Debates of March 5th, 1996

Questions On The Order Paper

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from February 29, 1996 consideration of the motion that an address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General in response to his Speech he addressed at the opening of the session, and of the amendment.

Speech From The Throne

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne reaffirms the government's commitment to expand trade to ensure our prosperity.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe you will find if you check with the table officers that when we ended debate on this subject matter, my colleague for Okanagan Centre had the floor and he was halfway through his speech. I thought that when we resumed this debate it would pick up where he left off. He still had five minutes left in his speech.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

With the greatest of respect to my colleague for Calgary Centre, in fact the hon. member for Okanagan Centre did have the floor. If we also recall, the vote took place immediately following his last intervention which in fact cut off that debate and brought it to a conclusion.

We are now debating the amendment to the speech from the throne. The debate on the subamendment was what the hon. member for Okanagan Centre was participating in and that debate has now concluded. That matter is now behind us and we will resume debate on the amendment to the throne speech with the hon. Minister for International Trade.

[An hon. member]

Learn the rules.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to whomever yelled that out, I am trying to apply the rules.

What I am trying to say is when the member had the floor it was also a 20-minute time period and we were splitting our time. He was only five minutes into his 20-minute period. How could the debate have ended then?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I think you would find that in fact what we were debating at that time was the Reform Party's subamendment to the throne speech. We voted on the subamendment which in fact closed that debate. Now we refer to the debate on the amendment to the throne speech and I would like to begin that debate with the hon. Minister for International Trade.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am indeed rising to speak on the speech from the throne specifically with regard to the area of which I have jurisdiction as minister, the area of international trade.

Expanding trade is not a matter of choice for Canadians. With a relatively small population we simply must find markets beyond our own. This is a challenge which Canadians are taking on with tenacity and success. Exports have been growing at an unprecedented rate and now represent nearly 37 per cent of our gross domestic product compared to 24 per cent in 1991. One in three jobs in Canada now depends on exports. That is one in three.

The final figures have just come in on our merchandise trade and I am delighted to announce today that it now stands at a record surplus of $28 billion. This record surplus smashes the previous record of $20 billion that was set back in 1984.

Significantly much of this export growth is taking place in value added sectors which means that we are no longer simply exporting raw materials for others to refine and then sell back to us at increased prices. This is good news for the long term economic prospects of Canadians.

It is also encouraging to note that while the United States remains by far our largest trading partner, there has also been a significant increase in our exports to other major markets around the world. Our trade is growing. Our exports are diversifying and our markets are expanding.

What accounts for this phenomenal success? There are three main reasons. First, of course the lower Canadian dollar has made

it easier for Canadians to sell their goods and services in international markets. But that is not the full story.

Second, we must also recognize the role played by our success in liberalizing trade, in opening up these markets around the world through the World Trade Organization and through the North American Free Trade Agreement. By levelling the playing field for Canadian firms our trade policy successes have allowed many seasoned exporters to take on new markets. It has also meant that many Canadian businesses have begun to export for the very first time.

Third, our exports have soared because of the initiative and the imagination of individual Canadians and individual Canadian companies which have found ways to compete and to compete profitably in the global marketplace. They are the authors of their own success and their achievements are benefiting all of us in Canada.

The successes of the past impose upon us the responsibility to maintain and exceed that performance in the future. If we are to continue to offer quality jobs to Canadians, we must continue to set our sights higher and we are doing just that.

Last October my predecessor as Minister for International Trade challenged Canadians to double the number of active exporters by the year 2000. This is indeed an ambitious goal, but consider the potential of it.

Relatively few Canadian companies are currently exporting. In fact 50 firms alone account for half of the exports of this country. There is lots of margin for improvement. To expand exports we need to dramatically increase the number of companies exporting and encourage current exporters to expand into new markets.

There is also the other side of the coin. Just as Canada must increase its exports to others, so too must we attract quality, technology rich, foreign, direct investment to this country because more than one job in ten and more than half of Canada's exports are directly due to international investment in Canada. Companies which invest in this country end up carrying much of the exports into other countries.

Foreign investment brings us the latest technology and helps our subsidiaries compete in world markets.

All regions of Canada benefit from such investments. For example, Stora of Sweden recently announced the construction of a new $650 million pulp and paper facility in Nova Scotia, creating 300 new jobs. The Montreal subsidiary of Ericsson Communications also of Sweden is providing 700 jobs for Canadian engineers and technicians. The recently announced expansions of Toyota and Honda in Ontario mean 2,200 new jobs for Canadians. The recent decisions by Merck-Frosst mean 200 new jobs for research scientists in British Columbia and Quebec.

These are large numbers but behind each one is an individual Canadian who is granted the dignity of holding a job, of paying his or her own way and who can begin to dream that their tomorrows will be brighter than their yesterdays. This is what foreign investment really means.

We know that the competition for such foreign investment is keen so we must be both aggressive and strategic in our efforts to attract and retain it in Canada. We have the best country in the world in which to invest and we need to continue to get that message out.

