Debates of March 5th, 1996

Speech From The Throne

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

I want to raise a number of questions with my colleague.

The first one is with respect to his first comment which was an indication that the legislation should reflect the people's wishes. I do not have a lot of difficulty with that assertion. Could the member tell us how many people in the ridings his party represents were or were not in favour of gun control and whether or not his colleagues voted in line with the people's wishes on that legislation?

The second question is with respect to debate. A point was made that decisions are already made before we debate. It was my understanding in a number of instances, for example peacekeeping, that we did have the debate before the decision was made, but perhaps the member has information that I do not have.

Perhaps I can get the member's reaction to my final comment. He did point out that apparently someone who was a Liberal and who was the president of an association had made some remarks with respect to a particular meeting which he disagreed with. I would caution him in suggesting that because one remark can tar the whole group. He is not without knowing there have been quotes from Reformers, and I could help him with some quotes if

necessary, that are considered racist, and I do not necessarily think that can be applied to the whole party.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I hope I can remember all the questions. I am getting old, but I will try to remember them. I think there were three.

In regard to gun control, let me start with my own riding. According to all the efforts we made to find out, 86 per cent of the people opposed it. However in a neighbouring riding in the city of Calgary I believe there was one riding where it was determined that they supported it. In Vancouver, if I am not mistaken, there was one riding that supported it. Those two members voted for the gun law and guess what? They did not get scolded. Most of us happened to vote against it and no one got scolded for it because we were representing the people.

It is hard to tell but every place I go to the question of the gun legislation always comes. It is simply a matter of people asking whether or not it is going to go through. They do not seem to realize that it has received royal assent and they do not understand exactly what it is all about. As near as I can tell, most who attend the meetings I am at are opposed to it if they are in the rural setting. In the urban setting it is not usually an issue.

The member mentioned one decision that was made prior to debate.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

The reverse, where there has been a debate without the decision having been made.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

There has been debate without the decision having been made. I am sorry. My reference was to decisions that are made and debate followed.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Yes, but there are instances where that is not the case.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

I would hope so. I would not hope it is not always like that. I would hope that the decisions are not ever made until it is debated but I know that is not the case and that is a real problem.

I have forgotten the last question. I knew I would forget one.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague had quoted a gentleman who had supposedly made some remarks with regard to a rally or meeting. I think there might have been an attempt to suggest that everyone in the party was as such.

I simply pointed out there have been some remarks identified as racist that have been made by Reformers but that does not suggest that all Reformers are racist. I think we have to be very careful with that kind of commentary. I can produce those remarks if my colleague doubts my honesty on it.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I did not get a question out of that; I got a statement and some advice. That advice is well taken. I have certainly been painted and tarred with a brush that does not hold true to me.

The point is it was made public in a newspaper by a leader of a group. When people are in those positions they ought to be a little more sensitive toward the needs of the people that were being represented at this rally, who were the victims. That certainly was not the case.

[Sharon Hayes, Reform, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reply to the government's throne speech delivered last week. By tradition the throne speech outlines the government's vision for the nation which will ultimately be reflected in a legislative agenda presented in this second session of the 35th Parliament.

I became politically active out of my concern for the future direction of our society and to address the problems that our families from across the country are facing.

In examining this throne speech and this government's record, it is clear to me that this government has failed to acknowledge the problems and challenges facing the Canadian family. In doing so the government has ignored the foundation of our society, which is the family.

As the Reform Party's family issues critic I have concluded that family is not seated at Mr. Chrétien's throne.

[The Deputy Speaker]

To the hon. member, we are all freshly back here and we cannot refer to each other by our names. We have to say the member or the Prime Minister.

[Sharon Hayes, Reform, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's throne.

I put to you a simple question: Are Canadian families in a better position than they were before this government was elected? The record shows that like its predecessors, Liberal government policy continues to attack your family and mine.

