Debates of March 5th, 1996

Speech From The Throne

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not think a comparison can be made between Taiwan and Canada, because the sovereignty movement is not at all the same. But if one looks at what is going on in Montreal, as I pointed out in my speech, when one talks to the small and medium business owners in my riding of Saint-Denis, the question always comes back to the same point. If there is political stability, there will be job creation, people will be prepared to invest when they are sure that Quebec is staying in Canada.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the member for Saint-Denis is as follows: Unless I have been dreaming for a long time, is there a separatist movement in Newfoundland, in Ontario and in other Canadian provinces, and, if not, why would there be unemployment in these provinces?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no movement in the other provinces, but we come back to the same question. The rate of unemployment among young people is higher in Quebec than in all the other provinces.

Moreover, we have set up programs to correct this problem. In my speech, I mentioned programs for young people. I am talking about 25 jobs-people will say this is not much, but in a riding like mine with all I that I described in my speech-there are 25 young people who are not unemployed, who had never had the opportunity to work, but who were able to start up a small business. I find, in our present context, that the government has done things to improve the situation.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on the speech from the throne delivered on February 27, at the opening of the second session of the 35th Parliament of Canada.

I believe that this speech has no substance, and is nothing but a series of good intentions and vague promises. It opens the way to a Canada-wide referendum to decide on the future of Quebec. It seems to me that the federal government is denying and disregarding the legitimate right of the people of Quebec to decide its future alone, and this is totally unacceptable.

In spite of the mounting expectations and pressing and repeated demands of Canadians and Quebecers, this document contains no real measures to stimulate the economy and create jobs. This speech contains nothing for regions experiencing serious difficulties; it contains for Montreal, which is facing serious problems; it contains nothing that could give hope to the people of my riding, Bourassa, in Montreal North, who are going through hard times. Given the present situation, Canadians would have had the right to expect a plan for economic recovery. Instead of that, the government of Canada puts on the table a jumble of old commitments that were not honoured during the first part of its mandate.

The Liberal government's record in the first half of its mandate is very disappointing. The future is more uncertain and worrying today than it was two years ago.

Many people are concerned about cuts in social programs, particularly in unemployment benefits. Employment security is a thing of the past. Generosity and compassion for the most disadvantaged in our society and protection for the most vulnerable tend to diminish and even disappear.

The Canadian economy continues to stagnate. But in spite of this economic downturn, Canadian businesses have had record profits. Statistics Canada reported recently that, at the end of the 1995 fiscal year, these profits totalled $95 billion compared to $80 billion in 1994, an increase of 19 per cent.

It must be said that, in 1994, business profits had already increased drastically during the year, from $17 billion in the first quarter to $23.6 billion in the last quarter. Total profits for the 1994 fiscal year climbed by 44 per cent to reach $80 billion.

On the other hand, salaries increased by only 0.9 per cent in 1995, which is less than the rate of inflation. This means that workers saw their actual earnings decrease. In this context, I understand why there were many strikes and many demonstrations against employers, even against certain governments, including the government of Ontario.

I would like to take this opportunity to send my support and my solidarity to the members of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union who went on a strike against the budget cuts imposed by the Mike Harris Conservative government. This is a struggle for justice. I hope this conflict will not be prolonged indefinitely and that the Harris government will resume negotiations to sign a just and equitable collective agreement.

The speech from the throne states that economic growth depends on trade. True, imports create employment. The government says it will carry on efforts to extend NAFTA to other countries. I agree with the principle of liberalization of trade.

I recently visited Chile, a country that is supposed to join NAFTA. However, it is on hold because of internal problems in the United States. The promise made by government leaders and heads of states in Miami in 1994 has yet to be fulfilled.

I pointed out something to the Government of Canada. In the beginning, the government wanted to exclude parallel agreements on labour and the environment from the negotiation of an interim bilateral trade agreement between Canada and Chile. I thought it was unfair and unacceptable on the part of the Government of Canada to be excluding social measures from the bilateral agreement between our two countries, because I believe any trade agreement, any trade treaty must include social measures in order to protect the workers and small businesses who will be affected. Such agreements must protect the rights of workers, in particular their right to form a labour union, to negociate collective agreements, to strike, as well as the principle of non-discrimination, pay equity, the minimum working age in order to prohibit child labour, measures concerning occupational health and safety, minimum wages, etc.

Fortunately, there is now, here in Ottawa, a Chilean delegation negotiating this agreement with the government of Canada and, thanks to pressures from Canadian and Chilean organized labour and thanks to our own pressures, the federal government has finally decided to negotiate such social clauses with Chile.