It is absolutely essential to offer foreign investors an investment climate that is second to none. That is why the government remains committed to deficit reduction. That is why we are working to eliminate regulatory burdens, barriers to interprovincial trade and to end disputes and regulations which restrict the flow of business and business people.

If, as it has been often said, trade is the lifeblood of our economic prosperity, then access is its arteries. The free circulation of goods is essential to our economic health. Our government will continue to open new markets and create new opportunities for Canadian companies.

To ensure the continued development of our trade, this government has identified three key priorities. The first is to effectively manage our most important trading relationship, that with the United States. The second is to liberalize trade around the world based on clear rules and level playing fields. To this end we are working through the World Trade Organization and the North American Free Trade Agreement. The third is to ensure that Canadian companies realize the benefits presented by the global marketplace. This means championing Canadian companies abroad, helping companies find new markets, assisting with financing where appropriate and attracting new investment to Canada.

These priorities were not pulled out of thin air. They are the result of extensive consultations with Canadian industry and with our provincial partners. We will continue in this collaborative manner as we proceed to implement these priorities.

It should come as no surprise that our trading relationship with the United States should be our first priority. After all, 82 per cent of our exports go to that country. In fact, two-way trade between Canada and the United States is a billion dollars every single day going both ways. It is the biggest trading relationship for both of our countries. It is the biggest trading relationship that exists in the world and one on which tens of thousands of jobs depend. It is also one in which, in spite of the headlines that show the controversies and issues in a number of areas, more than 95 per cent of that trade

with the United States goes across the borders harassment free, without any difficulties whatsoever. The relationship is a strong one.

The relatively stable and predictable trade environment that has been created by NAFTA and the WTO has certainly improved conditions a lot. It has encouraged an enormous expansion of this trade and trade in other parts of the world. Our exports have risen by 90 per cent over the last nine years under NAFTA and its earlier FTA.

Over time we have been able to bring more and more of the bilateral trade relationship with the U.S. within the scope of agreed on trade rules. It is not perfect yet and we have still a way to go, but we are getting more of it based on rules.

For example, we will continue to be making the case that anti-dump and countervail laws have no place in a free trade area. While we have not yet convinced the United States of this, we will keep working toward it. We will keep working toward a bilateral trading relationship free of such trade remedy laws. This will be a key objective as we work to expand and tighten the rules in NAFTA.

These principles of rule based trade and freedom from countervail also animate our approach in other multilateral and regional fora such as the WTO and the Asia Pacific. With our partners in the WTO we aim to avoid the hub and spoke approach to trade policies, ensure the development of fair rules and obligations, and demonstrate the benefits of participating in the WTO.

We are also engaged in regional liberalization discussions where these are deemed important to Canadian interests. They include the negotiation by the year 2005 of a free trade area of the Americas. They also include participation in Asia and through APEC in efforts to pursue a Canada-European action plan and do some of the discussions jointly with the United States in a trilateral consultation.

Bilaterally we are close to concluding a free trade agreement with Israel. We are now negotiating a free trade agreement with Chile which will act as a bridge toward the eventual accession of that country into the North American free trade agreement.

With all of these efforts and initiatives we have tried to establish the access to foreign markets which Canadian companies need. Access is only half the battle. Canadian companies must be made aware of the opportunities available to them. They must be supported in their efforts to create beach heads in these new markets. The benefits of investing in Canada must be communicated to foreign investors.

In all of these areas the government is taking action. Canadians are well aware of the Prime Minister's highly successful Team Canada missions abroad. The latest mission to Southeast Asia underlined the merits of the united approach, leading to some $9 billion in new contracts for Canadian firms. This is on top of the $13 billion generated by two previous Team Canada missions.

The government has no intention of stopping there and, as indicated in the speech from the throne, the Prime Minister will lead more such missions in the future. When we look at the fact that for every billion dollars in new trade and exports we create 11,000 jobs for Canadians, that $20 billion has produced tens of thousands of jobs in our economy.

These missions show how much Canadians can achieve when we work together as a Team Canada. Now we must borrow the same approach at home in order to increase the number of companies trading abroad. To this end we have built a domestic Team Canada in partnership with relevant federal departments and agencies, the provinces and the private sector. Its mission is to help existing exporters find new markets, and to ensure that all Canadian exporters have access to the best possible market intelligence about these world markets.

Over the next three months all of the partners at the federal level in the provinces and the private sector will be determining what sectors and what markets we should be keying in on. Where do we focus? Where do we set our priorities?

Team Canada's task will be to identify, prepare and assist companies with export potential, develop their interest in foreign markets, help them gain access to all export assistance programs, and facilitate their export involvement. We are becoming much more proactive than ever before.

It is more important than ever that we commit our resources where they will have the greatest impact. Certainly in our economy exports have had an enormous impact in creating jobs and growth. That is why our direct funding assistance for international business development is now limited and will be focusing on small or medium size companies in which a lot of the growth and jobs can take place.