Families are overtaxed due to government overspending. A 1995 Fraser Institute study found that taxes on the average Canadian family rose by 1,167 per cent from 1961 to 1994. In 1984 average family after tax income was $43,204, while in 1993, 10 years later, it was $43,225. In other words, after tax family income had risen by $21 in 10 years. For the family, this has meant less disposable income to spend on their children, less to invest in their family's future, and less choice.

Many will claim that this level of taxation is justified by our excellent social programs. Reform believes that social programs must be targeted to those most in need. Why would we make such a statement? Does present government policy really serve Canadian social policy now and in the future?

According to a recent study, Ottawa's fiscal mismanagement and unsustainable social programs mean that the next generation will be paying in taxes double the amount that they will receive in benefits. In spite of this the budget to be tabled on Wednesday will most likely include more tax increases such as perhaps the gasoline tax increase. My constituents in Port Moody-Coquitlam have sent me to say that they vehemently oppose gas tax increases.

Need I remind you that this government proposed to scrap the GST during the last election campaign. The throne speech however simply replaces the GST with a national sales tax. It is another of at least 26 broken or forgotten Liberal promises.

The government's record stands in contrast to Reform's approach to home economics. In our address to the people delivered before the government's throne speech, we outlined the feedback we have received from Canadians. In that address we stated that Canadians will look to government to introduce: a plan to eliminate, not just reduce, the federal deficit by 1997-98, and a proposal for tax relief to stimulate job creation and improve consumer confidence by leaving more dollars in the pockets of Canadians; and a commitment to reform the tax system to make it simpler and fairer.

These initiatives would create the financial flexibility that families need and deserve so that they, not the government, can decide what their priorities should be. Just as families must balance their books, so too must the government. Yet the government's throne speech offers no such vision and no such hope for Canadian families.

Another issue that is of concern to families is the care and raising of their children. It is interesting to note that the rise of the two income family is directly related to their financial decline caused by higher taxation and less disposable income.

The economic necessity of the two income family is at variance with the wishes of many Canadian parents. A 1994 Angus Reid poll found that 40 per cent of Canadian parents who work would rather stay home to raise their children if they could afford to do so.

What is the approach of this government? Last December an ill-prepared human resources development minister announced an insulting child care program. It was a $720 million insult to taxpayers, a $720 million insult to parents who do not believe in an all knowing nanny state, a $720 million program that was an insult to parents who want a choice.

The throne speech completely failed to recognize the critical need to expand the choices and options available to parents in providing care for their children. The negative consequences of institutional day care that the government espouses are starting to come to light. A recent study by Dr. Mark Genuis of the National Foundation for Family Research and Education found that non-parental child care has direct implications for the family and society. The study stated that "insecure bonding to parents in childhood is a direct cause of clinical levels of emotional and behavioural problems in adolescence, including youth crime".

A proactive, family friendly, innovative proposal would be to convert the child care expense deduction into a child care tax credit. Currently the child care expense deduction is available only to those parents who use non-parental child care. Other methods of child care, for instance home care, are not eligible for that deduction.

My colleague put forward Bill C-247 which addressed this problem. That was stifled by this government. This proposal would have expanded the options and choices available for parents by recognizing that there are many superior forms of child care the government can and should promote.

Another issue related to children and family is that of child support payments and their enforcement. Inaction by this government has meant that the needs of custodial and non-custodial parents and their children have been left unattended by this government through the first half of its mandate.

Last April the Reform caucus agreed to a position on this issue. We believe that families should be treated equally within the tax system. We believe that awards for child support must be consistent and fairly taxed. Our principle is that support is not income but the fulfilment of an obligation of a parent to their children. The tax deduction that a non-custodial parent currently has would be eliminated and the additional revenues could be targeted directly toward families and children in need.

Of greater importance, I would expect the government's proposal to address the issue of fair and effective determination of child support orders. One innovative reform is that of the unified family court which would emphasize mediation rather than the present litigation. It would reduce the adversarial nature of resolving issues such as child support payments should family breakdown occur. The unified family court is already implemented in some jurisdictions such as Ontario and Saskatchewan. I have introduced a private member's motion in the House to debate this reform. Child support decisions must be family support decisions.

