Debates of March 5th, 1996

Speech From The Throne

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to make a few comments following the speech by my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois, having heard and read carefully the speech from the throne presented by the Governor General in the Senate and having heard what various ministers have said over the last few days. A while ago, we heard the Minister of the Environment talk about job creation and reaffirm red book promises. I do not know whether the minister has looked at his government's performance over the last two years, but it is imperative that the government, which was elected to create jobs, start doing so without further delay.

The current government has done exactly the opposite after taking office by laying off 35,000 employees, in the public service alone. Believe it or not, these 35,000 jobs that were cut were in the area of services to the public. Let me just mention, among other things, that a number of employment centres were closed and that a number of air traffic controllers were laid off.

You can be sure that, by cutting jobs, especially in the public service, not only does the government not save any money for the Canadian taxpayer, but it increases its deficit. Contracting out to the private sector by the federal government amounted to $11 billion in 1995, compared to $1.4 billion in 1984.

By closing the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean, the government has caused the number of unemployed workers to increase. As for the closure and the privatization of federal infrastructures, we see more and more of that in the House.

I also heard the Minister of the Environment talk about duplication, an issue that we also talk about regularly. My colleague just said that the government should get out of areas under provincial jurisdiction.

I am concerned about duplication in environmental matters. Will we have a situation where the federal government manages water quality while the provincial government manages fish stocks? I am afraid that, if it comes to that, the fish in Quebec will be swimming on their backs in a few years.

Will the federal government manage air quality while we manage the birds? I am afraid our birds will start flying backwards because of the pollution.

I would like to ask my colleague whether he sees in the speech from the throne, between the wishes of the government and reality, some hope of a promising future for workers and for the unemployed, for our youth and our seniors.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He mentioned some very fundamental truths in the whole issue at stake in light of the speech from the throne.

To answer only the member's last question, there is absolutely nothing in the speech from the throne which would give us a bit of hope as to job creation. It is extremely disappointing because, only a few days before the speech from the throne, the Minister of Human Resources Development had said that the federal government had failed regarding job creation and that something had to be done.

A minister from his riding, in the maritimes, said: "Look, the federal government failed in matters of job creation, and something has to be done". I was expecting specific measures in the speech from the throne to boost economy and employment. All the government has to say is that there will be job cuts in the public service. It has obviously failed in this regard.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in this House to comment on this government's second speech from the throne that was delivered in the House last week.

In having this speech delivered, the Prime Minister's did something rather unusual that clearly reflects the disarray of the Liberal government. This speech comes at a very particular time, that is, a few months after the victory of the no side, which will be short-lived. After the October 30th referendum, English Canada suddenly realized the scope of the changes demanded by Quebecers, That realization has given rise to two completely opposite trends among Canadians from the rest of the country and their leaders.

On one side, there are those who favoured reflection and careful analysis, which is normal after such an event. These people have already begun to consider what will happen after Quebec achieves sovereignty and are now trying to define a new Canada with a new partner: Quebec.

On the other side, there is the federal government, which is gripped by panic. It is sad to see that the members of cabinet, who claim to be able to lead the country, are the ones most reluctant to act responsibly. Instead of taking note of the referendum results and drawing the necessary conclusions rather than the ones they would like to impose, they reacted in an immature and inconsistent fashion.

The speech that was delivered last Tuesday has three themes: the economy, social security for Canadians and national unity.

First, let us deal with what the speech has to say about the economy. The speech announces with fanfare that the government will do everything possible in order to help young people find jobs. It contains a proposal to double the number of summer jobs for students in the federal public service. The irony is that at the very same moment the government is laying off 45,000 public servants.

And yet, this government has committed already to help young people. That was supposed to be done through better support for research and education. The fact is, however, that the Canada social transfer will be cut by seven billion dollars over two years. Universities are being forced to cut research, tuition fees will increase, which will have an adverse effect on access to university for young people. On the one hand, they are singing the virtues of a strong economy for the future, and on the other they are jeopardizing that future by loading university graduates down with debt. What a difference between words and actions.

To boost the economy, the government committed to eliminating the GST and replacing it with another tax that dovetailed more smoothly with the provincial tax. The Bloc Quebecois had suggested that it be scrapped entirely and this area of taxation be transferred to the provinces. We are still awaiting action from the government, and we hear not a word about the GST.

The same applies to sound public finances. The government made a commitment to make better use of the taxpayers' money in order to control its deficit. In reality, far from tightening up its administration, the federal government is laying its hands on the workers' money by appropriating the unemployment fund surplus, although it has not contributed to that fund for some years now. Once again they will dump on someone else, praising themselves to the Canadian public by saying: "See what a good government we are. We have cut the deficit by five billion dollars". What they have done is dip into the unemployment insurance fund, to which they no longer contribute. It is the taxpayers, both workers and employers, who are helping reduce the deficit from their own

pockets, whereas those funds ought to have been used to really provide us with job creation measures as promised in the last red book.

The Liberal government got itself elected with its slogan of "jobs, jobs, jobs". So where are those jobs? Now, instead of giving us jobs, they are taking away money, five billion dollars from the most needy in our society. Instead of using it to help them find jobs and create measures for that purpose, they are putting it toward the deficit. They are dumping the problem onto the provinces and the poor. That is what is so offensive. Unfortunately, once again, there is a wide gap between words and action.