We also recognize the vital role played by our trade commissioners in all this. In 107 trade posts throughout the world these commissioners provide Canadian entrepreneurs with business leads, introductions to buyers and partners in foreign markets as well as with timely, strategic advice on markets and how best to tap into them.

We must support and strengthen our trade commissioners by enhancing their client focus and by providing means of monitoring client satisfaction.

The final ingredient of export success is access to competitive export financing. This often determines whether a firm can export or not. In times of diminishing resources, when governments can no longer afford to provide all the funding they would like to or

which companies may feel they need, we need to become more creative and imaginative in our approach.

The old ways of the old days when export orders were purchased with highly subsidized export financing must give way to new forms of risk sharing with the private sector.

We understand these new realities and we will work through the Export Development Corporation, the EDC, to expand the export finance system by leveraging public and private sector resources in new and innovative ways.

We will also look at ways to encourage Canadian financial institutions to become more involved in export financing. Some of the banks have already begun to develop strong relationships with EDC. We want to see these relationships grow with true risk sharing partnerships.

As we approach the 21st century our reputation as a trading power is well established and will continue to grow because Canadians have demonstrated their ability to take on the world and win. As a government our role is to solidify the gains we have made, to open new markets to Canadian enterprises, to encourage more Canadian companies to sell abroad, to be more proactive in how we help them and to continue to market Canada as a wonderful place to invest.

Our prosperity as a nation is always dependent on trade. In earlier days in other ways we met the challenges that faced us. I am confident we will again rise to the occasion. Our recent trade performance, as I have talked about it here this morning, has indicated that we can achieve when Canadians work together, when Canadian work in unison, when Canadians work as a team.

I am convinced these successes will pale with the achievements that are still to come.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the minister on his speech. Unfortunately, I cannot completely subscribe to his claim.

Yesterday saw the minister in the United States talking about trade relations with that country, our main trading partner. The U.S. is indeed one of Canada's very important partners, but at a significant cost.

It is not under just any old conditions that we are friends with the United States and it is not under just any old conditions that we export to the United States. To do so, we have to snub our longstanding trading partners, Cuba, for example. Yesterday the minister was reminded fairly vigorously that courting Cuba was not in the best interest of trade relations between our two countries. I would like him to explain to us what he intends to do about this. He has brushed it under the carpet.

Fifty companies in Canada export more than 50 per cent of all Canadian exports, and the minister is telling us we have to increase the number of exporters. Is this an example of the new Liberalism where as many friends as possible get involved at once? Would it not be a better idea to try to have more products and, by inventing new ones, open markets with our own products, produced and created right here? When I say "created right here", we should think about research and development, an area the revenue minister cut and then went back to after the fact. He clawed back the investments of Quebecers and Canadians who had put their money into research and development.

With one small example, I would just like to show the minister the importance of research and development in Canada. When the first white people, the French, arrived in Canada, an ear of corn was about the size of a cigarette. Then, with the opening of the prairies, research was done and this area was studied in depth. Now an ear of corn almost looks like a bologna sausage. The desire and the research produced success.

What have we done in forestry? We have emptied our land of its vast forests. We know that, before it can be cut down, a spruce tree must grow for 50 years in some areas and 40 years in others. We, however, have not gone any further to find a harvesting method that could meet global demand, if we are talking about new exports, new products.

We are still able to export wood because of our huge territory, but we have not made any discoveries in this area. We could engage in research and development, but the minister was not too insistent on this point.

I would like to ask the minister whether he plans to speak to his colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, to make him stop blundering as he did by acting like the highwaymen of the last century, who went after all those who had managed to save a little money and squeezed them dry by collecting their money retroactively.

As the minister would probably admit, the rooster is an early riser so whoever wakes him up must rise even earlier. That is what the minister should do. If he wants to accomplish something, if he wants to get something done, he should rise before the rooster and propose something that makes sense. I am 50 years old and the minister is not saying anything I have not heard before. I never heard an industry or international trade minister admit to us: "I have no ideas. I am no good. I do not think my proposal will work". No minister ever told me that. I am 50 years old, and I am still waiting.

They have all discovered the greatest thing since sliced bread. We, however, can see that the debt has grown to $600 billion, that nothing is working, that the economy in Montreal and other cities is in a free fall, that poverty is rising in direct proportion, while the minister is shouting "Eureka" like the guy in his bathtub.

What we need is R and D, new markets, new products, nothing less. Instead of taking a piece of pie and letting as many people as possible nibble at it, we must put another pie on the table. The minister, however, shows no such political will.

I therefore ask him what he intends to do in this area.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague said a number of things. What struck me the most is when he said we must think Canadian. I am glad to hear that from a member of the Bloc Quebecois.

What we need to do is think Canadian. That is what was the great success was behind Team Canada, notwithstanding that the premier of Quebec never went. Other premiers went, the private sector went. They produced some $20 billion in contracts that produced tens of thousands of jobs throughout Canada, including Quebec.