The throne speech made reference to a growing crisis of confidence in the United Nations. This crisis of confidence seems very well deserved. Last year the UN committee that monitors implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child recommended that Canada become a spank free zone by abolishing section 43 of the Criminal Code.

It is that section which provides parents with the legal protection to reasonably discipline their children. That is a prerogative that has been long recognized in our law and by parents. Such a domestic policy should not undermine the family. Neither should

international policy and activity have that effect. The convention on the rights of the child and the more recent Beijing platform for action have real consequences that are identifiable.

Prior to even attending the UN-Beijing conference on women, the government announced its federal plan for gender equality. Do Canadian families know that the government has put gender feminists in power to analyse and prioritize every policy decision in 24 federal departments and agencies? Does this reflect the priorities of Canadians and Canadian families? I think not. I know not.

There must be greater accountability for the effect and impact the UN and the international obligations that the government makes in our name. For instance, the Beijing platform for action will have sweeping ramifications for the future direction of our public policy and yet it was never presented or even talked about in this House. It is with this in mind that I have introduced a motion to debate this accountability issue.

In conclusion, families are not better off than they were before the 1993 election. In my judgment, the throne speech reflects on a government that will continue to place many other priorities ahead of Canadian families. The priority of the government should be the future. The Prime Minister characterized that future as one of tolerance, respect, generosity and sharing.

The birthplace and nurturing of these qualities are not at the spigot of government programs but in the homes across the land. These qualities are not found in a government endorsed call to arms for the rights of women or the rights of children but instead are found in the strength and unity of our families.

The government's throne speech talks of a caring society and social union. Such ideals are not achieved through intrusive, activist and expansive government programs. They are best achieved through a strong and compassionate society, sustainable for future generations that has at its heart and as a foundation strong, viable and stable Canadian families.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam for her remarks because I find myself very sympathetic to her position on the family.

During the election campaign, I well remember canvassing from door to door in an urban portion of my riding. I went past house after house where no one was home, where the houses had a double garage and double driveway but the house itself was very small. It was very clear that both parents were away. The children were either in local day care or elsewhere. Therefore, the member brings up a very important point.

However, the member was a little unfair when she suggested that the economic necessity of both parents working is a result of taxation. I suggest to her that it is a trend that has occurred as a result of changes in the labour force, changes in the marketplace and changes in the global economy.

I wonder if she has taken that into account and has any suggestions on how one could address that in the context of the economic necessity of both parents working.

[Sharon Hayes, Reform, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. I too look at the streets of my neighbourhood and my city and have visited other communities across Canada. I have talked to many Canadians about this very issue.

It is true that more choice is available to Canadians. More women have the opportunity to work. It is also true that the cost of living, the demands on families and the effect of the dollar that they receive in income which has continually been eroded to where there are statistics that state that it now takes twice the working hours to support a family than it did 25 years ago. When that statement is taken to its logical conclusion, it almost demands two people working to do that.

When we talk about average family income being the same, that means that more women actually have entered the workforce in the last 25 years to make up the difference to maintain that standard of living.

As I mentioned in my speech, 40 per cent of those parents who do work would prefer to be home. Does that tell you something? They are not working necessarily by choice.

Not long ago, I read an article about a backlash that radical feminists are very nervous about. There is actually a trend now, when one talks about trends, for women to choose to stay home. Many women have been in the workforce and have seen that it is not all it is cracked up to be. The pressures and tensions are more than they want to take on.

One study shows for 60 per cent of parents where both are working who have children below three register severe levels of tension just co-ordinating activities and the life that two full time jobs can force on them. That is being recognized by the women and men of this land.

We need to step back and ask what is causing this. It is that an average family puts half of their earned income into taxes. It takes more earned hours to create a lifestyle that is affordable.

We need to address taxation. We need to address the debt. We need to address the deficit first. We need to get the deficit down. We need to help families by giving them some relief, some hope that there will be tax relief so that they can make the choices regarding how they want to raise their families and how they want to afford what we force on them as a lifestyle in Canada.

