Debates of Feb. 28th, 1996

Speech From The Throne

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am questioning the government on yesterday's speech from the throne. I am questioning the government, and the whole national press gallery has raised elements that are the point of my question. The Deputy Prime Minister is accusing me of talking about the referendum, when I am questioning her on what they said. They are in some other world.

My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister, and I would ask her to be clear. She and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs definitely contradicted each other on the matter of the cross-Canada referendum. Here is my question: Which one of them is telling the truth?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, there is no contradiction. The government, like the mayor of Montreal, like the premier of Quebec, is saying that we are not after a referendum, but rather economic recovery. We are waiting for the premier of Quebec to come forward to work hand in hand with the Government of Canada to create jobs, which is something all Canadians, including Quebecers, are in need of.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Deputy Prime Minister that the mayor of Montreal himself said we should stop talking about partitioning Quebec. According to yesterday's throne speech, the federal government is willing to withdraw from job training, forestry, mining, and recreation, among other things. This is somewhat reminiscent of the Charlottetown accord, which was rejected by Quebecers and Canadians as a whole in 1992.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister admit that his proposal merely recycles part of the Charlottetown accord, which, as you may recall, was massively rejected by both Quebec and Canada?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I think that, rather than doing something else, I will perhaps borrow from Claude Béland's analysis, according to which there has been enough decentralization to move forward, and Quebecers now have the powers they need to protect themselves. For several months, we have been asked to come up with programs. We proposed some innovative things, some new things with an open mind. All we ask from the opposition is some co-operation, precisely so we can go ahead with a plan that reflects Quebecers' real powers as described by Claude Béland.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, will the Deputy Prime Minister admit that her Prime Minister's proposal to withdraw immediately is nothing but smoke and mirrors, since the federal government will keep control over program policy and impose national standards? Let her give a real answer to this question if she can.

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we showed how open-minded we are. For the first time, we proposed that the federal government not spend money in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction without the consent of the province concerned.

We also proposed to enshrine Quebec's veto and status as a distinct society in the Constitution.

These are specific demands that the Bloc Quebecois had made and I hope that, for once, the Bloc will be open-minded enough to work with us at building a better Canada.

National Unity

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in yesterday's throne speech the government promised that "Canadians, no matter where they live, will have their say in the future of their country".

That is a big step forward for a government which shut out and shut up Canadians, even its own backbenchers, during the referendum campaign last fall.

Like most things concerning national unity, there is a great deal of confusion in cabinet and in the whole caucus over what this strategy actually is, and what giving Canadians a say really means.

My question is for the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs wherever he is. Will Canadians have a real say in the future of their country in a national, country-wide, binding referendum? Yes or no?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that the member is fixating on a particular issue.

If she were listening to the people in her riding, I think she would hear them say that the real job of the government over the next 18 months has to be getting Canadians back to work.

We have provided a blueprint for economic reform. We have shown an openness to change. We believe that Canadians do not want more constitutional wrangling. What they want is job creation. That is what we have delivered with the throne speech.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Exactly, Mr. Speaker. That is the point. Canadians want economic changes. They want to feel safer about it. They want to know that there is going to be a country here once the economy gets better. They want that security.

They saw no tax relief, no tax reform in the speech from the throne yesterday. They are demanding a real say in the future of the country. They have ideas that are worth listening to on the economy, on areas of personal security and safety and on areas of national unity which seem to take up a fair bit of the throne speech.

Is the government willing to bring Canadians in at the beginning of the unity process? Is it willing to listen to them truly? At the hind end of it, once all the plans are on the table, will the government say that it is giving the people the ultimate opportunity to say yes or no? At the end are these things going to make Canadians feel more secure? Will she commit to that, yes or no?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want Canadians involved at the hind end. I want Canadians involved in the beginning. I want Canadians such as those I met last week on Signal Hill in Newfoundland who have pledged to do their bit to bring this country together, like the Canadians I met in Winnipeg who are fighting to keep this country together with innovation and new ideas. We want to listen to their ideas.

We want to listen to the ideas of caucus members, like the member from Toronto who put together a plan to bring Canadians to see each other from coast to coast. We intend to involve Canadians in every step of the process of nation building.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if the Deputy Prime Minister commits to having them involved in every stage of the process, it means that the government can do nothing less than have a national, binding referendum at the end once it gets going.

I find this unbelievable. She talks about economic security. It is good to talk about but the track record of the government is such that it is not going to happen. Bringing people together is a great idea, except the Deputy Prime Minister said just the other day that we need to go back to the spirit of '67 and live it again.

The year 1967 was a wonderful year but we are in 1996. We are moving toward a new century. Let us move forward, not backward. Top down first ministers' conferences, distinct society status, special status and vetoes simply will not fly any more.

Why does the government insist on recycling the same Mulroney policies and problems for national unity, for the economy, for Katimavik-2 and all these wonderful things? When Canadians

rejected them, they thought once and for all in the Charlottetown accord, why the resurrection of these policies that did not work?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I may have been in politics for a long time but in 1967 I was not in politics. I was a Canadian who had an opportunity to understand for the first time the uniqueness of my country. As a high school student I went to Expo'67. I saw the city of Montreal. I saw the francophone nature and the spirit in the community.