The Quebec government needs to get on to Team Canada. I am delighted to hear the member say that we need to think Canadian. He said a number of things. I got the impression he was dismissing our relationship with the United States. This is over 80 per cent of our trade. We cannot dismiss that relationship out of hand.

I pointed our earlier that we have a $28 billion surplus, much of that with the United States. Our trading relationship with that country is quite successful and it is bread and butter on the table for Canadians. We need to continue to nourish it.

I went to Washington yesterday to talk with the U.S. trade representative, Mr. Kantor, and the Secretary of Commerce, Mr. Brown, about the relationship. It was a meeting that had been planned some time before the Helms-Burton legislation became quite the controversy that it is today. It was designed as a get acquainted session and an opportunity to explore a number of bilateral issues.

To put this in some context, more than 95 per cent of the trade that exists between Canada and the United States is not a problem at all. These discussions are relevant to no more than 5 per cent of trade. We must continue to advance that relationship. We must make sure that we have more rules on which to base our discussions and settle our disputes.

As was quite evident in the recent settlement of the softwood lumber dispute, in NAFTA there is no subsidies code. There are no rules about subsidies so that the United States can come in and countervail.

Fortunately, with the support of the provincial governments, the Government of Quebec, the industry of Quebec, the Government of British Columbia, the industry of British Columbia being the two biggest representing 85 per cent of the softwood lumber exports to the United States, we were able to work out an agreement with the United States that provides for five-year secure access for our lumber market, an $8 billion export market. By doing that, it will prevent countervail from occurring in this area and save thousands of Canadian jobs.

In spite of the fact that we did not have rules on subsidies, we were able to get that agreement. We need to keep working on the rules to make sure that we are protected. We are dealing with a big country. We have to protect ourself with a rules based system. More liberalized trade, yes; also, more rules based trade.

With respect to Cuba and the Helms-Burton bill, I made it clear to Mr. Kantor and Mr. Brown of the United States government that Canada protested the bill. We certainly join with them in deploring the shooting down of those planes by the Cubans. We want to work with them and to try to advance democracy and human rights in Cuba.

To take this kind of measure against third countries, including Canada, to say in effect that if you trade with Cuba, you cannot trade with us, as somebody in the States said, is wrong. It is a dangerous precedent. I made that quite clear.

My hon. colleague asked me this morning about what we will do. I met with ambassadors from many countries and heard many similar kinds of concerns expressed by them. I will also be consulting with Canadian businesses. We are looking at our options as we read the final text of the bill. We have not seen the final wording yet. It is going to pass the Senate and the House of Representatives. It will be signed by the President.

The President of the United States will have some discretion. It is limited, but he has some. We will be urging him to use that discretion to not take this out on their long time friend and number one trading partner, Canada, or third world countries. We have not heard the last of this issue.

The throne speech talked about the need for further investments in the area of science and technology. This certainly is where a lot of research is going to be needed. We recognize that innovation is going to help lead to more productivity. It will help lead to the kind of competitive position we have to have in world markets to be able to increase our exports. We well recognize that. We also recognize that more firms need to export. That is why we set a goal of saying we would double the number of exporters by the year 2000. That is why we are going to take a more proactive means of achieving increased export volumes and increased investment.

My hon. colleague knows full well from those remarks and from the statistics which have been coming out lately which clearly

indicate our ever increasing export opportunities that the government is giving this the kind of priority that it needs to have.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I am going to seek the co-operation of the House and in particular the minister. The member for Yorkton-Melville rose to his feet at the same time as the member for Chambly on questions or comments. While the minister took some time in his response to elaborate on an issue which is very time sensitive, and I am referring to the Canada-U.S.-Cuba situation, I wonder if he would take a question from the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will make one observation and then I will get to my question as quickly as possible.

I am really surprised at the blatant hypocrisy of the Liberals. I will ask the minister this question. Why has he suddenly changed his mind in regard to free trade, NAFTA and all of these things? During the election the Liberals clearly stated that they were going to abrogate certain parts of the NAFTA treaty. In fact, during an earlier election they vigorously opposed NAFTA.

I do not understand the hypocrisy in suddenly turning around and singing the praises of NAFTA. It is like they are telling us they are glad the Conservatives won the election on that issue.

Why is the government not working much more vigorously within Canada to reduce the trade barriers that exist within this nation? It is working in areas around the world, and we do not have a problem with that. We realize that Canada depends a lot on international trade so why is the government not using its power to break down the barriers within Canada that are costing us billions and billions of dollars?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are two parts to that question. I will take them in reverse order.

The government does give priority to the breaking down of internal trade barriers. Some people have said there are more barriers to trade within Canada than there are between Canada and other countries. That is true in many respects.

The government is cognizant of that. It wants to remove those trade barriers. That is why it entered into an accord with the provinces last year. It will continue to work to break down those barriers, to bring about the free flow of goods and people and investment within our country. That remains a very high priority of the government and my colleague, the Minister of Industry, will be able to provide more information on what specifically is being done by him and by the government to meet that priority.