They need choice courtesy of the government. I challenge the government to give them that choice by giving them tax relief.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in response to the speech from the throne. Might I pick up a remark the Prime Minister made in his address in speaking of particular challenges following the referendum result in Quebec.

His comments are: "This is not a time for major constitutional change. We must continue to adapt, modernize and develop our federation, focusing on practical steps within a spirit that respects the principles of federalism". There are some profound truths in that statement and a recognition of the social limits to law and to legal change.

I wrote in a work published a number of years ago in an earlier pre-parliamentary phase of my life that not all times are ripe for Constitution making, that it is an error to attempt a fundamental revision of one's constitutional, governmental system in a period of rapid, historical change.

If one does produce a document in such a period, the likelihood is that the product will jell the process of social change. It will act as a brake arresting that change, and it will only lead to confusion and unproductive labour.

When changes occur of a fundamental, total nature in a constitutional system, they are in periods of great national euphoria when there is a consensus, however fleeting, usually after a victory in a great war or a great social revolution.

We are reminded of General de Gaulle's successful venture in 1944 which led indirectly to the adoption of the fourth French Republic Constitution, and again the exercise in 1958. Or we could go back to the origins of the American Constitution, not so much the unsatisfactory articles of Confederation but the great Constitution which is, of course, the only Constitution older than our own.

It is an important lesson to remember that in this period when quite clearly Canada is experiencing fundamental social change as a result not merely of factors common to all the world community, the revolution in infomatics, but also the impact of large scale immigration from many parts of the world on our society. I think in terms of the proportion of our existing population. The impact is far greater than earlier historical models, such as the United States after the revolution of 1848 in Europe, or other societies elsewhere in the world.

Canada in transition is really a description of the sociology of our country at the present time. But some parts are changing more quickly than others. I think, if I may say so, with some pride my own special community in British Columbia is changing much more quickly, much more radically, much more dramatically than other parts of the country.

Some have seen in this, because of the responses that it has produced to particular constitutional exercises like Charlottetown and Meech Lake before it, some opposition perhaps to other parts of the country and some inevitable antagonism. I think that would be a wrong view of an important historical process in which we participated.

It is a fact that voters in British Columbia rejected the Charlottetown accord by a majority 70 per cent to 30 per cent. Now members will be aware that under provincial law we are required to hold a provincial referendum before any future project of constitutional change at the federal level can be submitted to our legislature for ratification.

With respect to the Charlottetown accord, I am attempting a historical synthesis of obviously numbers of different opinions differently expressed. But there was an objection in some respects to a feeling of historical datedness in the approach to the Charlottetown accord. It was too particularistic an attitude, one that jelled the status quo. A good deal of this opposition focused on the attempt to jell the membership of the House of Commons with an artificial, for all time, 25 per cent quota for one province.

The opposition was not to the province as such. The opposition was to jelling the constitutional institutional framework of government in a period of emerging great historical change.

In making this point I will stress again that in the post referendum debate that has followed, no responsible British Columbia political leader, either federal or provincial has engaged in negative comments in relation to Quebec or the Quebec people. There have been no demands for sanctions from British Columbia and no talk of partition, no opposition or hostility to the Quebec fact as such. This does suggest that a larger constitutional optic is needed.

If I tell the House that the quest for fundamental constitutional vision is already proceeding in my province, it is an invitation to join in that.

It is a recognition that we have achieved a distinct society in our own right, a community of communities. It will compel substantial modernization of the constitutional governmental structures the Prime Minister spoke of in his response to the speech from the throne. It will necessarily affect all federal institutions: the Senate,

the House, cabinet and Parliament. And not least, as someone who has been a private member without any responsibilities, even as a parliamentary secretary until very recently, the necessary relations between the House of Commons and cabinet.

One thing being discussed with great interest is whether the Westminster model is out of date in terms of the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st. Would we do better with a separation of executive and legislative power, not simply on the American model, but on the French model or more particularly the contemporary German model.

