Debates of March 5th, 1996

Speech From The Throne

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources if she feels the government should reconfigure how to calculate the royalties on the oil and gas sector to try to extract an extra $100 million out of the industry.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

At this time I would like to take the question under advisement to my minister. I am sure the Minister of Natural Resources will respond very quickly, as she does.

[Elijah Harper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and honoured to speak on the throne speech.

I believe in my heart in these issues. I refer to our aboriginal people, our way of thinking, our philosophy in the country. I also want to talk about the national unity debate.

This is very important to aboriginal people, as we are referred to in this country and in the Canadian Constitution, those being the Metis people, the non-status people who live off-reserve and also include the Inuit who live in the high Arctic and the First Nations, the first inhabitants of this land we call Canada.

What is happening in this country causes me great concern not just with the economic situation we are facing today but the divisions happening across the land. It has always been our belief that we should live together in harmony and in peace and to have honour and respect for each other. Those certainly were incorporated in the treaties that were established when the newcomers came to this land, the Europeans who arrived here 500 years ago.

People in this country have to realize the history goes beyond the past 500 years or more, that there is a history to this country. That part of history has been ignored and not understood by many Canadians. The focus of the national unity debate is to bring people together. To go about that we must have open minds.

Our people certainly opened their arms to the people who came to this land to share the land and resources, inherent in the treaties established with the governments. I am particularly saddened when I hear comments by members opposite that the country will fall apart. I believe it is in the interests of everybody, all Canadians, all aboriginal people, to maintain the unity of Canada. It is our desire that the country remain united.

I have challenged our aboriginal leaders, our aboriginal people to maintain the unity of the country. In December of last year I called for a sacred assembly to bring people of this country from

different walks of life, with different spiritual and religious denominations together. This included the Mennonite central committee, the Catholic church, the Anglican church, the United church, the Presbyterian church, the Reform church, and so on. All churches were included plus the non-Christian people, the Hindu, the Jewish people and our traditional people.

The aim was that we begin to understand each other through that process, to develop an open mind with tolerance and an understanding of each other. Many people came to this sacred assembly. I was very disturbed by a member of the official opposition party, the member for Saint-Jean, a Bloc Quebecois member, when he stated that although the themes of the sacred assembly were supposed to be reconciliation and spirituality, instead the assembly "reeked of politics".

That statement derides and insults the people who were there, including the head of the Anglican church, the primate, the head of the United church, the moderator, and other religious leaders who were there. They cannot defend themselves in the House. It insults the people who were there who were concerned about the country.

I stated at the sacred assembly that as aboriginal people we have a greater responsibility than any other group of people in this country to maintain the unity of the land we call Canada. It is our home and we have nowhere else to go.

On December 12, 1995 in the House the Bloc member also stated he disagreed with me on that: "The notion of spirituality transcends politics and the great creator has no use for national boundaries. The next step would have been to come straight out and say that the creator is Liberal". Those are statements made by the official opposition member.

It was not intended to be that way. What I wanted to tell him is God is aboriginal and that he loves him and does not want him to separate. God wants him to remain in this part of the country, in this part of the world. We have so much to share in this country. We have rich resources and this land. We have so much to share among all Canadians.

Some of these comments disturbed me. What is the purpose of this institution? Parliament is the highest institution in terms of law making decisions in the country. It is a national institution. Where else do we go to correct these things and make laws for our people? This is where decisions are made.

The throne speech identified many areas, which I would like to address for my constituents. In the red book commitments were made to deal with some of the aboriginal issues such as the inherent right to self-government and the land claims process. Those things are happening today. The government is proceeding with that.

Recently we saw a land claims settlement in British Columbia, a part in which treaties were never entered into. Finally after hundreds of years they are getting a land claim settlement. I am glad to see that.

I am disturbed, though, by the politics involved. It seems this is being used as a political football. It is not based on history. It is not based on equality. It is not based on justice. Rather, it is based on trying to retain control and power in that province. It saddens me that these things are happening in that part of the country rather than being based on equality and trying to obtain justice country for our people. We have waited for a long time to resolve these issues.

The throne speech also focused on northern Manitoba, job growth, social security and many other issues.