With respect to the free trade agreement and the position that the government took when it came into office, we had witnessed for a number of years the start-up of the free trade agreement prior to the NAFTA agreement. The initial impact of that agreement was quite negative in many respects for many companies, particularly branch plant companies. There were a lot of closings and a lot of people losing jobs. The previous government had indicated that it would have an adjustment program that never materialized. Many people suffered under that situation.

Having gone through that restructuring, Canadians are beginning to see the benefits of the free trade agreement, the benefits of NAFTA. More benefits can be gained if we can increase the number of rules, including dispute settlement mechanisms. That has always been the government's message and my party's message.

It is what we said we wanted to do with the trading remedy groups in NAFTA. We want increase the rules to decrease the times and the opportunities for a member country to take countervail or anti-dumping duty action. Those two actions have no place in the free trade agreement. We want them out. We want a rules based system and we will continue to get through NAFTA and through the World Trade Organization a priority of working toward more liberalized trade in the world, but also based on some very clear rules.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I thank the minister and the House for their indulgence.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that, starting now, Bloc members will be splitting the 20 minutes allocated. As far as I am concerned, I will have the pleasure of sharing my speaking time with my good friend, the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe.

I take this opportunity to mention two major political developments that have occurred since last session, before Christmas, and have resulted in major changes both in the Quebec National Assembly and in the House of Commons.

On the one hand, Mr. Lucien Bouchard was elected leader of the Parti Quebecois, becoming the premier of Quebec, and on the other hand, the hon. member for Roberval was elected leader of the Bloc Quebecois. These two events have added a new dimension to the Quebec national political scene, not as regards the ultimate goal, which is sovereignty, of course, but as regards Quebec's structures.

Mr. Bouchard's reputation is firmly established and, as far as the hon. member for Roberval is concerned, I am convinced that he will ensure that the Bloc Quebecois gets the second wind it needs to carry out its mission, which is to look after Quebec's interests in Ottawa.

This being said, I have spent several weeks in my riding since the holidays. This was an opportunity for me to examine further a number of issues and travel throughout my riding without any electoral concerns. I spoke with people, but mostly I listened.

People are worried, not about the rise of the sovereignist movement in Quebec, contrary to what federalists contend all the time, but about the repressive attitude of this federal government.

They are also worried about the government's famous B plan, the plan to create fear: the fear of partitioning, to the point that there was a demonstration just across the river. There were just a few demonstrators, and the incident turned out badly for our good Prime Minister. Minutes later, the Deputy Prime Minister-this is not just any backbencher-was saying: ``It is those separatists again. It is all their fault''.

As for the drop in air traffic at Mirabel and Dorval airports, the Minister of Finance had this explanation: "If there are fewer planes in the sky and at Mirabel, it is because of the separatists". When a snowstorm hits Quebec or some other region in the country, it is the separatists' fault. And when spring finally arrives and the tulips start to grow, it will of course be thanks to the federalists. When things go well it is thanks to the federalists, but when they go bad the separatists are to blame.

I was really surprised to see that when Kevin Barry Snow, a Newfoundlander, climbed over the fence at our Prime Minister's residence, nobody stated: "Another separatist". That person happens to come from Newfoundland, so the issue of separatism was not raised.

On another note, the cuts to social programs, particularly the UI program, have major repercussions for workers. The unemployed are helpless, and feel that they are perceived as being at fault. Indeed, this government does not target unemployment but the unemployed. It punishes them by shortening the benefit period, by reducing the amount of these benefits, and by forcing people to work longer to be eligible for these benefits. This is not what Quebecers need. They need jobs.

During the last election campaign, some people all dressed up in red and carrying a red book kept saying: "Jobs, jobs, jobs. We will create jobs". The official unemployment rate may not be up, Mr. Speaker, but look at the offloading onto the provinces going on. It has led to a dramatic increase in the number of welfare recipients.

I had the opportunity to meet women and men from my riding, and it is very clear to these people that the Liberal government is overwhelmed and cannot cope with the major issues that concern all Canadians. Not only do they think that this government is out of touch with reality, they also feel that it has lost the confidence of Canadians and that all it can do is create a feeling of insecurity.

One of my constituents in the municipality of Coleraine made the following apt comment to me on the weakness of this government: "You know, Mr. Chrétien, this government does not know what tax fairness means. They did not have the nerve to tax family trusts or to abolish tax shelters for the rich, but instead they dump on ordinary folks, the elderly, the unemployed, self-employed workers, particularly in the fishing and forest industries".

During the last referendum campaign, I saw Laurent Beaudoin being interviewed on RDI. The host asked him "How much tax did you pay last year?" His answer was: "We paid no taxes last year". "How much in the way of taxes did Bombardier, the biggest company in Canada, pay two years ago?" Mr. Beaudoin replied: "None". He was then asked "What about three years ago?" The answer: "We did not pay any taxes". When asked "What was the last year for which you paid any taxes, Mr. Beaudoin?" he replied candidly "I do not remember." So much for tax fairness, Mr. Speaker.