Now, to address the notion of social security contained in the throne speech. The government has tried in vain to disguise the fact that it has been engaged in dismantling the social security safety net for the past two years, particularly in the areas of health and unemployment insurance. I can tell you something about health, because it is part of my responsibility.

A few months ago, the Minister of Human Resources Development tabled a reform proposal entitled employment insurance. It seems to me that we take out insurance to help us, in the event a disaster or a mishap, to rebuild or start afresh. Here we are talking about employment insurance. What is employment insurance. It amounts to taking $5 billion from taxpayers and putting it towards the $600 billion deficit.

Taxpayers are not being provided with jobs, they are having their money taken away from them. No one is creating jobs for them, they are being driven to welfare. When they are no longer getting social assistance or anything at all, where can they go knocking? They will go and get welfare. They have to eat. They get no help finding jobs. You know, it costs money to look for a job too. How are we going to help them find a job when we take their last nickel?

This proposal has elicited a lot of criticism and led to many demonstrations. I do not understand. We in the Bloc see people every week, who come to tell us that the reform makes no sense. I imagine the Liberal members must have the same sort of reaction in their ridings.

We should join together and tell the new Minister of Human Resources Development that it makes no sense, that we have to go back to the drawing board. Nobody wants anything to do with this reform; it penalizes everyone. It even puts women back 40 years. Something must be done. The people are protesting against this regressive anti-job reform that will create poverty.

Allow me to quote a short excerpt from page 80 of the red book, which deals with health care reform: "A comprehensive re-examination of Canada's health care spending is required. Without doubt, part of the immediate pressure on the program has arisen from the decision of the Conservative government to steadily withdraw from health care funding, thus passing costs onto the provinces. Economic conditions may change, but the health care requirements of Canadians will continue. It is essential to provide financial certainty and predictability for our health care planning".

What nice promises. Those who claimed they wanted to revamp medicare are now launching a full-scale attack against the health care system as a whole. The Canada social transfer will lead to additional cuts in the order of $4.5 billion over two years in the health care sector alone. In Quebec, the shortfall will amount to more than $650 million this year and almost $2 billion in 1997-98.

Is this what this government calls providing financial certainty and predictability for our health care planning? In the recent throne speech, the government claims to be open to new methods and directions in order to preserve national values. In this case, it is high time the federal government considered transferring total health care funding to Quebec and the provinces. This would eliminate duplication and considerably reduce the size of the bureaucracy.

The health department employs 8,000 people and spends more than $1 billion every year on bureaucratic organization and administration of all sorts.

If the entire health budget were transferred to Quebec and the provinces, decisions could be made closer to the people and implemented so as to meet their needs. In the end, the health of Canadians and Quebecers would benefit.

Concerning national unity and what was said on the subject in the speech from the throne, you must admit that it is not normal for a country 130 years old, a country that boasts about being the best in the world, to have to put the national unity issue on its priority list, along with the economy and social security. Yet, this is what this country has been doing for many years.

To conclude, I would like to say that we in the Bloc Quebecois have this to say to the Liberal Party: The right of Quebecers to decide on their future is not debatable, period.

[Nic Leblanc, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Drummond for her excellent speech. She discussed, of course, the speech from the throne, and she showed very clearly how we, Quebecers, and particularly Bloc Quebecois members, perceive this speech.

First, this speech from the throne is strictly for show. The government wants to give the impression that it seeks to make changes. It wants to impress Quebecers in particular by telling them that it will make great changes and share the management and the responsibility for certain areas.

Usually, a speech from the throne includes a new direction. In fact, that is the reason for such a speech. It is to set everything aside and get a fresh start. It is a new impetus, a new vision, a new way of doing things proposed by the government to revitalize the economy, stimulate employment and implement major initiatives. However, that is not the case here.

The day after the governor general delivered this nice speech from the throne in the Senate, the government tabled the same old obsolete bills that did not work in the first place.

This is pure hypocrisy, as we say in Quebec. When someone does not tell the truth, we say that person is a hypocrite. The speech from the throne misleads people because the government is bringing back the same old legislation.

My colleague also talked about unemployment insurance. We are told that, this year, the UI fund will get $5 billion more from workers and employers. Once again, the Canadian government finds a way to tax people even more, that is the workers and the employers.

In Quebec, for years now, both the Conseil du patronat and labour have been saying: "If we are the only ones to pay into the unemployment insurance system, why can we not manage it?" Why could employers and employees not manage the unemployment insurance fund? Why not, indeed? Why has the government not withdrawn from this area instead of cheating the people once again, using unemployment insurance as an excuse to put its hand on more money, as a new way of collecting taxes? This is outrageous.

It is the same thing with health care. My colleague mentioned health care. Of course, when the health care system was put in place, in the 1970s, the federal government had to interfere, saying: "I want to get involved". The provinces refused. The government persisted, in spite of the provinces' reluctance. Finally, the provinces told the government: "If you want to get involved, you will have to pay your share". The federal government decided to pay 50 per cent of the bill. Today, it only pays 28 per cent, and Quebec pays over 70 per cent.