I am very honoured to be here, able to speak on behalf of my constituents in northern Manitoba. Their concerns are unique because we are isolated. We are in northern Manitoba and are easily affected by the economy. The cost of goods is very high. We do not have the same amenities as southern Manitoba. Travel is very difficult because of the isolated communities. We have to fly in the goods and groceries and provide the basic essential services for many of the communities I represent.

I know we are trying to address many of these things in government. As I participate in the discussions I want to bring more of these things forward to the government, to the ministers so they can provide the answers and move in the right direction for our people.

Certainly I am honoured to be here as an aboriginal person in the Chamber, able to bring forth the concerns of not only my aboriginal constituents but many other aboriginal people who have come forward to me expressing their concerns, especially about national unity.

We want to be involved. We want to be part of the process. We play an important role in maintaining the unity of this country. We play a key role in this whole process and we do not want to be left out because we are the original people of this land.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to commend and thank the hon. member for Churchill for his presentation.

I would like him to comment on the unfortunate statements recently made by the minister of Indian affairs, who dabbled as a futurist by speculating on the future of a sovereign Quebec and its relations with the native communities.

You may recall the inflammatory, aggressive and irresponsible comments made by this minister, which caused quite an uproar in Quebec. Fortunately, the great native leader Ovide Mercredi acted

more responsibly and rebuffed the minister of Indian affairs by telling him-if I remember correctly-that this was not the time, that he had no right to manipulate native communities in their relations with the government of a sovereign Quebec.

Given the role played by the hon. member for Churchill in the history of Canada and Quebec-remember Meech Lake-I would like to know what he thinks of these statements and this debate and where he stands on all this.

[Elijah Harper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, those were the minister's statements. I am not responsible for what he says. I am sure he can defend his comments.

I will say that it requires tolerance and understanding, particularly in the province of Quebec, between the government and the aboriginal people. We have comments as reported in the Toronto Star on January 20 by the premier of the province of Quebec who was saying there are two peoples, two nations, two territories and this one is theirs and it will never be partitioned. Later on in another news article it is stated that sovereignty is inevitable.

It has to be taken into account that we are the First Nations people. We have always taken the position that Quebec is part of our territory. Agreements were made between the First Nations people, the federal government and the province of Quebec. I have always held that the federal government should play a key role in this process to uphold the constitutional responsibility and also the treaty responsibility it has to the aboriginal people to protect the interests of the aboriginal people in that province. Whether it be the Mohawk people, the Innu people, the Montagnais, the Cree in that province, the government has that responsibility to uphold that and to ensure that their rights are protected, including the lands of the aboriginal people in that province.

We have to keep an open mind that this will happen peacefully, that there will not be any incidents that will cause harm to this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member for Churchill. I would like to make some of my own comments. I do not have a specific question but perhaps he could reply as to what he feels about what I am going to say.

I have had some experience overseas with conflicts that are very similar to the difficult situation we have with the aboriginal people and the rest of Canada. I spent some time in the South Pacific and observed what was happening there. The approach used by the member with his sacred assembly was used very successfully in the South Pacific. I took a great deal of interest in what he was doing. I compliment him on the steps he has taken. He is heading down the right path and I urge him to continue because it worked in the South Pacific.

Some of the problems experienced in Australia and in some of the South Pacific islands when I was there were that there was a lot of conflict between these people. The solution finally came when the grassroots told the elites in their society: "We do not appreciate what you are doing. We need to reconcile. We need to get together". I understand that is what is happening. I urge the member to continue that and I support him in that. Unfortunately because of previous commitments I was not able to attend his assembly.

I agree very much that we need an open mind and we need tolerance in dealing with some of these things. It appears there are elites in society whose approach to this problem only fosters more division. It appears to be to their benefit that these certain elements, who seem to have a vested interest, continue to foster this process of confrontation. We have to get away from that by talking to each other.

Another observation is that the view of looking back in history alone is not always sufficient in reconciling some of our differences. That view also has to be balanced by looking ahead to where we want to go as a nation. What do we want to achieve? What kind of a country do we all want to live in? In talking to many of the native people in northern Manitoba and on the reserves in my riding in Saskatchewan, this is what they are saying as well. The people around my constituency are also saying that. We have to bring this together.