This government has created an atmosphere of uncertainty. We hear rumours that the minimum age for old age pension eligibility will be raised to 67. You can imagine how worried the people in my riding who are 63 or 64 years old are. The government is toying with taxpayers, and this must stop, and stop immediately. The people of Frontenac are vigorously voicing their opposition to this government; there have been public demonstrations, with no holds barred in their criticism of this government.

In October 1995, the Liberals raised considerable hopes with their "jobs, jobs, jobs". Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that in the month of November 1995 alone there were 40,000 jobs lost in Canada?

The Liberals will reply: "But we created 50,000 jobs." Yes, they created 50,000, but 90,000 businesses or individuals closed down or lost their jobs. What is of interest to us is how many jobs were really created. I have a document here prepared by the Liberal Party on job creation and economic renewal during their first year. "Implementation of the national infrastructure program, which will create 90,000 direct jobs in two years." Not true. These are only figures with which they want to impress their supporters, but when the calculations are made, we realize that there is nothing to them.

I have a report from Le Soleil here which says that the Prime Minister will need to work twice as hard, keep major promises at the mid-point of his mandate. Among the promises that have not been kept-one to which the minister has just referred-there is the replacement of the goods and services tax, the GST. The Deputy Prime Minister and member for Hamilton East said: ``Give us a year in power and the GST will be scrapped''. Now two years and four months have passed and all that we have managed to get from the Minister of Finance is that the GST will undergo a name change and that they will hide it away, like hypocrites. People will keep on

paying taxes like before, but without noticing them. That is what the Liberal Government is in the process of imposing upon us.

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Richmond-Wolfe, I am pleased to rise today in the context of the reply to the speech from the throne, and, more specifically, in the context of my new responsibilities as heritage and cultural industries critic.

The speech from the throne stated that, with culture at the heart of Canada's identity, the government wants to promote a vibrant cultural industry. It therefore reiterates its desire to ensure the viability of the CBC, the National Film Board and Telefilm Canada.

However, I must remind it that its red book states in black and white, and I quote: "Funding cuts to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Canada Council, the National Film Board, Telefilm Canada, and other institutions illustrate the Tories' failure to appreciate the importance of cultural and industrial development". The Liberals, who are now in power, were criticizing the Conservatives for their lack of understanding of cultural vitality and development in Canada. What a farce. This government is a big fat joke.

It is an eye opener to look at the facts and realize that this Liberal government is not meeting even one of its commitments and that the speech from the throne is nothing more than window dressing in the area of cultural policy. We should take note that, in the area of cultural and heritage development, funding for programs supporting publishing, museums, sound recording, video production, TV5 and broadcasting in the North has shrunk by $36 million in the past fiscal year.

The French network of the CBC is underfunded compared with the English network. It gets $280 million less, for the same sized audience. In his letter of September 20, 1995 entitled: "Structural Review: the next steps", the President of the CBC, Perrin Beatty, announced that the corporation had to expect significant cuts in government funding, and I quote: "We are working toward the likelihood that, by March 31, 1997, we may have to reduce our budget by some $350 million from the 1994-95 levels". He also indicated that cuts totalling $227 million over an 18-month period starting in September of 1995 were contemplated, which means that nearly $127 million in cuts should be announced in the budget tomorrow.

After the Juneau report was tabled, it was suggested that a new CBC tax be levied through a 7.5 per cent increase in cable fees to support cultural undertakings. Note that a recent survey shows that more than 43 per cent of Canadians oppose the proposed new tax. Tell me, Mr. Speaker, is this the way to go about supporting our cultural industries? I would like this House to tell me what is prompting the Liberal government of Canada to put its leading cultural industries on the line, thereby jeopardizing the vitality of our cultures in Canada and Quebec?

That is why the Bloc Quebecois is objecting to this Liberal government changing the mandates of major cultural institutions such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the National Film Board, Telefilm Canada and the CRTC, as recently announced by the Deputy Prime Minister. All this to use these institutions as propaganda tools to promote Canadian unity.

We will recall that already in the early 1960s, culture and communications became key issues, both for Quebec's cultural sovereignty and for Canadian unity. As mentioned on page 5 of the white paper on culture tabled in July 1966, the commitment to developing and maintaining a radio and television broadcasting system in Canada essentially came within the scope of the pursuit of a Canadian identity and of Canadian unity. The kind of Canadian nationalism practised by Pierre Elliott Trudeau's Liberals was intended as a counterbalancing force, a weapon against Quebec's nationalism and against the recognition of the Quebec people.

Through its statements and challenges, this government continues to deny there is such a thing as a Quebec culture. The term "ethnicism"-a term to remember-used by the members of the heritage committee, a committee with a very large Liberal majority, in reference to Quebec's culture, is a case in point. As evidenced by history, taking such a view to Canada causes a major clash between Ottawa and Quebec.

With respect to culture, the 17 years of the Trudeau era were characterized by an emphasis on culture as a Canadian identity and unity tool and by the development of a national policy in Canada. This denial of Quebec's cultural identity goes to show how much federal Liberals use double talk.