The federal government keeps on telling us that it will decide how health care will be managed. Once again, this is unfair, this is unjust.

If the federal government had respected the Constitution, we would not be faced with the problems we have today. But the federal government keeps on encroaching; it does not respect the Canadian Constitution. This is why the Bloc Quebecois is here. This is why Quebecers elected over 50 sovereignist members to this House, because the federal government has never respected the Constitution.

It is always the same hypocrisy, as can be found in the throne speech, especially with regard to exclusive jurisdiction, which my colleague mentioned earlier. It is bad to speak about exclusivity but, at the same time, nobody really has any exclusivity because the federal government says it will deal with it, it will decide, it will set standards and if we do not respect those standards, it will not give us money. The great master, the boss of this country is the federal government.

This is not what we created. Two equal states, two equal peoples created a country at a point in time. Now we have to obey this great master who takes the liberty of writing in a throne speech a paragraph like this one:

The Government will not use its spending power to create new shared-cost programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction without the consent of a majority of the provinces.

What a contradiction! Who do they think they are anyway? Furthermore, the government adds:

Any new program will be designed so that non-participating provinces will be compensated, provided they establish equivalent or comparable initiatives.

My colleague, the member for Drummond, talked at length about that in her speech and since she is the health critic, I would like her to explain the meaning of that paragraph as far as health is concerned.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for Longueuil for his comments. I totally agree with what he just said.

First of all, I prepared a list of all the commitments from the first throne speech which have been reheated, as we say, and reintroduced in the new throne speech, to make us believe that they are new commitments. This is a replay of the first speech. These are promises which were made and not kept.

The government promised to improve integrity, appoint an ethics counsellor, introduce a bill on lobbyists and institute free votes.

The ethics counsellor is normally appointed by the Prime Minister, not the House. His or her advice is secret and nothing guarantees that the government will take it into account.

The bill on lobbyists which was passed, was a very watered down version of Liberal promises.

As to free votes, there have not been any. There have even been sanctions against those who stepped out of line, as we have seen when the firearm control bill was put to a vote.

Then we were promised support for education and research. Instead we had cuts in established programs financing and in transfers for education. As I told you a while ago, the result is that universities must cut, including in the area of research support.

The social security system was to be reformed in close co-operation with the provinces; this was another promise. What we had was the Canada social transfer and a $7 billion cut over two years in the areas of health, education and social security, without any consultation with the provinces.

The replacement of the GST is something we are still waiting for.

We were promised that health would be protected. A national forum on health was put into place. We had been told: "in co-operation with the provinces". We ended up with a $4.5 billion cut over two years under the new Canada social transfer, and the national health forum was criticized by all the provinces. It is still going around somewhere and no one knows what it is doing and what results it will produce. At the present time, all the provinces have taken steps on their own to make their own health reform, because health management is a provincial jurisdiction. So what is the federal government doing with a national health forum?

I have nothing against the people who sit on that forum. They are certainly qualified people, but what has it got to do with the provinces? It is our reform. Health ministers in each province are taking care of our needs. The federal government is spending billions of dollars on window dressing. It says it is taking care of the health system.

I would like to tell people who are watching us, Quebecers and Canadians alike: Please do not let yourselves be fooled by big programs, big forums like the one on health care.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne has carefully set out a number of important themes with respect to the unity of Canada, the development of Canada's economy and the development of Canadian society. These themes respond to the hopes and aspirations of all Canadians.

One of the themes made very clear in the throne speech is the need to understand that we in rural Canada face particular challenges that our urban neighbours often do not.

As we in rural Canada, in rural Ontario and in rural Parry Sound-Muskoka work to increase and expand our economic activity, our problems include such things as geography, transportation and low population density. Our challenges include the delivery of government services and the acquisition of modern and sophisticated communications infrastructure. These can be handicaps on existing or potential business enterprises. Solutions to these problems and answers to these challenges will provide many opportunities for businesses and communities in rural Canada.

An important distinction is found in the type of economies that exist in the rural parts of our country. Our rural economies are largely based on primary industries and depend on natural resources. Pursuing activities in agriculture, fisheries, mining, trapping or forestry can generate very different problems from those faced in an auto plant, a high tech manufacturing facility or the financial offices of Bay Street.

Fluctuating commodity prices, stifling regulatory regimes and the seasonality of employment are all economic realities faced by the men and women working in rural Canada.

There are important and often overlooked differences in rural Canada. We have defining cultural traits. We honour tradition at the same time as we look forward to and embrace the future. We turn toward our families and extended families for the type of support that today others expect and indeed require from the state. We understand the land and the sea and the importance of its riches. We have a long tradition of harvesting its abundance.

For recreation we also turn to those same places where many rural Canadians find their employment. Together with visitors from urban Canada and from abroad, we enjoy the natural amenities of rural and wilderness Canada in cottage country where hunting, fishing and a wide variety of other recreational activities can be pursued.