In conclusion, if there is any injustice that is taking place, we have to resolve the issues so that everyone in society will perceive that justice is being served and that all concerned are being consulted in this regard.

[Elijah Harper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was certainly very pleased with the result of the sacred assembly. It was done in a very short period of time. They told me it takes about two to three years to organize such an event. I think we had the creator in our hands because it was such a success.

There were statements made at the sacred assembly, principles and priorities that were recommended to the participants. A proclamation of reconciliation was also put forward that the people can take forth as a role for individuals, churches and spiritual leaders and also as a role for governments on a reconciliation journey and understanding in this country. It would not be just among aboriginal people themselves but would include every other nation in this country, whether it be people from Pakistan, Asia or other parts of the world who come to this country to live. That is something we have to address.

We saw how fragile this country is just between two groups, east and west, the French and English. There needs to be an understanding and a healing. Reconciliation work has to be done in that area, not just among aboriginal people. We know there are a lot of problems in our communities but I keep telling our people that we have to do it ourselves, nobody else can do it for us. However, we do need some help and understanding in that area to begin to address some of those issues which have been outstanding for many years.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Okanagan Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sympathy for the spirit that has been engendered with the comments made by my colleague from Lloydminster and also my colleague across the way from Churchill. This kind of conciliatory attitude ought to prevail in a whole variety of areas.

In rising to address some of the aspects of the speech from the throne, I wish to refer to the particular area where the speech from the throne is particularly unspecific. It has to do with updating legislation governing financial institutions to ensure that the legislation continues to be relevant to the emerging needs of businesses and consumers.

It is absolutely correct that we need to do this. The difficulty with the provision in the speech from the throne is that there is no particular direction as to what should happen. Will that legislation deal with all financial institutions, that is, insurance companies, banks, trust companies, securities dealers, credit unions? Does it contemplate the establishment of a new schedule of banks so that there will indeed be some competition in this area, or at least a change in competition? Will there be changes regarding the privacy and confidentiality of personal information?

It is perfectly clear in the provisions of some of the banks at the moment that if you make application to become a client in one section, then personal information such as name, address, assets, liabilities, indebtedness to one part of the bank is automatically transferred to another. If you decide not to allow that to happen, then the financial institution, in this particular case the bank, has the right to terminate your business relationship with the bank upon 30 days notice.

Will it deal with the levels of access of capital by small business? I was rather impressed by the minister of foreign trade who suggested that perhaps we ought to have more export and that the banks should lend more money to small business. Is he suggesting that there be some kind of legislation that will force the banks into lending to a certain level to certain kinds of businesses in certain parts of the country doing certain kinds of business?

Will the legislation deal with how we shall evaluate various kinds of business, particularly the knowledge based industries where the technology and knowledge is the issue and there are no hard assets that there are in certain other sections? Is that what the legislation will address?

The speech addresses none of these kinds of things and therefore we do not know where it is going. The fundamental issue in terms of that legislative change or examination should address the question: What should be the appropriate balance of influence and power among the financial institutions in Canada? It is a relative position. Who should dominate? Which institution or group of institutions? There is no direction in the speech that indicates there ought to be that kind of balance and where the balance should lie.

That is an absolutely crucial question which needs to be addressed and it is not. That is a very serious shortcoming.

I also would like to very briefly touch on the significance of science in our economy and address the comments that were made by the auditor general in 1994 when he said: "In today's world, economic progress is measured by the ability to provide at competitive prices the variety of common and new products and services that global markets demand. This requires the ability to adapt and commercialize the results of science and technology". This is a very insightful remark and one that we ought to take very seriously.

What ought to happen here is that the government should create in whatever way it can and in every way possible a new awareness of the role of science in our educational institutions. It should not do the kinds of things that were done last year when it terminated the recognition of science teachers and the granting of scholarships for students of science.

We need competition among institutions to provide the most cost efficient and relevant programs. We need a new system of introducing a consumer model in post-secondary education so that student choice can have an economic dimension to it. There could perhaps be such things as vouchers so that the educational institution is not granted funding simply on the basis that the institution exists, but rather on the basis of competence, competition and strength of the programs it provides for students.

