the status quo to fill the national unity vacuum over the next three months?

During the last few days our Prime Minister has been visiting Normandy as we and other nations remember and honour D-Day in Europe. That event still speaks to us and to people around the world. It declares that there are certain ideals and concerns for which men and women are prepared to die. If leaders and legislators can discern and articulate those ideals and concerns for their generation, they can give that generation a vision worth living for and worth striving for.

The wartime leaders of the western democracies in the 20th century, Borden, King, Churchill, Wilson and Roosevelt, all understood this. One of them put this into words to this effect. He said: "Mothers who had lost their sons in France have come to me and have taken my hand and have said `God bless you'. I advised the course of action which led to the deaths of their sons. Why then, my fellow citizens, should they pray God to bless me? Because they believed", and listen to the words, "for something that vastly transcended any of the immediate or palpable objects of the war".

There are certain things such as freedom, security, equality, heritage, unity, democracy and home which vastly transcend the immediate and palpable objects of public policy and our daily routines. These are the things that people are in the final analysis prepared to die for and should therefore be prepared to live for and to strive for.

The Canadians who landed in Normandy were not fighting for the preservation of the status quo or for a hyphenated Canadianism or for the right to secede. They were fighting for ideals which vastly transcend and yet were rooted in their personal beliefs and hopes.

If our Prime Minister could return home with a fresh vision of those ideals that vastly transcend for contemporary Canadians and if Parliament could help him link that vision to the practical hopes and dreams of Canadians in every corner of the land then the House would have done its part to provide a rallying point for federalism which is the spirit and the substance of this resolution.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:25 a.m.

Broadview—Greenwood Ontario

Liberal

Dennis Mills LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, I say to the leader of the Reform Party that we welcome this debate today so that the Liberal Party, the Government of Canada, can reaffirm its commitment to Canada's integrity and to the vision we have for the country.

I begin with a question related to that portion of your speech that has to do with global trading.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:25 a.m.

The Speaker

Order. Because of the nature of the speech, the Chair today will be even more vigilant. Would all hon. members please direct their remarks to the Chair.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:25 a.m.

Liberal

Dennis Mills Liberal Broadview—Greenwood, ON

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question to the leader of the Reform Party has to do with global trading which the member touched upon in his speech.

American business experts have complained that one of the handicaps of the United States in international trade is the lack of Americans with foreign language skills. For the last 25 years we as Liberals have promoted a policy of multiculturalism where we have encouraged people to preserve and promote their language and culture of origin.

We believe the policy Pierre Trudeau enunciated in 1971 today represents one of the greatest advantages that we have as a trading nation because we have people in our country who can go home and trade on behalf of Canada because they preserve that language of origin.

In your new vision of Canada, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the leader of the Reform Party, that you are proposing would you continue to support-

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

The Speaker

Order. With all respect, would the hon. member please direct his questions through the Chair.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Liberal

Dennis Mills Liberal Broadview—Greenwood, ON

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a very emotional debate today. Would the leader of the Reform Party support a multiculturalism policy that would link multiculturalism to trade policy?

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Reform

Preston Manning Reform Calgary Southwest, AB

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

As our motion suggests, we support the objective of preserving our cultural heritage and diversity which leaves all kinds of room for supporting the concept of preserving Canada's multicultural heritage. Regarding the member's suggestion that it has an economic dimension, we would have no disagreement with that. Where we will come to a difference is on how to get there.

Our view is that we preserve this multicultural heritage by making that the responsibility of individuals, maybe economically motivated individuals, private associations and the lower levels of government.

We get the federal government out of that business and confine its role to strictly the prevention of discrimination on the basis of culture, language or other distinction. The difference is not with the goal, it is how to get there.

