Debates of Nov. 7th, 1995

The Constitution

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebecers are beginning to get used to playing cat and mouse with the federal government. I will explain. Initially, the Prime Minister told everyone very clearly that there was no question of discussing the constitution, even during the Quebec referendum. Then he changed his mind and talked of possible administrative changes in order to decentralize Canadian confederation. Then he spoke of legislative changes for doing so, and, most recently, he has said nothing more about it at all.

The government is not responding any more. We did, however, learn today at about 12.30 p.m. that a ministerial committee on national unity had been set up with a mandate to consider possible changes to confederation.

My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs or for the Deputy Prime Minister, whoever wants to respond. What is the mandate of this committee, exactly? Is it preparing to propose constitutional changes or just administrative ones, or both?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the committee in question is a group of ministers in the federal cabinet, who are going to look at all options for change-both administratively and constitutionally.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs be heading the new committee that follows in a long series of committees, including the Charest, Beaudoin, Dobbie, Castonguay, Edwards and other committees? Can the minister tell us whether this is not a simply a strategy on the part of the government to play for time, because it is unable to reach a consensus with its other partners in Canada? Is this not simply a snow job?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, when we set up the program review committee last year, the opposition thought it was not going to produce results either. The result was the best budget in 50 years, which changed the structure of the federal budget and enabled us to recover our fiscal responsibility.

Why should we not hope for as much from a committee that is vital to the survival of the federation?

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, given the government's unenviable record in constitutional matters, the many changes in its position toward Quebecers in the past month and a half and its inability to reach a consensus with its partners in order to meet Quebec's demands, should the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, rather than bust his suspenders over some vague committee that has yet to produce any results, not reassure people and explain the exact mandate and the reporting procedures of the committee?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Roberval is clearly not weighing his words. How could a committee only mentioned today have produced results?

So, it is clear. In the past two years, we have succeeded in creating nearly 500,000 new jobs. This is what Canadians wanted, and we have maintained industrial harmony, while improving our budget. These are perfectly respectable results. I would have preferred the official opposition to have done a much better job of defending the rights of Quebecers-something we have done.

Job Creation

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, recently, very recently, we heard about the real problem that all Canadians are facing and that-we can say it-more than 49 per cent of Quebecers have identified as one of their major problems and one that they wanted to resolve through sovereignty. I am talking about employment. According to the Canadian Labour Congress, the government has abandoned the job creation strategy that got it elected, in favour of right wing policies that will contribute to making the middle class grow poorer and poorer and create disparities across Canada.

Will the government recognize that, apart from its infrastructure program, whose benefits are now coming to an end, no concrete steps have been taken for more than two years with regard to job creation?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit to the hon. member that she should look at the facts. That may be an unusual experience for her but it would be very helpful under the circumstances.

The reality is that last week a Statistics Canada report indicated that since the election of the government in the fall of 1993 over half a billion full time permanent jobs have been created.

That is not something to be ignored. It shows there is a growing strength in the economy. In Quebec a substantial reduction in the unemployment rate has taken place by almost 2 percentage points.

Rather than relying on the somewhat dubious claims of the Canadian Labour Congress, the member should look at the hard reality of facts as presented by Statistics Canada.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that the minister does not take into account population growth when he boasts about such things. The Quebec government, on the other hand, has every reason to be proud of its performance because, despite this government's failure to act, it has managed, through Minister Paillé's plan, to promote job creation.

How can this government boast about its performance, when we have 20,000 more people on welfare in Quebec this year, when the unemployment rate is 11.2 per cent, and when the number of people who are out of work exceeds 400,000? How can this government be proud of its performance, when it has nothing to offer and when everyone can see-as more than 49 per cent of Quebecers did on October 30-that deep changes are urgently needed?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, surely the hon. member recognizes that one of the major difficulties with helping to create jobs has been the uncertainty that has come about as a result of efforts to separate Canada. It is very difficult to attract investments, to provide for new job development when employers are not sure what the economic circumstances will be.

In spite of the real problems created by that uncertainty which the hon. member and her colleagues have caused over the past year, in the past three months 33,000 new jobs have been created in the province of Quebec.

In the hon. member's riding alone the unemployment rate has dropped from 12.8 per cent when we came into office to 8.6 per cent. The hon. member should take pride in this.

National Unity

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are competing visions in the country of where Canada should be headed after the Quebec referendum.