One part of the throne speech is very specific and it is this particular specificity I want to address. On page 12 of the speech from the throne is found the following paragraph:

Action has already been taken to recognize Quebec as a distinct society within Canada and to guarantee that no constitutional change affecting any major region of the country will take place without the consent of that region.

Now comes a humdinger of a statement:

The government supports the entrenchment of these provisions in the Constitution.

We have just heard about the need for reconciliation. It is important for us to recognize one another as citizens of one nation. We need to be tolerant with one another. We should not create exclusiveness between one group and another.

I suggest that the time has come for us to accept one another as Canadians. If distinction is to suggest that I am distinct from my colleague from northern British Columbia, from any one of my other colleagues of the Reform Party, from any one of my colleagues across the way or in the Bloc, yes, I am distinct. However, that does not create any special status for any one of those people or any special status for me as an individual.

It is very clear that the issue that needs to be addressed today is one of building a relationship, not finding ways in which we can draw distinctiveness between us, which separates one another and creates some kind of special position relative to one another based on where we live, what we speak and what we believe.

We need to build. The word that we ought to talk about is building, not separating. We need to build, to work together, not to become exclusive or distinct in some way. These thinks should be looked at.

I would suggest not a perfect document but a document that comes to grips with what ought to be the characteristics of a Confederation in which all Canadians are treated as equals. I suggest that the government look at the 20 proposals for Confederation that were presented by the Reform Party. Look at the implications and the consequences of the matters that need to be addressed in the event that separation ought to be contemplated in a serious way. It is not a perfect document. It was put out for discussion and examination. It should be treated very seriously.

If the Prime Minister truly wants to unite this country, then I suggest that he listen to the people. They are sending a message to us and to him. It says yes, we are distinct in the sense that each one of us is distinct from the other. But do not ever divide us into categories based on geography, on race, on language or on religion. We are Canadians, no more and no less. Dare not divide us into groups based on where we live, what we believe or what language we speak.

This speech is at the same time so unspecific as to be non-directional and dangerous in that it threatens to divide people who want to be together and be united. It is within this context that I would like to propose an amendment to the amendment we are debating at this point.

I move:

That the amendment be amended by adding after the words "Quebec society" the following:

-and in particular, recognition that it is the separatist movement in Quebec that threatens the economy of Montreal.

Much was made a moment ago about how the economy is dropping in Montreal. The reason it is dropping is because of the threat of separation of Quebec from Canada. That is the reason for this amendment. I urge the House accept the amendment to the amendment and support it.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

The amendment is in order.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, the current throne speech presented in the other House and written by the Prime Minister is a desperate statement of promises by a desperate government in a desperate situation.

To get elected the Liberal government promised to get rid of the GST but so far it has not kept its word. Here are some comments and quotes throughout the past few years.

On October 16, 1993 the Deputy Prime Minister said: "If the GST is not abolished under the Liberal government I will resign". On March 2, 1996 she changed this to: "If the GST is not replaced under a Liberal government I will resign".

On September 27, 1990 the Prime Minister said: "I want the tax dead". On May 2, 1994 he said: "We hate it. We will kill it".

The current Minister of Human Resources Development said: "The goods and services tax is a regressive tax. It has to be scrapped and we will scrap it".

The new revenue minister on March 24, 1994 said: "As Liberals we were elected to change the tax, abolish the tax, scrap it".

On April 4, 1990 the finance minister declared: "I would abolish the GST. The manufacturers' sales tax is a bad tax, but there is no excuse to repeal one bad thing by bringing in another one. Let me figure this out. Does he not think by merging the GST with the PST and bringing in a national sales tax he is doing the same thing? Is that not just replacing an old bad tax with a new bad tax?

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

They do not think so.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

On February 6, 1996 the Liberal member for Broadview-Greenwood said: "We are going to defend the status quo. You can tell by the way we are treating the GST. I am dead in the water with this government. It is one word, trust. I am doing my best to fight for tax reform, but my best is not good enough".

"Get rid of the GST" has become harmonized. "Kill the GST" has become harmonized. "Abolish the GST" has become harmonized.