The international trade dimensions of this most effective new Canada that it has to be a trading nation competing in the free trade world give an additional argument for having a federal government that did not exist even 10 years ago, and that is we need a bigger federal government as our bargaining agent in these big international trade agreements. Our point is that a bargaining agent representing 28 million people is going to get further in a free trade world than a government representing 8 million people.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Liberal

Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's remarks and toward the end when he was talking about D-Day he got to the matter of heritage and national pride. I think he and the members of his party know that in the end the successful nations of the world, however we define successful, have not been built on technicalities, on formulae, on a technocratic approach to nationhood but in fact have been based on emotion and feeling, common heritage.

Quite often the successful nations have developed technical ways of channelling the energies which have come forward as a result of this national pride.

The speaker looked forward into the 21st century but the way we look forward into the 21st century is by looking honestly and clearly at the nation as it exists now.

The key features of the nation which we have now, this wonderful nation of Canada, this remarkable confederal system, have to do with the makeup of the population. We have for example hundreds of First Nations, aboriginal peoples who speak several families of languages and many scores of actual languages.

We also have, whether the member likes it or not, in the modern nation two founding nations, two groups of people, that feel a special responsibility, have a special place in the modern nation of Canada; the people who use the French language and people who, as their maternal language, use English.

In addition, and I am looking now in the mirror at Canada, we have over 200 first generation Canadians. Those people likely speak between them perhaps 300 of the world's 6,000 languages. Those people, including the newest of them, have accepted, I believe, or are trying to accept a common heritage.

Would the member comment on his vision of the place of the aboriginal peoples and their languages in more detail, the historic place of the so-called founding nations, and where the 200 first generation nationalities that make up such an important part of the country sit in his vision of Canada?

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Reform

Preston Manning Reform Calgary Southwest, AB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his questions and observations.

We see this as the tip of an iceberg and the member is really asking for what is beneath that. This phrase that new Canada should be characterized by a commitment to preserving our cultural heritage and diversity has all the room necessary to recognize the factors of Canadian diversity that the member mentions.

There is the role of aboriginal peoples, the role of new Canadians from many lands, the role of the original French and English populations. This provides scope for that in our vision of a new Canada. Our vision of a new Canada with respect to aboriginal peoples has to include the doing away with the paternalistic Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the transferring of its responsibilities, functions and funding to local aboriginal governments. We have said that on many occasions and again the argument is how to do it and not whether it is the objective.

We recognize from a historical and sociological standpoint the French and the English as playing founding roles in the development of Canada. Our point, however, is that if we are developing constitutional arrangements we ought not to tie constitutional entitlements to factors like race, culture or language because we end up dividing rather than uniting.

I suggest again that in terms of the broad objective of preserving our cultural heritage and diversity, however broadly that is defined, we are not in disagreement. The constitutional arrangements that get us there, that is where there will be diversity of opinion in the House.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Liberal

Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais Liberal Madawaska—Victoria, NB

Mr. Speaker, my question will be very short. I listened with incredulity to the speech made by the leader of the Reform Party. I also listened last week to what a Reform member said in this House about Atlantic Canadians who, according to him, are charity cases for the federal government.

Given what the leader of the Reform Party said today, I have several questions: Do the remarks made last week by his Reform colleague reflect his new vision of Canada and does he agree with them? In his opinion, will Atlantic Canada stay in a Confederation that will foster its linguistic, economic and social growth, just like at the beginning of this Confederation?

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Reform

Preston Manning Reform Calgary Southwest, AB

Mr. Speaker, the short answer to the member's question is certainly our vision of a new Canada includes Atlantic Canada. It includes a reinvigorated Atlantic Canada economy.

What the other member was referring to, and he meant no offence, was that for the last 30 years the way we have tried to stimulate economic development in Atlantic Canada has been through regional development grants. The Canadian approach to regional development is now quoted by economists the world over as the way not to do it. We have invested billions of dollars and the unemployment rates and the economic growth rates in those provinces are no better than they were when we started.