In these times of communication, new technologies and information, Quebec's culture is claiming its rightful place. At no time will the Bloc Quebecois ever tolerate that Quebec be dealt with by this government like in the days of the British colonial empire. We will keep forcing the federal government to recognize the existence of the people of Quebec. We intend to pester the government until such time as budgets are allocated fairly and equitably amongst cultural institutions.

At present, the average budget for one hour of broadcast production at the CBC is twice what at Radio-Canada. Such unfairness is unacceptable and all the more unjustified that, in 1976 and 1977, the average cost of one hour of broadcasting was shared equally between the French and English networks. But the present

situation is the result of 20 years of the Liberal federal cultural development policy.

In the whole issue of the relationship between Canada and Quebec, the Bloc Quebecois believes that the only way to deal with this colonial attitude is to become sovereign. We will continue to strive to ensure that the federal government will never again trivialize Quebec culture by reducing it to a mere Canadian sub-culture. Quebec culture is the culture of a people.

In closing, in my capacity as the official opposition's critic for heritage and cultural industries, I would like to state in this House that Quebec culture is the culture of a people, one of the founding peoples of this country, which was excluded by the unilateral patriation of the Constitution in 1982. Sovereignty is absolutely essential to the cultural future of Quebec.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's comments. The closing urges me to come forward and ask the member for a response to a hypothesis.

The member says that Canada rejected the Quebec culture in 1982. In my view, Canadians, regardless of the province they live in, have a vested interest and own a piece of every part of Canada: Peggy's Cove in Nova Scotia; Goose Bay in Labrador; Quebec City in Quebec; Toronto and Muskoka in Ontario; the wonderful prairies; the magnificent Rockies; and Victoria. Each and every one of us owns a piece, no matter how small, of all of that, including the culture and physical characteristics.

Would the member not agree that he also owns a part of all of Canada?

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. As it clearly shows, the hon. member recognizes not only that Quebec is a founding nation but also-although he did not dare say so-that it has played a very active role in and made a major contribution to this country's development.

History demonstrates this strong reluctance to recognize Quebec-and its francophone community-essentially as a people. This was confirmed by recent federal-provincial negotiations that led to the rejection of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. When the Constitution was patriated in 1982 and the issue came to the forefront, where were the groups travelling to Quebec by bus and by plane to tell us that they loved us?

Do not forget that the Quebec National Assembly, composed of both nationalists and federalists, had rejected this unilateral patriation of the Constitution. Where were you when Pierre Elliott Trudeau was leading this kind of action against Quebec and denying that Quebecers were a people? This is the ultimate result of the action taken by your government and your party.

Whoever their new members may be, Liberals must remember that this matter is of the utmost importance for Quebec at a time when Canada is rejecting the concept of Quebec as a people and, according to Canada's cultural policy, relegating it to the status of one of the largest cultural communities. I am sorry but the hon. member must know that we are not a large cultural community. We in Quebec are a French speaking people.

[Marlene Cowling, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Dauphin-Swan River, I am pleased to respond to the speech from throne.

The throne speech outlines the broad initiatives the government will take over the next two years, initiatives that will continue the work we began two years ago. They are initiatives that we promised in the red book, initiatives that we are delivering on as a government and initiatives that promote economic growth and job creation, that promote unity and promote security for individual Canadians and their families.

Our vision is clear. We are working toward a strong and united Canada with a vibrant economy that allows us to continue to provide the social programs that are so important to Canadians. It is a vision that includes all Canadians, urban and rural.

Our Prime Minister continues to keep our greatest resource, the Canadian people, at the forefront of his agenda. That is what this country is all about. That is what the throne speech is all about. It is about delivering honesty, integrity and hope to the people of this great country Canada.

Canada is the best country in the world in which to live. This Liberal government is committed to ensuring that Canada includes all 10 provinces and two territories. The Liberal government recognizes that all Canadians have a stake in the future of our country and that all Canadians care about Canada. That is why we are committed to ensuring that all Canadians have a say in the future of Canada.

Since Confederation, Canada has successfully adapted to a rapidly changing world. The one constant in Canadian history has been our ability to adapt to new circumstances and new realities without sacrificing our principles and values.

Part of ensuring that Canada remains strong is ensuring that we have our fiscal house in order. As the member for Dauphin-Swan River, I was pleased with the priority given to improving the economic health of rural Canada.

One of the first areas addressed in the throne speech was rural Canada. This demonstrates the importance this Liberal government places on the future of rural Canadians. The economic challenges rural Canada faces are much different from those of urban areas.

We will ensure that all Canadians benefit from economic prosperity. That is important to the people of Dauphin-Swan River and I applaud it. We already have a proven track record in putting programs and policies in place to benefit rural communities in the long term.

The infrastructure program is an excellent example. We helped local communities complete important projects, created jobs and boosted local economies. We invested over $2 million in the future of my riding of Dauphin-Swan River.