As the Liberal member for York South-Weston, a former Liberal leadership candidate stated: "I hope we do not try to hoodwink people into thinking our commitment was contingent on the provinces agreeing to harmonize their taxes with the GST".

This potential Liberal leader further stated: "The integrity and credibility of the Prime Minister are at at issue. He made promises. We all made promises. We went door to door to scrap the GST and if we do not keep that promise it will be very difficult for Liberal MPs to go into an election knocking on the same doors, asking support once again from people they lied to in the first election campaign".

In the red book the Liberals promised to replace the GST. They cannot even do that.

In a desperate act the Liberal government proposes to transfer the problem of getting rid of the GST to the provinces by promoting a national sales tax, by promoting harmonization which will be nothing more than a change in name to the son of the GST.

[An hon. member]

A tax is a tax.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

If provinces do not co-operate, guess what? It will be the fault of the provinces, not the Liberal's fault. The Prime Minister is not going to eliminate the GST. He is just going to rename it.

To get elected the Liberal government promised to create jobs with its infamous infrastructure program of $6 billion. Now that it has failed it challenges businesses to create the jobs that it could not and in a desperate move will try to blame the private sector for high unemployment. The problem is not government overspending, it is not high taxes, it is not oversized government, it is not duplicity in government services, it is the private sector that is at fault. The government will not accept any responsibility. Blame business, blame the provinces, blame the opposition, blame the backbenchers, blame the markets, but for heaven's sake do not ever blame the federal government.

The government promised to preserve and protect social programs. What does it do? In a desperate move it lumps all funding into one Canada health and social transfer, reducing the funding for education, health and welfare by $6.6 billion. Talk about slash and burn. It is another desperate but clever move to shift responsibility to provincial governments. Let them take the flak for the cuts on programs that they have to administer after the federal government reduces the amount of money they receive.

By the way, the Reform Party cuts to education, health care and welfare would have only been $3.3 billion, not the $6.6 billion that the Liberals propose. That is one-half of the Liberal cuts. We recognize that education is the key to future jobs.

The government promised no return to constitutional wrangling. In the new throne speech, in a desperate move because it almost blew it during the referendum with poor advice to Canadians it wants to quickly entrench distinct society and a new amending formula in the Constitution.

I get a laugh when the Liberal members always harass Reformers and say: "Where were you during the unity debate? What did you do during the unity debate?" We listened to the Prime Minister. He told us to stay away and keep our mouths shut for fear we make the separatists in Quebec angry enough to vote for separation. That is what he told us to do. That was the Prime Minister. That was the leader of this country telling us: "Don't worry, be happy, it is all looked after".

Can you picture a replay of the Meech Lake, Charlottetown type of shenanigans across the country again? In desperation because the Liberals have no plan, have no people, they want to go behind closed doors with a first premiers conference to discuss jobs, devolution and the Constitution, hoping the premiers have solutions.

When the Prime Minister campaigned he said he had a plan, as he waved his red book. Now after two years he has revised many of his plans, replaced 70 per cent of his people and brought two outsiders into his cabinet. This is a desperate move to strengthen the cabinet, which just shows his lack of confidence in his own people.

Abraham Lincoln said: "You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong". This desperate government is now attacking profits of banks and businesses, trying to shift the burden of responsibility. Are profits a sin? Do not profitable companies retain employees and do not bankrupt companies lose employees? Why not attack the government overhead instead?

For instance there are 5,000 people in the Department of Health working in Ottawa. They are not doctors, they are not nurses, they are not receptionists, they do not have anything to do with the internal functioning of the hospitals and delivering health services. Ottawa just transfers the money. Why do they need 5,000 people to write 10 cheques to 10 provinces?

Lincoln said: "You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer". This desperate government plans to increase payroll taxes despite the fact that the wage payer pays 1.4 times the wage earner for the benefits of the wage earner.

Lincoln also said: "You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn". This desperate government clings to the belief, in fact brags about deficit spending. The deficit last year was only $39 billion, it will only be $30 billion this year, next year it will be $25 billion and it is going to get to $17 billion. Wow, aren't we doing great? The Liberals see nothing wrong with deficit spending.