The alternative is embraced in this vision. Regional development programs of the future will be exploiting the north-south dimensions of free trade. Part of the country that has the strongest regional economy today is British Columbia which is doing exactly that. The premier of the province of New Brunswick is working on a strategy to that effect which we believe is the regional development wave of the future.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Beauséjour New Brunswick

Liberal

Fernand Robichaud LiberalSecretary of State (Parliamentary Affairs)

Mr. Speaker, it is for me a real pleasure and an honour to participate today in the debate launched by the Reform Party. It will be an opportunity for me and for each of us to reflect on a fundamental and crucial issue and to reaffirm, I repeat reaffirm, our desire to live together in a united country.

I am speaking today as a Canadian, as a New Brunswicker and as an Acadian. I want the members of the House to clearly understand this. While I have a distinctive history and roots as an Acadian and as a son of New Brunswick, I am also fiercely proud of being a Canadian.

Since our ancestors arrived here, often at the cost of bitter struggles, this part of America became a sturdy cradle for our language and culture. Our country is not only a territory but a crucible for the historic union of two languages and cultures.

Today's debate reminds me of the 1992 debate when this House approved the constitutional amendment proposed by New Brunswick to enshrine in the Canadian Constitution the main provisions of the law recognizing the equality of New Brunswick's two official language communities.

It is important to remind Reformers, who were not here at the time, of the significance, the real and symbolic value of this constitutional amendment. First of all, this measure validates in an almost irreversible fashion the progress that the two linguistic communities have made together over the years and the common future they want to build in a spirit of co-operation and partnership.

This measure also demonstrates the social maturity of two linguistic groups who want to live together and pass on to future generations of New Brunswickers the will to continue the social and economic experiment they started. New Brunswick is thus in several respects a mirror of our federal reality.

By working hard, by making concessions, of course, and especially by respecting other people's reality, we in New Brunswick have managed to create a climate of harmony favourable to successful and satisfactory linguistic accommodations.

New Brunswick has always been a place of refuge for our two language communities. First, many Acadians went there after they had been deported in 1755. Also, Loyalists who fled the United States after the Treaty of Paris settled there.

Today, this welcoming tradition is still very much alive in our province. From all over the world come new citizens who want to build a happy future with us, for themselves and of course for their descendants. I strongly hope that this example of respect for differences, tolerance of cultural diversity and openness to others will spread to all of Canada.

Despite the problems we sometimes have in expressing our national identity, we nevertheless have more in common to celebrate than differences to divide us.

Canadians have shown the generosity of spirit which has made ours one of the most open societies in the world. It is clearly reflected by the composition of the House. Unfortunately, I am sad to say that while Canadians are generous and tolerant, this does not seem to be the case for the two regional opposition parties. They want to divide Canada. They want to divide our country into French versus English, into region versus region, until finally it will be so divided there will not be a country any more and we will not be able to recognize Canada. That is sad.

I have heard the Reform Party bring forward motions in the House against the official languages policy, a policy which is a fair and practical approach to recognizing the linguistic facts of life in Canada, a policy which imposes linguistic obligations on the federal government alone and which gives linguistic choices to Canadians. When I hear this policy opposed by the Reform Party I hear a party which understands neither the official languages policy nor the values of fairness and pragmatism on which it is based.

When I hear the Reform Party attempting to come to grips with multiculturalism I do not hear tolerance. Nor do I hear a party in touch with the reality of western Canada, a place where Ukrainians, Chinese, Germans, Swedes and dozens of other peoples have come to make a better life for themselves and their children, a life free from persecution and free from intolerance. It is a place where they are free to adopt a new home and still proudly claim their heritage.

Recognition and respect for cultural diversity are part of the Canadian identity. When we walk down the streets of our cities or visit our small towns and farms we see that multiculturalism is not just a policy, it is a reality. I am not sure the Reform Party fully understands that.

Yesterday the Prime Minister was in Normandy commemorating the 50th anniversary of D-Day and the brave Canadians who fought and died there. The Prime Minister noted that those people had many backgrounds, many colours and many cultures but they fought side by side as one. Allow me to quote from the Prime Minister's remarks. Of the soldiers he said:

They had one thing very much in common: They were all part of a young nation, a new kind of nation, where the ancient hatred of the past was no match for the promise of the future, where people believed they should speak different languages, worship in different ways and live in peace. They did not die as anglophones or francophones, as easterners or westerners, as Christians or Jews, as immigrants or natives. They died as Canadians.