Do we need better electoral laws? If we live in a community of communities with many different national communities, we face a situation as, I succeeding you, Mr. Speaker, as president of a committee devoted to Vietnam I recognize the reality of how difficult it is for Vietnamese to be elected in my province to Ottawa under the present electoral law.

Is the present made in Westminister electoral law necessarily the most suitable for Canada at this time? I stress this by simply saying that the answer to the particularistic problems that have been expressed in Charlottetown and Meech may better be seen in a larger constitutional vision. If I am asked, can it be done today, the answer is no. I spent the last two weeks lecturing to numbers of groups ranging from 1,300 Catholic educators assembled in my province to special ethnic communities that said: "We want to be part of the Constitution making process. Can we join it?" I said: "Yes, you're welcome".

I anticipate this work will take a number of years to achieve. I do not expect it to be ready in the present Parliament. I think by the year 2000 this generation of Canadians will have a rendezvous with the Constitution Act.

It can be done by a constituent assembly. The fatal flaw in most of these proposals is that many of the sponsors seem to think of an elitist group of people nominated by various other people. A constituent assembly has to be elected. If we follow the French model, the ultimate constituent assembly was the French Assemblée nationale, the people who drafted the fourth French Republic Constitution and the fifth. If the legislature were selected for that purpose I could see a Parliament, not the next one but the next one after that, elected to give us a new Constitution and with a one-month mandate to do so.

In the meantime the other species of change the Prime Minister spoke of are proceeding. In this House I rose a year ago in defence of a new law on self-government for the Dene and the Metis in the Northwest and Yukon territories. Members of one of the opposition parties asked me the question: "Is that subject to the charter of rights and to the Constitution?" I said: "It is not expressed in the bill but as a matter of constitutional first principles it must be so unless it is specifically excluded".

If members have read the recent Nisga'a treaty negotiated on the federal side by the same minister responsible for that bill, they will notice he has picked up the suggestion made in this Parliament during question period that the Nisga'a treaty and the institutions under it are deliberately made subject to the constitutional charter of rights and subject to the Constitution. This is the way, law in the making, the useful role that Parliament can play.

In a similar way I was involved years ago as an adviser to two provincial premiers in different provinces. I gave negative advice on the construction of the airport at Mirabel. My opinion was widely quoted and in the end was not followed by the federal government. Clearly one was on the right side of history. One gave sound technical advice. Notice that the transport minister has moved to correct, to negate the negation in Kantian terms, by allowing the carriers to transfer back to Dorval. This is the pragmatic spirit that is present in federal-provincial relations, the new federalism, which is co-operative federalism, not levels of government fighting with each other.

My message is, in this period of historical transition, when the centrifugal forces that reach their pathological outlet in Bosnia and places like that and the centrifugal forces, supranationalism, European union, these sorts of forces, are in an uneasy alliance, constitutional change goes on. I think we will have our rendezvous with the Constitution Act in its totality four or five years from now when this citizen activity comes to a head.

In the meantime constitutional change is going on. It is coming very positively and concretely from government ministers and it is an invitation to all of us to take part in the process.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure about the pathological or the centrifugal arguments on any of this but I do have a question for the member that has to do not so much with his last comments. In his new role as parliamentary secretary to the fisheries minister I know he is very interested in fisheries issues. He must be. I am hoping he will do a good job of representing the concerns on the west coast where he is from.

I have a concern which is echoed by many people in the fishing community, in sport fishing, aboriginal fishing and all the fishing communities. It is the decision by the federal government to potentially close a good number of the fish hatcheries on the west coast. There is nothing in the throne speech that deals with it. Is the parliamentary secretary to the fisheries minister prepared to advocate that we keep those fish hatcheries open or is he going to toe the line and say shut them down?

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a certain amount of past history that I cannot put behind me. I do not believe I have been noted either as a scholar or an advisor for toeing the line.

I was invited by the Prime Minister about a week ago to assume a new job. Eighteen inches of briefing books arrived at my desk; this is included in them. I have read half of those books which is about 3,000 pages. I have noted the subject. I am committed to maintain a viable west coast salmon fishing industry by every means possible.