Lower the deficit, the economy will grow. We cannot continue to add to the deficit. That is the problem. We are adding to the problem. We must have a surplus budget creating hope, growth and

opportunities. A simplified tax system would complement the spending cuts of the government and would provide the vehicle we could all ride to greater prosperity.

My last Lincolnism: "You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence". I have a suggestion for this desperate government. The way to create initiative and independence is to reward it with lower taxes, not higher taxes. The way to expand the economy is to lower government spending so that we can have lower taxes, so individuals and businesses have more disposable income, which in turn would expand the economy.

The way to create jobs is through a simplified tax system, a form of a flat tax which is pro-growth, pro-family and represents progress toward solving economic problems besides just spending cuts.

The government is so desperate it is even firing its own people from jobs well done. What a shame. What a desperate display to cover up the lack of leadership.

I submit the best solution, notwithstanding the many good ones already made, is that the government plan a fall election this year and allow the people of Canada to vote for the party that has plans to solve our debt crisis, our debt problem before it is all too late.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is appropriate to congratulate you on your new appointment. I know you will do a very good job on behalf of the House.

In the few moments I have I could not possibly respond to all the points the member has raised. This is the member who proposed to the House that MPs' salaries be increased from $64,400 a year to $125,000 a year to make it fair. That says a lot about the quality of the contribution the member has made to the House.

The member referred to the Canada health and social transfer. I will deal with that since he was quite critical of the concept. As the member knows, the federal government transfers on behalf of post-secondary education, health and under the Canada assistance plan for health and welfare. That consists of tax points and cash.

There were circumstances under which the cash component was being reduced to the point it would shortly be eliminated in a couple of provinces. In response the government combined the transfers into block funding so there would be a cash component available for some time until other arrangements and permanent cash positions could be established.

As a very simple example, here is an instance in which the member has been critical of the government for making a move which allows the federal government to have an opportunity to enforce national standards, particularly on important issues such as the health care of all Canadians.

Here is a member who has been a proponent of a flat tax. He has no specific proposals but knows very well that according to his proposals a flat tax may be more simple but the only aspect of simplicity is that it simply transfers the tax burden from high income earners like him to low income Canadians. That is what the member is after. He is after a shift of the burden to low and middle income Canadians. I believe the member has shown very well to the House exactly what he stands for.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that the member opposite questions the quality of the contribution I have made to the House. I will talk about the quality of the contribution I have made.

I have talked about integrity and I have talked about honesty while that member has sat opposite and laughed. I did not say $125,000, I said $150,000. I said it because I believe the government was paying itself those gold plated, fat cat, huge pensions with millions and millions of dollars to be paid to its members when they are finished serving in the House. Is that what we are here for? That is not what we are here for.

We are not here for the $64,000, but to serve the country. However, the way we compensate members of Parliament is something that has to be addressed. That is what I said. I received a lot of compliments from members of his own party about my having the courage to talk about the compensation issue. I should have stuck to the pension. I now have a conflict of interest by saying how much because I am an MP.

I should not have stated an amount, but the member well knows that when it came to the pension debate, the quality of that debate was deteriorating because from the Prime Minister on down everybody in the House who opted in wanted to take care of their future pensions on the cry that we do not make enough money in salary. All members agree we do not have a high enough salary but they do not talk about the high pensions.

I walked from the pension. I am such a smart businessman that I walked from this pension. If I get re-elected I will not qualify for a pension and neither will any of the Reformers in the House because we have integrity. We attacked it and criticized it with the exception of one Reform member. Fifty-one out of fifty-two walked from this and that is the quality we have provided. That is the quality of debate I am providing to the House.

If the member wants to talk about an issue, let us talk about the entire issue. Where is this member on the pension? Did this member walk from the pension? Does this member believe that after he leaves he deserves millions and millions of dollars for the work he did during years he was here?

I get upset when somebody questions the quality of what I contribute to the House. I am in the House and I am supposed to debate issues, putting forth my ideas and suggestions. Nobody has to agree with them, but who in the House has the God given right to

check and verify quality? I think the member should take a look at his own quality in terms of his criticisms.