Work, family and the enjoyment of our natural world are basic to rural life and perpetuate very important values. These values in pursuits unite us a nation. Our unique lifestyle in rural Canada is as relevant to the farmer in Quebec as it is to the farmer on the prairie. It is relevant to the miner of Nova Scotia who understands the miner of northern Ontario. The fishermen of Newfoundland is closely akin to the fishermen of British Columbia.

In the throne speech the government made it very clear that it understands and recognizes both the importance of rural Canada and the unique nature of its challenges. I applaud the statement in the throne speech committing the government to the economic renewal of rural Canada. I am particularly pleased that this will be done in a way tailored to our specific needs and our specific challenges.

The task ahead is to provide the framework within which this commitment can enfold and to provide the specific measures that will lead to economic renewal in all parts of Canada.

It is important that rural Canada have a strong voice in government which I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, it does on this side of the House. It is important that voices resonate with our rural perspective and that these voices find expression at the cabinet table. I am confident that there are many capable men and women in the current ministry who can articulate the issues of rural Canada as we

work to implement our renewed interest in the well-being of rural Canadians.

As the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka I look forward to working with my colleagues in cabinet to help implement the government's renewed commitment to bettering the lives of rural Canadians.

We in rural Canada know we need to diversify our economies and to increase our education levels and skills. We know we must do this through community based actions in concert with the private sector and government.

While natural resources will always be an important sector we must value add to them to increase the returns to us in the marketplace. We must embrace the positive changes that are taking place in the world. We in rural Canada will be innovative but we will look to the government to develop a process that will encourage our potential.

The government has begun this process. Since 1993 federal departments have worked more co-operatively to improve the delivery of programs in rural Canada. Last year we established the adaptation and rural development fund which will provide $60 million per year to help rural Canada adjust to new economic realities.

Beyond this it is appropriate that the various regional development agencies which operate across Canada mandate a specific portion of their financial resources to rural Canada. I also urge that the $300 million fund that is being proposed under changes to employment insurance be used in rural Canada to provide the services and infrastructure necessary for long term economic development.

As I mentioned earlier in my speech, rural Canada suffers from a relative lack of technological communications infrastructure, considering the distances and lower population densities that exist. This deficiency sometimes puts our educational institutions and business people at a competitive disadvantage. Parents in rural and remote Canada also want access to good communication services for the safety, education and entertainment of their children.

I compliment the Minister of Industry on the school net program which is connecting many of the schools in my riding and across rural Canada with the Internet. I am also pleased to see the implementation of the community access program which will provide links to the community access network for up to 1,000 rural and remote communities, allowing them to market themselves and their products.

The government at the end of the first session of this Parliament announced the reform of the unemployment insurance system. This is an important and positive initiative. It must however recognize the economic realities of a rural economy dependent on natural resources to generate employment. Many of our jobs are seasonal because of climate and natural cycles. People work part time not because they want to but because they have to.

Reforms are necessary and reduction of costs are necessary, but reforms and reductions cannot be achieved solely on the backs of rural Canadians who work or invest in seasonal industries. I am pleased to see that we are addressing that question in our approach to the needs of rural Canada.

Another important component of revitalizing the economy is access to capital. The government has moved diligently in this area. The Federal Business Development Bank, now the Business Development Bank of Canada, has a new mandate as a complementary lender and has had its debt ceiling raised to $12 billion.

The community futures program is being revitalized and has new funds attributed to it so it also can help rural Canadians.

Today I call on Canadian financial institutions, which oftentimes tell us that it is too risky to lend in rural Canada, to use a portion of their $5 billion profit to find innovative ways to lend in rural Canada.

Canada began as a rural country and we have grown to become a world leader, a cosmopolitan people, an industrialized state, a highly urbanized nation. I am proud of all this. However we must remember our roots. We must remember the millions of Canadians who live and work in rural and small town Canada. We must remember the basic wealth generated by natural resources. We must remember the unique potential that is our rural Canada.

The government will not forget the contribution of rural Canadians. Rather, we are working to help rural Canadians make their contributions to strengthening the economic and social structure of Canada which will be the foundation of the national unity we are all working to achieve.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was afraid you might have forgotten me, but I can see you had not.

I would like you to know that it is nice to have you back. I wish to thank my hon. colleague for his speech, in which I could feel how truly committed he is to his riding. It was clear to me that the hon. member had very deep roots in the community that he represents here, in the House of Commons.

However, I would like to share my thoughts with him concerning two or three statements he made. The hon. member referred to the lack of advanced technology in his community, and I can easily imagine that high technology industries could be rather scarce in a rural area. This is an issue of great interest to me, and I would like

to ask the hon. member what concrete steps were taken by the government, in his opinion, in support of science and technology?

I am putting the question to him while bearing in mind that consultations were held at both the regional and the national level, and that the government had promised to table a white paper on science and technology. We are in the somewhat paradoxical situation where ministers keep telling us: "Canada is a developed country. Canada is a country of plentiful resources. Canada is rich with brainpower". But when you take a look at government reports-and I will close on this, because I can detect a trace of impatience in you, which is not in your true nature-and consult the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology, you learn that Canada ranks second to last in terms of public and private support for research and development.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I regret having to interrupt, but other members also want to ask questions. The hon. member will now answer your question.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. The point I was making about rural Canada is that the technological infrastructure, the ability to access the information highway, which is taken for granted in urban Canada as just being there, is often not available to rural Canada. When trying to attract business people and businesses to our area, one of the handicaps and competitive disadvantages often faced is lack of access to the Internet and high technology types of facilities.