The member will notice from public statements of the last day or two that we are taking a strong line in terms of maintaining our position under the Pacific coast salmon treaty with the United States. I have examined that problem but I will prefer to save my response until I have a little more experience with those briefing books.

I will assure the hon. member in the spirit of his question that I will do my best to see that we maintain our west coast fisheries.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, sitting here listening to the hon. member, whom I congratulate on his new role, I was reminded of my days as a student at Université de Montréal. Incidentally, I would like to remind the hon. member of a professor, a former colleague of his, with whom he published a book on constitutional review.

I know that the hon. member is from the moderate wing of his party and I caught myself thinking how nice it would have been, in light of things to come, if he had been the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs instead of the current minister. I wish he had held that position because the meaning of the old Jesuit proverb, according to which the relevance of what you say is not determined by how loudly you say it, is lost on the current incumbent. During the referendum debate, if we had had someone like the hon. member to speak to on the other side, we would certainly have been able to lay the basis of a real dialogue.

I know that you would like me to put a question to him, and that is exactly what I anm about to do. The hon. member is quite familiar with the constitutional background of this country, which rests on three main doctrines-special status, associated states and sovereignty-association-which I have had the pleasure of studying as part of a master thesis that no one has read.

Does the hon. member agree that the partnership offer that the Government of Quebec put on the table during the last referendum campaign is the best way to achieve reconciliation between the two founding peoples of Canada, and would he mind rising in his place and telling us whether or not, as a constitutional expert, he is prepared to concur with this offer?

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is as follows. If we restrict ourselves to a definition of a certain special status, we are bound to fail. Back home, in my province, history shows that there must be a referendum on such constitutional amendments. There must be some evolution of the constitutional approach.

We must consider reforming the bases of institutions such as Parliament, the Executive Council and its relationship with Parliament, and the Senate, and think about creating a constitutional court. You certainly remember that such an approach was advocated by your professors at the Université de Montréal, including Professor Jacques-Yvan Morin. It is in this context that we must examine the issues advanced by the main forces behind the quiet revolution.

I have tried to show that, where I come from, there is no opposition in principle to Quebec or the demands of Quebecers. But we do want a serious constitutional approach that would include the constitutional demands of all the provinces and all Canadians.

I wish to thank the hon. member for his comments. As it did not seem to be a question, I cannot give an answer.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Saint-Denis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate the throne speech. I am especially pleased that since the Liberal government came to power over two years ago we have worked hard to meet many of our goals in the red book.

Since being elected as the member of Parliament for Saint-Denis, my priority has been to respond to the concerns and improve the quality of life for the citizens of Saint-Denis, which I have the honour and privilege to represent in this House.

This throne speech outlines our action plan for the second half of our mandate. Our objectives are the same. This throne speech focuses on three main themes: employment and economic growth, the safety of Canadians, and how to modernize the federation in order to strengthen Canadian unity.

In the area of economic growth, young people are certainly the most important concern for me and my constituents of Saint-Denis. Today's young people face many obstacles before they can join the labour force and thus gain experience.

The Liberal government is committed to helping young Canadians develop their potential, so that they can join the labour force, adapt to it and succeed. We must all join forces to help our young people find jobs.

The Liberal government has already launched a number of youth programs I would now like to talk about. So far, youth service Canada has funded over 270 projects benefiting 4,200 participants engaged in community activities.

In my riding of Saint-Denis, I managed to put in place two such projects providing work for 25 young people. So far, almost $300,000 has been invested in Saint-Denis through youth service Canada for the creation of two small businesses.

For example, thanks to youth service Canada, 15 young people in my riding will be able to start their own business. This project, co-ordinated by the Parc-Extension youth centre, is unique, in addition to meeting a specific need in this area, which is considered to be among the poorest in Montreal and perhaps even in Canada.

Young people who participate in this project repair various pieces of sports and recreation equipment before distributing them among low income families. They see to the effective operation of their business while collecting the equipment donated.