Unfortunately, some politicians deal only with the negative. Negativism and a gloomy way of seeing our great country are a way of life for them. Yes, of course we have our difficulties and much work remains to be done, but what country does not have problems? Throughout the world, Canada is envied because our living conditions are so good.

You surely know that this year again, a United Nations report put us in first place among nations. This report says that, considering all factors that contribute to a people's happiness, Canada is the best country in the world in which to live. The constant threat to Canada's unity is doing us great harm. The confidence of other countries in our economy and our future is shaken.

The different levels of government spend more time fighting over powers than trying together to solve the problems which concern us. The trade barriers which we keep in place in our country hinder our economy, while everywhere else in the world the trend is to eliminate them. Federal and provincial powers overlap and programs are duplicated. That is why we as a government prefer to set aside constitutional questions and concentrate instead on co-operation and practical, realistic

solutions to our problems, unlike the Bloc Quebecois which wants to separate and destroy the country.

We were elected a little less than eight months ago. After listening to the people, we have set ourselves some very clear objectives. Our first objective was, of course, and still is, job creation; the second one is fiscal consolidation; the third one is the reform of social security system, while the fourth one is restoring integrity in public affairs.

We have spent all our energy promoting economic growth and job creation because, in our opinion, this is the number one priority. We must give back to those who, unfortunately, must rely on unemployment insurance or social assistance, the dignity that comes with having a job. I think this is the main concern of every Canadian and public official in the country, and we must pursue that fundamental objective.

If, during all those years, we had devoted as much energy to promoting economic growth and job creation as we did talking about the Constitution, we would be much farther ahead, and Canadians know that. Let me give you a few concrete examples of our efforts to find practical solutions.

Today, the Minister of Industry is meeting his provincial counterparts to discuss the domestic free trade issue. As I just mentioned, we noticed that trade barriers between provinces were impeding domestic trade. Consequently, we took action. We co-operate with the provinces and impressive progress has been made.

I just referred to the overlapping and duplication between the federal government and the provinces. This is another issue which we are looking at closely. The President of the Privy Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is actively reviewing this issue. He is looking at each case of overlapping and duplication, in co-operation with every province and federal department. This exercise is conducted to reach administrative agreements which will enable us to serve Canadians better and more efficiently.

We have set up a national infrastructure program. This program is an example of what can be done for the well-being of the country as a whole, when the three levels of government co-operate. (English follows)

These are the types of specific actions the voters of Canada told us to engage in when they elected us last October. They voted for an end to the constitutional wrangling that preoccupied the previous government for almost a decade. Canadians voted overwhelmingly for job creation. They voted for a message of hope. They voted for honesty and integrity in government. They voted for a party that has stood for and defined federalism since the inception of Canada.

The government and the citizens of the country know what is right about Canada and we want to work to make it even better. That is the meaning of good government and that is what the people of the country want. They have a right to expect it and we intend to deliver.

We all know that words can hurt, that words have hurt people in the country and indeed the country itself. For years now Canadians have heard themselves and their country scrutinized, criticized and put down by the very people who should be offering leadership and a sense of confidence for the future. Words can do harm because it is with words that the opposition party leaders are trying to deceive Canadians about the reality they see around them every day.

Reality is out there with people living and working for a peaceful and productive future, not in endless debate over abstract definitions on a piece of paper. We are unwilling to tie ourselves into a straitjacket of words.

The Leader of the Opposition says "Ah". Well, two weeks ago in Shediac, the Acadian community rejected the opposition leader's comments aimed at promoting the separation of the country. People simply told him "thanks, but no thanks".

Our political debate should be focused on how to create jobs, build our economy, protect our social safety net, how to protect the environment and how to make government work better at a lower cost to our citizens. Our political debate has for too long been infected by a virus of self-doubt and anxiety. It is sad that the leader of the Reform Party has come down with this virus.