I am pleased that the Minister of Industry has recognized this need. We are starting to see some very concrete programs such as the community access program and the school net program. These are important initiatives being undertaken by the Minister of Industry. They are making an impact in my riding and in other rural areas of the country. Obviously the minister intends to do more and I support this. I look forward to his initiatives in the weeks and months to come.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I regret, but members will each have their turn. The hon. member for Okanagan Center, briefly please.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Okanagan Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the hon. member on his remarks. He did a good job as he usually does on the industry committee. I was very interested to hear him.

I would like to address a question concerning three programs through which government moneys are distributed: the Business Development Bank of Canada, the community futures program and the regional development programs.

Would the hon. member please comment on the following. Is it not somewhat confusing to rural people to have so many different ways of looking at these things? Could these things be co-ordinated? What is his opinion about doing some of this in a more co-ordinated fashion instead of having one bureaucracy that deals with community futures, another that deals with the Business Development Bank of Canada and a third one that deals with regional development corporations which often become very little more than a political patronage type of agency?

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member has made a very good point. It is absolutely essential that there be a one stop delivery component or window for small business, not only in rural Canada but in urban Canada.

That is why the Minister of Industry has begun a pilot project called the Canada-Ontario Business Centre which will do just that. It will allow business people to go to one location to see all the various products the government and the private sector offers to assist them with their businesses. It is essential that there be one place to go rather than spending time shopping around. The minister recognized that need and he is working toward it.

To my colleague in the Bloc, I look forward to working with him in the coming weeks and months to see that the program is rolled out across Canada.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to give our colleague one minute?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The time allotted has expired. Is there unanimous consent to give one minute to the hon. member for Matapédia-Matane?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I would ask the hon. member to be very brief.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am anxious to put a question to the hon. member because I very seldom hear anything about rural communities in this House, particularly from that side.

The Eastern Quebec Development Bureau, as well as the operations Dignity, got started in our region 25 years ago. At the time, we worked very hard with people from various organizations. These were real people in that they took charge of their destiny. Twenty-five years later, I can see that the rural community is still in serious trouble.

Governments do not really seek to help us. I could talk about that for a long time. For example, we want to build a small slaughterhouse because we have to travel 100 kilometres to have our cattle slaughtered; we cannot do it locally, because federal standards force us to go elsewhere.

The Eastern Quebec Development Plan was abolished last year. That plan provided direct support to silviculture workers and helped land owners to get into forest management.

We also had, as everyone else in Canada, infrastructures. I want to put a question to the hon. member. In rural communities, what purpose did the infrastructure program serve, other than building sewers, sidewalks and roads? Such activities provide temporary employment, but they never create permanent jobs.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that reminds me of a question that was asked in the first debate on the throne speech about the infrastructure program.

It is not simply about the short term jobs that may be created by building a new sewer or road. What we need and what we lack in some places in rural Canada is infrastucture. When this program builds a new road or sewer system and unserviced lots are now serviced, the ability to attract business and economic activity and to create jobs is enhanced for the long term.

I think the program worked well in rural Canada. It delivered what it was supposed to deliver and it will lead to long term jobs. It is doing that right now.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to permit another question?

[An hon. member]

No.

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to support the speech from the throne which is the government's formal statement with respect to its plans for the new session of Parliament which started on February 27.

In this speech from the throne the government is setting out its directions, its policies, its skeleton legislation for the second session of the 35th Parliament.

While the speech from the throne is set out in general terms, as is the case with most speeches from the throne, in my view the general directions are good. There seems to be a return to what I would describe as traditional Liberal positions.

There are three main themes in the speech from the throne. The first is economic growth and jobs. The expressions of intent by the government are first class and praiseworthy especially with respect to young Canadians.

The second theme is security, security for those who will retire through their pensions, security for those who are sick through our national health care system, and security for the unemployed through an unemployment insurance system. There are also proposals with respect to security for our environment, security against crime and security in the international arena where we have had so much conflict in recent years.

The third theme in the speech from the throne is with respect to national unity. I will say more about this in a few minutes.

The details from the speech from the throne are fleshed out in due course following the speech. They are fleshed out in the government's actual legislation and in statements by ministers of the government. We will all be looking very closely at the government's legislative bills to ensure these bills remain true to the statements in the speech from the throne and also remain true to our election promises in the Liberal red book.

I still remain concerned with the high level of unemployment in the country. I remain concerned with the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I remain concerned with the development of the Canada health and social transfer and with respect to the proposals for pension reform which we expect to receive very soon.

With respect to the unemployment insurance amendments which were tabled near the end of the last session, there were some good provisions in Bill C-111 but others in my view were unfair and draconian. It is unacceptable that we should consider cutting the benefits of those at the low end of the benefit scale.