I think that this project in the Parc-Extension area is very important because, on the one hand, it will help young people overcome the obstacles hampering their access to the labour force and, on the other hand, it will help them regain confidence in themselves.

Also, in the Villeray neighbourhood, Renaissance Montréal helped ten young people aged 18 to 24, with difficulty integrating into the labour force, gain work experience in the recycling and sale of used consumer goods.

These two examples show that we do care about our young people.

I should also mention the program for young trainees which, in 1995-96, should help some 24,000 young people by easing the transition between school and work, thanks to the co-operation of the education, industry and community sectors. As an example, the Institut de formation professionnelle sur mesure, which is in my riding, created 13 jobs for young people, thanks to a $200,000 federal subsidy.

Finally, the Liberal government will rely on the spirit of partnership displayed by Team Canada to create jobs for young people. To this end, we are working in close co-operation with the provinces and the private sector. Moreover, as early as this summer, we will double the number of summer jobs for students in the federal public service.

I welcomed this announcement that will help our youth to make the transition into the working world. The skills of our young people are Canada's greatest resource for the future.

Both government and the private sector must work together to provide them with opportunities. Another area where the government and the private sector must work together is in helping small and medium size businesses.

Saint-Denis industries consist mostly of small and medium size businesses. Every day in my riding office I hear of small businesses going bankrupt or leaving Montreal. They are the only job creators in my riding and they need this government's support.

While we set out a concrete strategy for small and medium size businesses that helped a few obtain funds and knowledge in order to compete in the present economy, much more must be done.

The government has been negotiating with our financial institutions to assure better financing for small and medium size business people. It is my hope that tomorrow the finance minister will take a harder stance against these same institutions in his budget speech.

Last year financial institutions marked record profits. My message to them is to provide more help to small and medium size businesses that continue to be the engine of Canada's economy.

The issues the government is dealing with in Canada are being faced by governments around the world. Economic uncertainty and sustainability of social programs are issues that are being addressed as governments are trying to redefine themselves.

The second theme of the speech from the throne is the security of Canadians. While economic growth is essential, our government has always felt important to ensure the sustainability of our social measures.

We reiterate our commitment to medicare and to the principles underlying the Canada Health Act. We will also propose measures to sustain Canada's elderly benefits system, and particularly the Canada pension plan.

In co-operation with the provinces, we will work to draft a bill designed to implement a reform of the Canada pension plan. A joint federal-provincial paper setting out the problems and challenges facing the plan has already been released for public consultation.

Those are two very positive measures that have been very well received in the riding of Saint-Denis as well as across Canada.

Another measure that I care a great deal about is the improvement of our child support system. With the particular objective of helping low income families, that measure will be very well received by women and single parent families in the riding of Saint-Denis.

By acting in this manner, the government is recognizing that equal opportunity begins first of all with our children.

This measure will make the system fairer in my opinion. Children will no longer be caught in the middle of custody cases as victims and will receive the full benefits that are essential for them, especially in their early years. This measure is a positive step in helping low income, single mothers provide their children with basic care.

The new employment insurance system to be implemented July 1, 1996 also contains in my opinion several measures to help low income families, particularly single mothers fighting to stay above the poverty line.

One of the most fundamental problems we are still dealing with in every corner of the globe is poverty, especially child poverty. 1996 is the year for the eradication of poverty. The importance of the issue cannot be underscored. A healthy quality of life is the first ingredient to ensure that citizens everywhere can become contributing members of society.

How is a child supposed to grow and take his or her place in our community if he or she does not have the bare essentials to begin with? Poverty, particularly child poverty, must be overcome if we are to regain our strength as a nation.

Too often we associate child poverty with third world countries, but there are over 4 million Canadians living in poverty, of whom 1.2 million are children. This is unacceptable in a country like Canada. We must as a government continue to make assistance to our poor our number one priority.

Another major theme of the speech from the throne is international security. Human rights are an important element of Canada's foreign policy and are central to the values and concerns of Canadians.

Freedom, democracy and the rule of law are the foundation of our action in favour of security and prosperity in the world.