I want to quote Michel Doucet, an Acadian activist of long standing who, recently, when referring to the Canadian vision of our country's future, described the vision which I just mentioned and said: "For Canadian francophones in general and for Acadians in particular, salvation is conditional upon maintaining a federal system; a federal system in which Quebec and the francophone and Acadian communities of Canada would find the means to ensure their cultural security, since it is essential that Canada remember that French culture is the one which is threatened in America".

One of the thrusts which resulted in our Confederation is the firm belief that we could do great things by working together rather than in isolation, and that the citizens of each of the provinces would have a better future if they were all part of the same country.

Mr. Speaker, since you are telling me that my time is almost up, I would like to take this opportunity to move the following amendment:

That the motion be amended by deleting the words after "Canadians to" and replacing them with the following: "Continue to live together in a federation".

SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Bloc

Nic Leblanc Bloc Longueuil, QC

Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to the Leader of the Reform Party and to the Secretary of State for Parliamentary Affairs. One insists that we must reopen the debate, while the other says we should let the matter rest. The Secretary of State for Parliamentary Affairs says we should not talk about this subject any more and I agree with him because we have debated this matter long and hard since 1989. I have served in this Parliament since 1984 and we have been talking about this for a very long time.

You will undoubtedly recall, Mr. Speaker, that debates have taken place and two or three parliamentary commissions have been struck. There have been a whole series of seemingly endless debates, the end result of which was Meech. And Meech, as you know, did not work, in spite of the fact that it represented Quebec's minimum demands.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Some hon. members

Yes, but not those of the regions, for example.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Bloc

Nic Leblanc Bloc Longueuil, QC

Yes, for the other regions as well. It could have worked, but Meech was rejected.

Another debate followed after that. All kinds of debates took place with respect to the Charlottetown accord and committees held hearings. As you know, Charlottetown failed as well. Therefore, it is too late for us to reopen the debate on this subject because for us, the debate is closed.

Quebec conducted the most serious exercise in its history. The Bélanger-Campeau Commission received 600 briefs and heard testimony from 200 witnesses while at the same time, a special committee of experts held meetings. Once again, Quebec's leading experts concluded that if Quebec was to grow to its full potential and fight its way out of this economic crisis in which it was fast sinking along with the rest of Canada, it needed to gain control of approximately twenty areas. These are not my recommendations, but those of leading Quebec experts. Charlottetown also proved to be a rejection of this position.

Therefore, when the hon. member says we must continue to debate this issue, I say to him that as far as we are concerned, the subject is closed. We have now proceeded to the next phase, which is to achieve sovereignty for Quebec, not at the expense of the rest of Canada, but for the benefit of Quebec.

And so I agree with the Secretary of State for Parliamentary Affairs when he says that we must stop talking about this subject. He is right. As far as we are concerned, the time for talk is long over. We have moved on to the next phase.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

Fernand Robichaud Liberal Beauséjour, NB

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what was said by the hon. member, and I must say that every time the parties opposite refer to Meech and Charlottetown without mentioning the Charest report, I begin to wonder. After all, it was a solution. Some people even resigned because of certain developments.

When they talk about Charlottetown, on which a referendum was held, I get the impression that the whole Bloc machine did not want the accord to make it, for the simple reason that it would have been good for Quebec and would have completely eclipsed the separation option.

It hardly makes sense for you to invoke Charlottetown. At least to me it does not. You mentioned the recession, but you have now reached the point where you want to-

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but members opposite are talking about a recession, and through you, Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to their concerns. The hon. member told us he did not want separation to be at the expense of the rest of Canada. For heaven's sake, how are you going to do that? The way you talk about separation today is already sending waves of uncertainty on the markets. This country is no longer seen as a good place to live and do business, now that its citizens are starting to worry about the future of the country. And yet this is the country, this is the Canadian federation that has been instrumental in bringing us all, including Francophones in the province of Quebec, Acadians and all other groups in the country, where we are today. And now you tell us you do not want separation to come at-