At the low end of the scale one receives approximately $500 a month. This is hardly enough to live on, hardly enough to pay one's rent, to buy one's food and the other basic needs of life. Consequently I cannot accept that we should lower these low end benefits. By doing so all we really do is shift those individuals on to the welfare rolls of the province and they end up being paid for by the very same taxpayers but in a more demeaning and difficult way.

I am anxiously awaiting the changes to the UI bill which will be introduced by the new minister. He said when he was sworn in that he had in mind making certain changes. We also expect that some changes will be made to the bill following the public hearings in a parliamentary committee.

I have only 10 minutes and cannot deal with all the subjects I would like to discuss in that time. As a Montrealer I want to spend some time on the national unity issue. The federalists, the no side, won the referendum in October. However, the margin was so thin that we have been left with a serious state of uncertainty which has

caused extreme harm to the national economy, especially in Montreal, but also to the whole province of Quebec.

I am pleased with the initiatives the government is taking to promote national unity and to deter another divisive and harmful referendum. First, I give my full support to the so-called plan A. It involves programs to inform Canadians about the benefits of Confederation, to promote Canadian achievements, to improve the operation of Confederation and to make it more effective for ordinary Canadians in all parts of the country.

We must demonstrate to Canadians in Quebec and elsewhere in this country that our two official languages, French and English, are a great asset and not a burden. Unlike many other countries Canada can do business in English and French: diplomacy, research, literature, theatre, films, television, music in English and French. These are outstanding assets which we should promote and use to our benefit. In no way should the asset of our bilingual policy be attacked and diminished. We have to convince Canadians of that.

I was also pleased with the statement in the speech from the throne that the government will promote exchanges in Canada so that Canadians, especially young Canadians, can get to know their country better and get to know other Canadians better. Prejudice builds and is fostered in a situation where we do not really know each other, do not talk to each other and do not really know each other's homes. I would fully support those initiatives referred to in the speech from the throne.

The government's emphasis and my emphasis is on this plan A approach. Our priority and preference is to make Confederation work better, to sell the benefits of Confederation and to see that Canadians know what is involved in the Confederation agreement.

The government has also mentioned what might be called plan B. I refer to a few lines in the speech from the throne:

But as long as the prospect of another Quebec referendum exists, the Government will exercise its responsibility to ensure that the debate is conducted with all the facts on the table, that the rules of the process are fair, that the consequences are clear.

Such an approach is necessary because until now the agenda on these matters has been principally controlled by the PQ Government of Quebec. That government decided when it would have referendums. It decided how often it would have referendums, what the question would be and what the process would be. These decisions affect not only the province of Quebec but the unity and the continued existence of one of the greatest and longest lasting democracies in the world. This is unacceptable.

It is essential that some reality be injected into this discussion. It is appropriate that this be done by the federal government, which must ensure that whatever is done is done in accordance with well established principles of democracy and law. The rule of law must prevail. In this respect the federal government must make absolutely clear that constitutional referendums, such as we have had recently in Quebec and in Newfoundland, have no binding consequences either legally or constitutionally. At the very best such referendums are only advisory and a possible basis for negotiation.

Referendums give no right to unilateral declarations for any kind of constitutional change, let alone to a unilateral declaration of independence. Of course a strong yes vote in a referendum would have political consequences, not legal consequences. It would provide a certain impetus for negotiation, but that is all.

Furthermore, the federal government should make clear that referendum results will not even be the basis for negotiation unless certain conditions are fulfilled. I suggest the following: first, the question must be clear, direct and unambiguous; second, the referendum and voting process must be fair and equitable; third, the majority required to proceed to negotiation, the next step, must be substantial, not marginal.

In other words, we should have a majority that is at least equivalent to the majority required for constitutional amendment. No country in the world allows constitutional amendments by the simple legislative process.

We must affirm in our policy that Canada is a federal state which has been internationally recognized and has successfully functioned for over 129 years, and that federal jurisdiction and sovereignty exist in all provinces.

The continued existence of such a state cannot be threatened by marginal decisions on ambiguous referendum questions. Steps to divide or separate such a state can be taken only after considerable deliberation of all relevant factors, unequivocal and conclusive agreement by all parties and in accordance with the basic principles of democracy and the rule of law. I believe this is essential as we continue with this discussion in this country. It is important that the realities of the situation be made known to everyone.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the first part of his speech, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce indicated one again that he favours maintaining social programs. He said so on many occasions during his long parliamentary career; he has always been very consistent on this point, even in the last few months. We have to salute him for this.

In the second part of his speech, which dealt with the Constitution issue, he showed the same consistency. However, I do not think that we, in the Bloc Quebecois, can agree with him when he says that, in the event of another referendum, a bigger majority

might be required. To start with, I have this question for him: In his opinion, what percentage would be acceptable?

On the other hand, he said that extensive consultations would have to take place. I do not have the same parliamentary experience as the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, but I have been in politics long enough to know, as many Quebecers do, that constitutional negotiations have been going on for 30 years and that they are leading nowhere. Let us remember 1982, Meech and Charlottetown. The member has witnessed many reports, the Spicer commission and hearings; all for naught. What does he expect?

I believe that, in this matter, he cannot claim naivety. It cannot be said that the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce is naive; he has too much experience. What I cannot accept is that he wants to increase the percentage needed in a referendum. Now that we know that the sovereignists needed only 0.6 per cent to obtain a majority, he wants to increase that criterion.