I am proud of the position Canada has taken on numerous issues involving the respect and promotion of human rights around the world. Canada must continue to play a leadership role in this area.

My involvements with NATO have made me very sensitive to the important role Canada plays in providing its voice to the peaceful resolution of conflicts. It is my hope that we can maintain this presence and help resolve issues like the problem of Cyprus which, after 21, years remains unresolved.

I wish to also applaud the initiatives the government is putting forward on the issue of child labour and I look forward to our active role in helping to solve this very serious problem.

In addition to what I have mentioned, the throne speech underlines the importance that unity plays in helping to re-establish our economic stability. Simply put, political stability leads to economic stability.

Our action plan to keep this country together is clear. The referendum held on October 30 has raised fundamental issues about the future of our country. Quebecers have decided to remain part of Canada, but not at any price. They want to see changes. As a matter of fact, all Canadians wanted changes. They want a more modern federation, a federation better suited to present day realities.

The government proposes to work hand in hand with the provinces and all its other partners to explore new avenues and find new ways to operate. The Prime Minister has invited all Canadians to show their openmindedness and to work for change.

What unites us is greater than what divides us. The values we share as Canadians are as relevant as ever. As I said when I stood for the first time in the House, Saint-Denis is a microcosm of Canada. With cultural communities originating from every corner of the globe, we have created a unique environment of sharing and understanding one another. Proud to be Canadians and Quebecers, we showed during last October's referendum that we want to continue to be both.

Political instability has led to the demise of one of the most beautiful cities in North America. Montreal once had the potential to be the jewel of the east coast. Now it is slowly becoming a has been city, with economic flight continuing. I lay the blame for this squarely on the shoulders of the Bloc and PQ leaderships whose shortsightedness has destroyed-

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry, but your time is up. Is there unanimous consent to let the hon. member go on for a few minutes.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Saint-Denis, QC]

The Liberal government has demonstrated through its actions the strength of our commitment to Canadians. We cannot improve the situation alone. We need the co-operation and support of all provincial and municipal governments to improve Canada's economy. For my part, I will continue to work diligently and effectively with my government for the good of my constituents.

I thank them once again for their continued support, loyalty and encouragement. I appreciate the time to finish.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Saint-Denis for her interest in social issues. Since she represents, as she put it so eloquently, a riding going through very tough times, I would like to ask her a few short questions, so that other members can also have the same opportunity.

She mentioned the youth strategy. She also talked about the youth service Canada program. She was pleased to say that 25 jobs were created in her ridings thanks to two projects. She is lucky, because many ridings represented by hon. members from the Bloc Quebecois have been unable, so far, to get anything from the Minister of Human Resources Development.

I want to remind the hon. member that 17.2 per cent of young people between 15 and 24 years of age are now jobless. In Quebec alone, we have 143,000 young people under 30 who are currently unemployed. The unemployment rate in this age category did decrease slightly, by three-tenths of one per cent, but since Bill C-17 was passed, allowing the Liberal government to make the first cuts in the UI program, the number of welfare recipients in this age group has risen by 20 per cent.

I would simply like to ask the hon. member how she can say that the Liberal government's employment strategy has been successful in the last two years, when the evidence is to the contrary.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Saint-Denis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the end of my speech, where there is political instability, there is always economic instability.

As I said, I believe the Bloc Quebecois is, in a way, responsible for the unemployment rate in Quebec. When small and medium size businesses leave Quebec because they do not have the political stability they want, they cannot create jobs for young people.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have just one small question.

Last year in the House Quebec started to be blamed for Canada's economic situation, and this is sure to continue in the months to come, and people began to point their fingers at the sovereignist movement.

I would like to point out to my hon. colleague that there is a sovereignist movement in Taiwan, which is not in Canada. There are 51 elected sovereignist members in Taiwan who want to be sovereign from China and no one talks about economic insecurity in Taiwan. On the contrary, people want to do business there.

The Canadian political situation is not responsible for the insecurity we have here, it is the Canadian debt.