The speech from the throne mentions that the government will review the Citizenship Act. The new Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has already begun to make statements about that. There are two controversial topics: first, dual citizenship, and the federal government's position is not clear yet. It has only served one purpose: to threaten Quebecers during the last referendum with the loss of their Canadian citizenship, should they become independent.

There are 400,000 Canadian citizens who have dual citizenship, some even have multiple citizenship, including a number of government members and ministers. When the bill comes before the House, I would like the government to recognize what is already a right in Canada, dual citizenship.

With this bill, the government wants to strengthen national unity, but I believe the results speak for themselves. Once again, when the bill is debated, it will be apparent that there are two nations, two official languages, two main cultures, and indeed, two countries: Canada and Quebec. As far as we, in the Bloc Quebecois, are concerned, our position is clear. We are in favour of maintaining the acquired right of dual citizenship.

Another question the minister wants to raise is that of the oath of allegiance to the Queen. We all know that this is a sensitive issue. Many English Canadians feel some attachment, even a profound attachment, to the Queen of England. I must say the debate on this point is not very fierce in Quebec. In spite of all the respect we have for the Queen, we feel that the reference to her in the oath of allegiance is somewhat a thing of the past and that Canada should follow the example of Australia, which eliminated any reference to the Queen of England in its oath of allegiance.

When I became an MP, I did not want to take an oath of allegiance to a Queen that I see as a foreigner. I come from another country. In Chile, we did away with the King of Spain a long time ago. But I was told that if I wanted to become a member of the House, I had to swear allegiance to the Queen.

Mr. Speaker, you indicate that I must conclude. I find this throne speech very disappointing and I think there is no vision of the future in it.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bourassa comes from Chile, a country with a lot of political problems.

The hon. member for Bourassa is an immigrant. He comes from a country where there is violence and instability. The hon. member is a refugee. Welcome to Canada, hon. member.

I would like to ask him this: Could he tell us, from his own experience in Chile and now in Quebec, whether political instability costs jobs and creates unemployment?

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth for his excellent French.

[An hon. member]

It is true.

[An hon. member]

But not for what he said.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what Chile the hon. member is talking about, because its dictatorship is a thing of the past; today, there is democracy in Chile. That is why I went back there, to see the fruits of democracy.

Here, dear colleagues, I do not think the economic crisis is attributable to what you call political instability. I think Canada is a very democratic country, and so is Quebec. In comparison with the Latin American countries I have known, there is no political instability. The causes of economic crises are to be found elsewhere: in the deficit, in government mismanagement, in an unfair tax system, etc. In fact, the causes have to be looked at from that point of view, in my opinion.

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on February 27, the federal government opened the second session of the 35th Parliament. At a point half-way through its mandate, Quebecers and Canadiens were expecting a throne speech that would give a little inspiration to this government, which seems to lack it, and a vision or, at least, some clarification as to its intentions.

I have rarely seen a stranger mix of clarity and vagueness. During the October referendum period, the Prime Minister had promised the people of Quebec major constitutional and political changes. The throne speech confirmed that we have, on one hand, a government without direction on the constitutional front and without any new ideas other that doubling the number of summer jobs for young people to solve the glaring unemployment problem.

Changes considered as being important during a referendum campaign have become mere cosmetic adjustments a few months later.

As I mentioned earlier, the throne speech is a mix of clarity and vagueness in what it says, what it hints at, and what it does not say. On the clear side first: fine, noble and generous principles are mentioned in the throne speech. On page 1 alone, for example, we find at least 12 words calling for generosity, compassion, altruism and openness. This is clear, but these are only principles. Is there anything clearer than principles?

Another example of clarity: when we are told that the federal government is prepared to withdraw from its functions in such areas as labour market training, forestry, mining and recreation. On the vague side, and what is more revealing, is what the government does not say. He neglected to say that Bill C-111 had already announced the transfer of occupational training to the provinces.

Moreover, as the leader of the official opposition said, in its speech from the throne, the federal government has finally admitted that it has interfered, and still does, in areas under exclusive provincial jurisdiction. In the same breath, it undertakes to withdraw from certain areas and it even has the nerve to claim that it will turn over these areas of jurisdiction, which are not its own, to municipal governments or to the private sector. This is a strange way indeed of reversing policy.

There is something else that does not appear in the speech from the throne and it is the natural tendency of the federal government to centralize to preserve the social union of Canada-a new expression that evokes many future encroachments.

Strangely enough, the speech from the throne does not say a word of the fact that three other areas, namely forestry, mining and leisure, are also exclusive provincial jurisdictions. It does not mention that, besides those three areas, the federal government proposed in the failed Charlottetown Accord to withdraw also from social housing, tourism and municipal affairs.

Is my time already over, Mr. Speaker?

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to continue? There are five minutes left.

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Since someone said no, the hon. member will have to wait for another occasion.

It being 6.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.

(The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.)