I would like to ask him what he thinks of the support received by the Maastricht accord in various European countries. In seven countries, I beliebe it was was carried by a majority of between 50 and 52 per cent. Is the hon. member questioning these referendum results which have led to the accession of some countries to the European union and which, by the same token, forced those countries to give up part of their sovereignty? Does he find that inacceptable?

I really would like to appeal to the democratic principles of the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce and ask him to tell us what he thinks of what I have just said. Also, while we are at it, could he tell us what he thinks of plan B which is being promoted by a certain Liberal candidate and which talks about the fragmentation of Quebec. I would like to know what he thinks of it because of his long parliamentary experience. I await his answer.

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's questions.

To begin with, I did not suggest we needed long consultations. I agree with him that the discussions have gone on for a long while and they need not go on for another long period of time.

What I was suggesting, which would be my plan B, and what I thought the government had in the speech from the throne, is that there must be some understanding with respect to the clarity of the question. What I was saying is that one should not be able to break up a country that has existed for 129 years on a vague and ambiguous question with a marginal vote.

If the question was absolutely clear and direct, that would be fine. For example, in the last referendum the question referred to an accord. I met many people as I campaigned who thought the reference to an accord was to an accord between the federal government and the provincial governments. Whereas it really referred to an agreement between the three parties that supported the yes position. There was reference to a very complicated bill. I read it but most people who voted in the referendum did not.

What we need are not long consultations, but to respect democracy and the rule of law there should be a clear, direct, unambiguous question.

I suggested that the majority should be more than a simple majority for legislation. There were never any rules with respect to majority. It is not that we are changing the rules now. The federal government never laid down any rules. As a matter of fact, we simply sought to win the referendum campaigns that were put to us by the provincial government. However, we did not say these should be the rules. I believe we should now say there are rules but we are not changing existing rules.

With respect to what the majority should be, I do not know. I have no suggestion to make now but I think that could be worked out. Certainly even to amend a club Constitution, even to amend the charter of a corporation one does not follow the simple procedures one does to pass simple bylaws or simple legislation. To amend the Constitution of this country we require two-thirds of the provinces representing 50 per cent of the population.

I do not speak only of referendums coming from Quebec because we recently had another one in Newfoundland with respect to removing the rights of religious minorities in schools. On Referendums on constitutional issues anywhere in the country that would have the effect of changing some very basic provisions, we should have an understanding as to what the rules of the game should be.

The results of these referendums affect the whole country. I cannot accept when some of my colleagues in the Bloc and the Parti Quebecois say this affects only Quebec. It does not affect only Quebec. It will affect the whole country. As a matter of fact, it could affect North America to a certain extent.

The rules of the game have to be clear. I believe in democracy if, to a clear question, there is a substantial majority, although I cannot say what that substantial majority should be, and it is clear that the people of Quebec want to say yes to a clear question on this issue. It is then clear that we have to negotiate. We have to also make clear that the results of the referendum alone have no legal or constitutional consequences but are simply a basis for negotiation, much different than many people thought when they voted the last time.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the throne speech, although I feel that what I should do is go to Hansard and pull out the last throne after the last election and repeat myself because there really is not much there that is new.

I will make an effort, though, to address a couple of things. I want to talk a bit about the enormous statement in the throne speech regarding justice. It is a little paragraph of about seven lines. There was nothing there to speak of but I will try.

However, before I do that I would like to get into a couple of things that were not in the throne speech which I think ought to be. I did hear a throne speech from the people, very capably delivered by our member for Beaver River. I would much rather speak to that one because there is some awfully good stuff in there.

What was not in this one is something that is of major concern to Canadians all across the land. I have been doing lots of travelling and talking to people from lots of places from coast to coast, the grassroots. They say when legislation comes out of this room it should reflect the wishes of the people. I could not agree with them more, absolutely correct. Legislation that comes from this place ought to reflect, must reflect, the wishes of the taxpayers, the wishes of the people.

When one operates as we operate in this room, one takes the Prime Minister and a handful of front row fellows or ladies who might be in charge of some portfolio who go behind closed doors somewhere, then emerge and tell their caucus members they will have employment equity and they will vote yes, that they are going to have gun control and that they will vote yes, that they are going to have this and they will vote yes, that they will have that and that they will vote yes. If they do not, they will be punished. They could even get kicked out of the party. That is not a democracy. That is not legislation according to the will of the people. That is dictatorship.

The people I talked to would like to see that come to an end. The people in this place should have the ability and the opportunity to represent the people who sent them here. That is not a whole lot to ask for. It is thoroughly disgusting when they come from behind closed doors and are ordered by a small group on what should take place.

I will read from a newspaper statement. It was a description of what one citizen felt was wrong with this. I used this line quite a bit across the country: "Our country is ruled by unelected, dictatorial and imposed judiciaries who were put into place by a self-serving parasitic fraternity".

That is pretty strong but that is exactly how people are beginning to feel. The kinds of decisions made are not reflecting their wishes. There are things happening in this wonderful land-it is the best in the world, I agree and I sure want to keep it that way-that do not reflect their opinions. Decisions made at parole boards are an example, or decisions at a refugee board or some other judiciary body. No one is accountable for any of these decisions and that is what they do not understand it.