I also want to talk about the simplified tax system. A simple tax is a very complicated tax. It is a complicated tax that takes a lot of discussion and a lot of debate. The advantage of simplifying the tax system is to restore the purpose of the income tax back to its original purpose, which is to generate revenue.

If we do that, all of the programs we want to give Canadians we can deliver through grants and subsidies and not by the complicated income tax system in which bureaucrats and politicians can distort and play games in society both economically and socially. We should make it more visible, transparent and taxable. These are the issues I stand for. I want to have things fair and above board, not in back rooms behind closed doors.

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, welcome to your post. We look forward to a very pleasant and interesting House with your guidance and leadership.

I am very proud to rise in the House today to speak behalf of my constituents, the people of Mount Royal riding.

In the past weeks I have received remarkable outpourings of support from Côte-St-Luc, Hamsptead, Snowdon, Côte-des-Neiges and the town of Mount Royal. My constituents have really renewed and re-energized my commitment to them. I thank them from the bottom of my heart.

What is a throne speech? It is words. What are words? Words are the key to communication. They can comfort and confront. Words can build harmony and social cohesion or they can lead to violence and death.

The Heinous and vile acts which took place through the Hamas terrorists and which destroyed the peace and lives of men, women and children are unacceptable, beyond belief and beyond description. My sympathy and the sympathies of the House expressed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and particularly by the Prime Minister go out to all those families where words led to sharp differences and where there has not been a way to lead to peace, social cohesion and to the ability to live together in a way reflective of respect for differences.

That is what our throne speech is all about. It expresses our shared values as Canadians and the values of the Liberal government. It is about our aboriginal people and the two broad national groups and their communities, the broad language groups, central to our national vision.

By reinforcing our economic and social union we are building solid foundations for a strong and united home, a home for all Canadians from all parts of Canada regardless of gender, origin, race, language or creed. We are determined to renovate our home as we have done over the last 125 years, to make room in it for all of us with respect and dignity.

These are not words. These are found within the Constitution of our country, within the laws of this land and within the concepts behind this throne speech. It is a blueprint to a remodelled Canada, a prosperous Canada, a united Canada.

It speaks to my constituents in Mount Royal in a very special and direct way. My riding is a microcosm of the macrocosm that is Canada. It is as diverse as our country. It is the mosaic of many ethnic minorities where French and English are heard, mixed with many other languages, where young and old, men and women, rich and poor, of all hues, races, languages and religions live together in harmony.

However, it is a riding that is deeply nervous, very concerned and very upset about the future, living daily on the fault line of the national unity issue.

My constituents should take heart. I believe firmly that stability with economic growth and social cohesions will prevail. That is the message of this throne speech. It reaffirms our commitment to the people of Mount Royal and to all Canadians to build a strong social and economic union that will keep the country together.

We all know the United Nations has called Canada the best country in the world. We know that in our gut. We never get around to expressing it. We get around to expressing it only if we are taking our luggage and going out of the country. We put a Canadian flag on, a Canadian button on, and all of a sudden we are very proud to be distinct with our wonderful maple leaf.

We get around to saying it only when we are in trouble, which we were on October 27. That was the discussion around the referendum. That is why Canadians came together, to express the desire as a country to live together and to stay together. I suggest we start saying that more often, thinking that out loud and being proud of all the things we do.

Moreover, the referendum results clearly showed that Quebecers want some changes to the federation. Their wish is no different than that of people in the other provinces of the country. People everywhere in Canada want change. As I already said, we have to reorganize our house. Indeed, what is the House of Commons? What is the National Assembly and what are all the other bodies of elected representatives? This is a big house and we have to run it and be aware of what goes on inside. We have to take care of our elderly and of our children; we have to ensure that people have a

decent life with their spouse and that they have a job. This is, in essence, what the speech from the throne is all about.

We have a federation that has been in evolution for the last 25 years. There are many more things that unite us than divide us. It is about time we started to look at all those things for which we can count our blessings, particularly as we look around the world.

We are working with the provinces and individual Canadians to ensure the federation is modernized to act and operate effectively and efficiently within clearly defined jurisdictions.

For example, the federal government pledged not to use its spending power to create new programs in areas that come exclusively under provincial jurisdiction, except with the consent of a majority of provinces.