As a government we have also brought information technology to rural communities through the community access program and SchoolNet. These tools will help communities diversify their economies and will open up endless possibilities for businesses and employment. We are proposing new and innovative ways of job creation and rural Manitoba will benefit from our jobs and growth strategy.

In particular, I am very excited about our focus on jobs for young people. We are investing in our young people. As a mother and as a grandmother, I know how important our young people are to the future of this country. One of the challenges our young people face is that to get a job, they need experience but they cannot get that experience if they cannot get a job. They are caught in a vicious circle.

We are, as the Liberal government, taking decisive action to address this problem. We are doubling the number of summer jobs for students to give them the experience they need to get jobs once they are done school. We are investing in their future and the future of Canada.

In rural Manitoba and in Dauphin-Swan River we know that people accomplish the most when they work together. That is exactly what we are doing as a federal government. We are putting out a challenge to the provincial governments and private industry to match our commitment to young people and the future of our country. Our future is their future.

This government's commitment to sound agricultural policy will be an important component in revitalizing rural Canada and rural Manitoba. Farmers are already seeing the positive impacts of this government's agricultural policy. They are seeing it in their pocketbooks where they need it most.

Grain prices remain high, exports are expanding and there is a higher demand for the quality products that we produce. This is a direct result of trade missions, the Team Canada approach and our commitment to expanding markets, our commitment to ensuring that our performers can continue to do what they do best, produce the highest quality foods in the world. Agriculture is one of the three or four most significant players in the Canadian economy generating more wealth, more innovation, more trade and more jobs for Canada's future.

We are also following through on other commitments to get our fiscal House in order. We are on target with deficit reduction. We are keeping interest rates low so farmers can buy equipment and land to take advantage of the opportunities we are creating in agriculture and so families can invest in their future. We are spurring the economy. We are negotiating with the provinces to harmonize the GST and the PST. And we will make good on our red book promise to replace the GST.

While our economy is vitally important, as a government we have struck the important balance between the economy and social programs. The whole world looks to Canada as a model of co-operation. As the Prime Minister stated, we have affirmed our own special definition of greatness. We have achieved the greatest balance between economic success and social justice of any nation. Our social programs are part of what makes us Canadian. They speak of compassion, caring and selflessness. The Liberal government will continue on with its unwavering commitment to social programs.

We are committed to medicare and will continue to uphold the five principles of the Canada Health Act. Over the last two weeks I have held five health forums in communities across my riding in conjunction with the National Forum on Health. The message from the people of Dauphin-Swan River was loud and clear. They want medicare maintained and they want to ensure that health care dollars are wisely spent.

Where the previous Conservative government was phasing out its financial support of our social programs, this Liberal government is putting our money where our promises are. We are placing a floor under the Canada health and social transfer. We are ensuring that Canadians will continue to benefit over the long term from our social programs. This is our commitment to Canadians. We will preserve the social programs that protect Canadians and that have become part of our values as a country. We will ensure that Canadians can continue to count on medicare, the Canada pension plan and quality education.

I have spoken with people of all ages in my riding of Dauphin-Swan River and they know the importance of the Canada pension plan. They have told me how important it is that as a government we ensure that their children and grandchildren will benefit from a public pension system. This Liberal government is committed to a

public pension system that provides future generations with financial security. We will ensure that the people of Dauphin-Swan River have this security.

I am pleased that we are continuing our commitment to the First Nations people of Canada. In two short years much has been accomplished to forge a new relationship with Canada's aboriginal peoples, a relationship based on communication and mutual respect. The Liberal government is establishing new partnerships with First Nations through the dismantling process in Manitoba, the announcement of inherent right to self-government policy and our commitment efforts to work co-operatively to address the unique challenges First Nations and Metis people face.

The throne speech clearly demonstrates the leadership this Liberal government is providing. We are committed to keeping our greatest resource, the Canadian people, at the forefront of our agenda. We are committed to leading this country with honesty, integrity and hope.

[Bernie Collins, Liberal, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my hon. colleague from Manitoba for an excellent presentation. It is certainly a pleasure to hear all the excellent things that are coming forward. As you move through your presentation, I wonder if you would take a moment for those of us who come from rural areas-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I remind colleagues not to get into a one to one conversation and leave your Speaker aside. I ask you to direct your interventions through the Chair.

[Bernie Collins, Liberal, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would highlight for us some of the items that will affect rural Canadians. It was mentioned in the throne speech and it is something we all are looking for.

[Marlene Cowling, Liberal, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Souris-Moose Mountain for the question.

As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, I believe one of our greatest resources is our people. In the throne speech the Prime Minister outlined the importance of the people in rural Canada. The resource base of rural Canada can grow and prosper through natural resources, part of which is the production of food, agriculture.

There are many opportunities out there such as the whole component of value added and diversification. I know it because it is happening in my riding of Dauphin-Swan River. We are adding a value to a product we produce. There are great opportunities and as a government we are addressing those and will continue to address those for the greatest resource of our country, the Canadian people.