I would really like to see a throne speech address these things, saying we will have a little better democracy than what we have been accustomed to. For a change, we will allow the people to debate an issue before the decision is made, not after.

What a farce to stand in the House of Commons and debate an issue that is supposed to be decided here when it has been decided five days before. Is that democracy? No, it is not. That is the kind of thing they would like to see from a throne speech in my riding, something that would change and make them feel like they are having a little more say in how their country is run. That is not a whole lot to ask for.

When we get to the judicial part, I have to really smile. I saw the Minister of Justice stand in his place the other day answering questions, saying to the Reform Party: "You did not vote for Bill C-37. You did not vote for Bill C-41. You did not vote for Bill C-45. You did not vote for Bill C-68. Therefore you are the bad guys. You are the ones who are not looking after our victims", et cetera.

In most cases every one of those bills was highly debated with amendments put forward that addressed the victims. That is what was defeated from that side of the House. There was no concern for the victims when these amendments were offered on their behalf. Do not point across the way; point at yourselves when those decisions are made.

Look at some of the headlines across the land: "Small schools". One does not get this in national news but in community news all the time: "Parents fear violence at high school escalating". That is happening across our land.

Do I hear anything from this party regarding the violence in schools? I have gone into the schools and asked: "Are any of you frightened? Do you have any fear"? They all are. There are problems out there. I hear nothing from over there except a lot of rhetoric.

Then they say we have the Young Offenders Act, Bill C-37. Bill C-37 was supposed to do something. I have a hard time understanding how that document could be accepted by the government and at the same time it instructs the justice committee to travel across the land to see what people want done with the Young Offenders Act. I thought that was supposed to fix it.

Let me read an article that came out of my local newspaper about a 16-year old girl who was charged for assault. She bashed a girl's head against a brick wall: "Mid way through the court proceedings the crown prosecutor asked the judge to instruct the accused to take the matter before the court more seriously. The girl and friends in the gallery were apparently laughing and joking among themselves as the judge spoke". I have been to court and I have seen these things and that is how they take it.

I have spoken to kids in schools and asked: "What do you think about the Young Offenders Act"? They tell me it is a joke: "If you think I am not going to be afraid or that I am going to try and help the crime problem by ratting on somebody, forget it. There is no protection for me".

Even worse, I have an article quoting a top notch lawyer, an ace lawyer, a really good one. I am told he is a tremendously good one from the Vancouver area by the name of Russ Chamberlain: "The pushy Richmond lawyer, champion of culprits, says `crime, victims and citizens, anti-crime groups, are blood thirsty whiners wanting revenge"'. That is how he talks about the victims. Then he goes on to say: "Crime victims want an eye for an eye. They want someone else to fix their petty problems and that their pitch for personal vengeance can improperly affect a jury's verdict. Victim impact statements are just venting the spleen and do not serve justice and should be outlawed, banned completely".

I have a few more quotes. One is a lawyer in the legal system, a top notch lawyer making these kinds of statements: "Petty grievances, weepy tears. Victims are not doing any good for us in our wonderful justice system". He must be a card carrying Liberal.

Another article is from a president of a Liberal association. Guess what the president of this Liberal association says. He is from Fraser Valley West, talking about the rally we had concerning victims the other night, a successful rally with 2,200 people: "The rally is an easy emotional heart string puller for an extremely complex problem". I do not like using this language, but it is quote: "It is easier to sit here and piss and moan for 20 minutes". That is getting to be very common language in the House. I guess that is a new word they learned on that side of the House and they are spreading it around.

We have comments from a president of a Liberal association who says that victims are sitting around whining and moaning and that it is doing no good, but 2,200 people came to that rally and they were not all victims. Many were, but not all of them. They are angry.

The government ought to be ashamed of itself that the best it could come up with in a throne speech is seven lousy little sentences when the problem concerns the whole country. It ought to get out and take a look.

In the two and a half years I have been here we finally have something. It is from my colleague from Fraser Valley West, victims' rights. We will be fighting for that.

According to everything I have seen, we will not see much of a response from that side. We have not seen it in the past and I do not expect to see it in the future. If I thought for a minute there was any hope, then section 745 would be out of the Criminal Code today. It has been demanded by Canadians from all across this land for two years that killers should not be let out in 15 years. But no, we sit and let it die. We do not bring important things like that up. We talk about horses or what should be the national sport.

If the government were serious about doing something about crime it would wake up and pay attention to what is happening. It had better start. I do not care what kind of qualifications this minister has. If the best he can do is what he has done in the past two and a half years, he ought to quit. He is doing a lousy job and he ought to resign. He has done nothing except produce documents that are very controversial all across the land.

If the Liberals had any dissension within their own group they were scolded. They were scolded because they voted against Bill C-41. They were scolded because they voted against the gun law. There were darn good reasons why they should have voted against those bills.

Let us get some democracy back in this House. Let us get some people in here who are dedicated to doing the job. Let us represent the people across this land and quit being so self-serving and I will applaud this place forever.