One side represented by the government wants to go back to elements of the failed Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. The other side represented by Reform and some provincial governments wants to move forward to decentralize certain key social functions of the federal government while strengthening the economic union at the same time.

Now a special committee of cabinet has been set up to design a post-referendum strategy. My question to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is: What is the national unity committee of cabinet doing to ensure this alternative federalist vision is being considered, and what minister in the cabinet represents that position?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, on the second question, the solidarity of cabinet prevents me from answering. The leader of the third party should know that.

On the first question, we have been able to put together a package of measures that so far has united the country because we have tried to create jobs, we have tried to increase economic growth and we have tried to increase investment.

In terms of decentralization, we must recognize that decentralization is not a panacea to all the ills of the federation. Decentralization is justified only when it means that services are given by the levels of government best equipped to give them.

In terms of decentralization we want to serve Canadians, and Canadians once again are not served by applying an ideology of decentralization. They are served by levels of government that decide on the powers that each level should exercise according to how efficiently it can deliver services to Canadians.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, despite the polls and the lessons of Meech and Charlottetown the government is still favouring a distinct society clause and constitutional veto for Quebec. Both of these concepts are the products of a top down, legalistic approach to national unity which has not worked for 30 years.

Recognizing distinctiveness in Canada is not the problem; it is how to do it. The alternative bottom up approach would be to give each province the practical tools to protect and nurture its own distinctiveness, and real control over resources, social services, language and culture.

Is the national unity committee of cabinet giving serious consideration to this alternative approach to achieve provincial distinctiveness? If so, who is the spokesperson on that committee for that alternative approach?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, all the ministers in cabinet, including those on the cabinet committee, want Canada to continue as the country with the best quality of life in the world. Therefore none of them will be the advocate of one side or another. All together we will try to create a consensus on the package of measures that will solve the present constitutional problems.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the biggest mistake the federal politicians made with respect to Charlottetown and Meech was that they tried to draft unity proposals themselves behind closed doors, by ministerial committees and by ministerial conferences. The Canadian people were shut out of the building process.

If we have learned anything from this referendum campaign it is that the federal government does not have a monopoly on brains or on patriotism. The Canadian people saved the referendum campaign and their voices should be heard in this post-referendum strategy.

Instead of following the traditional closed door approach to developing unity proposals, what is the government doing to bring the Canadian people into the development of its post referendum strategy?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, that group of ministers will get together and look at all the ways, all the possibilities for change in the federation.

I am not going to pre-judge the results by indicating what they could be before we start working.

Interest Rates

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Governor of the Bank of Canada candidly said that the lack of economic growth during the first six months of 1995 was largely due to the fact that interest rates rose too sharply last winter, a situation created by the governor himself.

My question is for the Minister of Finance.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, could you please ask hon. members to keep quiet?

[The Speaker]

Put your question, please.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Will the Minister of Finance recognize that the Bank of Canada misjudged the situation of the Canadian economy and should have started lowering interest rates much sooner than it did, so as to help create, not eliminate, jobs?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, the Governor of the Bank of Canada said there were several reasons explaining high real interest rates, and he mentioned two of them. One is the need to put our fiscal house in order. In that regard, he said that the federal government and the provinces, except for one, had already started that process.

Second, the governor clearly mentioned the political uncertainty for which the BQ and the PQ are responsible.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister was careful not to mention that the governor gave, as the primary and most important factor, the situation of the Canadian debt, which is the responsibility of the finance minister.

Earlier, I listened to the minister when he was discussing what he had accomplished so far. Do you know what the Liberals have accomplished in the last two years? They have managed to maintain the number of unemployed and to increase the number of welfare recipients. This is what they have actually managed to do.

Considering that, throughout the referendum campaign, the Minister of Finance kept repeating that he had a real influence on Canadian monetary policy, are we to understand that he wilfully let interest rates go up, so as to eliminate thousands of jobs for Canadians?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, I think that Quebecers made a decision that will result in lower interest rates. Indeed, the day after the referendum, interest rates fell by 147 basis points, which is almost a record.

Social Programs

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party has a new Canadian agenda for change which would give more powers to the provinces for social programs. Incredibly, the Minister for Human Resources Development has threatened to cut transfer payments to British Columbia for its changes to welfare.

After having already cut transfer payments, why is the minister breaking the Liberal promise for change given at Verdun by the Prime Minister by threatening British Columbia?