If we can recapture the spirit of 1967 we will be well on the way to building for the 21st century.

[Translation]

Ui Reform

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development, whom I congratulate on his appointment.

In recent months, a wind of protest has been blowing across the country, even in the minister's own riding, against the so-called UI reform, which reduces benefits, limits access and penalizes young people, women and seasonal workers.

In light of the deep concern expressed by so many people, including some of his own constituents, and of repeated requests from the vast coalition, in Quebec and Canada, against this UI reform and those who support it, notably the churches, does the minister undertake to withdraw and review his bill to ensure that the bill that will be tabled meet the expectations of Canadians and Quebecers?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question; indeed, it deals with a very important issue for people from coast to coast.

We have heard time and time again that this reform hits some people harder than others. I wish to thank my predecessor who, before the House adjourned for the Christmas recess, had made a commitment to ensure that those provisions that cause the most concern, that is to say those setting the benefit amounts and the rule regarding the number of weeks of work, are amended.

We must realize, and I hope my hon. colleague does, that the changes that need to be made to the whole UI plan are important and that they are supported by many people across the country.

However, I fully agree with my hon. colleague that certain aspects should be reviewed. And because, during the past two months, all the hon. members of this House have had the opportunity to listen to what people are saying across the country, I hope that, once committee work resumes, we will be able to put our heads together to resolve these thorny issues.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the thrust of this bill is to make cuts that will eventually amount to $2 billion. And unless changes are made, a great many people will suffer.

Could the minister reassure the public, the men and women of my riding and his and every other riding in Canada, the ordinary people, by telling them today that those who have jobs and those who wish they did can rely on a real UI system, the one they are currently contributing to, wherever they live and regardless of their age?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. colleague and anyone who is concerned about this reform that we will be absolutely fair and we will try to ensure that access to the UI program always remains tied to the ability to find a job or to obtain training.

I think that we can all agree that, try as we may to remedy the problems facing the jobless, the bottom line is that we really should find jobs for them.

The Economy

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, after the Deputy Prime Minister's little speech, I thought she would be announcing that Bobby Gimby had been appointed to cabinet. Obviously that has not happened yet.

Since 1989 Canadians have seen their disposable incomes fall by 8.6 per cent. Leading up to the election campaign the current government made many promises about scrapping the GST, suggesting it was going to reverse that trend. That was what it suggested.

However, yesterday in the throne speech it signalled that it has absolutely no intention of scrapping the GST. I would like to know from the finance minister why it is reneging on its promise.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, what was said in the throne speech is the exact wording, the exact spirit that was set out in the red book.

It is our intention to harmonize the taxes. Clearly it is a request of thousands of consumers across this country and the vast majority of small and medium size businesses. This would give us a single tax with much more fairness and much greater ease of administration, which is our intention.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, maybe someone in the finance minister's position does not understand why regular Canadians are so fearful about their economic futures.

Canadians want less taxes, not different taxes. I remind the finance minister of his statement in 1990 when he said: "I would abolish the GST".

Assuming the finance minister is a man of his word-I make that assumption-I ask him again why is he breaking his promise and not abolishing the GST?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, it is the government's intention to carry through on its commitment. That intention was very clearly set out in the throne speech yesterday and it will do so.

On the other hand, the hon. member had promised us the Reform Party's budget for this year and came up with five little words on a piece of paper. When is the Reform Party going to live up to its commitment?

Manpower Training

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question also is directed to the new Minister of Human Resources Development.

As we know, Quebec has been asking since 1965 that it be given full powers regarding manpower training. Yet, we learned this week that the new human resources development minister is giving himself three years to withdraw from this provincial area of jurisdiction.

Why is the minister refusing to immediately give full powers to the Quebec government, when all the stakeholders from labour and management, the various community groups, and even provincial Liberals in Quebec support that demand?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for any misunderstanding which may have resulted from my discussions with the Quebec minister responsible for this matter. I fully agree with the hon. member that there is a consensus in Quebec regarding the manpower issue, but there is also the commitment made by the Prime Minister of Canada. That commitment was reflected in the second part of the UI legislation that was before Parliament at the time of prorogation.

All I said, and I am repeating it, is that the act and the commitment made by the Prime Minister provided up to three years to withdraw from this area which, we all agree, should be transferred to the provinces.

That being said, I usually do not take longer than is necessary to do what is required. Consequently, as soon as negotiations with Quebec and other interested Canadian provinces are completed, I will be pleased to give effect to the Prime Minister's commitment.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary deals with a different but somewhat related issue. Will the minister confirm that manpower training is part of the government's constitutional plan A and that the government is deliberately postponing its withdrawal from that area to extol the virtues of federalism in Quebec, at the expense of thousands of men and women, mostly young ones, waiting to get adequate training?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

Justice

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the justice minister.

Canadians demand that the government address their concerns about personal security and they demand more than one measly paragraph in yesterday's throne speech. The immediate repeal of section 745 of the Criminal Code, which allows for the early release of first degree murderers, is one demand we are hearing from thousands of Canadians.

Will the minister respond by removing section 745 from the Criminal Code and ensure that first degree murderers spend at least 25 years in prison?