There are also other areas in which the federal government does not have to get involved. More specifically, we are prepared to withdraw from the manpower training, forest, mines and recreation sectors.

We will work to continue the process of reducing barriers to internal trade and labour mobility. We will end costly duplication because we propose to work with the provinces toward the development of the Canadian securities commission, a single food inspection service and a national revenue collection agency.

The Prime Minister will meet with the first ministers. I am pleased to note that Quebec will focus on the economy, the people and their needs. I think if we get together to look at what we are responsible for and remove that duplication we will be a much more efficient and effective country. The problem is most people do not know what is federal jurisdiction versus provincial jurisdiction versus municipal jurisdiction. We need clarification.

This speech today on the throne speech is a generic speech. It addresses what I consider to be the global words that affect the atmosphere in which we live. We all live in a major envelope. We live where the environment has to be in balance with work, the economy, security, children, addressing questions of poverty, the social and economic problems that beset us.

I hope that with more time and the ability to examine and put into focus the economic forward movement we find in this speech as it addressed the particular issues I have just alluded to, so the scales of justice will be in balance, older people will not have to worry that they will not benefit from their pensions because their pensions will not be touched. My goodness, if we do not touch the Canada pension plan our children and grandchildren will not be protected because they will have to pay too much and they will not be able to support it. That is just one example for the elderly. There are other examples for child support and for children.

It is time for my colleague to add to what I have said and to give his own perspective from his part of the world. In the meantime, I hope the constituents of Mount Royal will appreciate the beauty of the words encapsulated in the throne speech and the forward look with care and devotion which is behind the thoughts and the values of the government.

[Roger Simmons, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Madam Speaker, first I want to congratulate you on your election as the House's acting Speaker. I am sure that your constituents from Madawaska-Victoria are proud to be represented by you in this assembly.

My congratulations on your election. We are very proud of you.

I have spent time both in the provincial house in Newfoundland and in here and I have had occasion to participate in other throne speech debates along the way. This one gives me particular pleasure because it does strike three things I can wholeheartedly support: job creation; preserving the social security net; and addressing the national unity issue. These are issues all members of the House can identify with. I understand the Bloc has a particular perspective on the third issue of national unity, but with that qualification, I am sure members of the House generally can concur with the need to promote those three objectives.

Let me address something my friend from Calgary Centre was on to a few minutes ago. By way of illustration, let me tell him and others in the House that the former Premier of Newfoundland, Joey Smallwood, was known and berated by the Tory opposition in Newfoundland for 40 years. He was berated for having said to Newfoundlanders: "Burn your boats".

The context was that we had come into a new industrial age and we would not have to fish any more because there would be lots of jobs on the land. According to the critics of the day, Mr. Smallwood had said: "Burn your boats. We won't need to go fishing any more. There are going to be thousands of jobs on the land". The phrase, burn your boats and the attribution of it to Smallwood went on for 30 or 40 years.

Most Newfoundlanders today are absolutely sure that Smallwood made that admonition, gave that advice to Newfoundlanders, particularly the fishermen. The fact is that he never uttered the

words but that did not matter. It was said often enough by the Tory opposition that it became the accepted truth in Newfoundland that he had said it. If you are from Newfoundland it is a classic example of how something that never was gets into the record.

I come to what the gentleman for Calgary Centre and members of his party are doing today. They set up the old strawman and then knock him down. "You guys said you were going to do way with the GST". No, we did not. They are waving the red book here every day. Well, let them read the red book on this one because the red book is very clear. On page 22 of the red book it says very clearly that the Liberal government would replace the GST with a system that "generates equivalent revenues, is fairer to consumers and to small business, minimizes disruption to small business and promotes federal-provincial fiscal co-operation and harmonization".

The member for Calgary Centre says that we suddenly slipped in the word harmonization. We did not just slip it in. It was on page 22 of the book they have been quoting from for the last two and a half years. It has been there all the time but they did not read it. It is the old strawman approach: Quote them as having said something and then show how they did not come true to their quote, even though the quote was false in the first place.

I never stood on any platform during the 1993 election saying that we would do away with the GST as such. What we said was that there had to be a fairer tax, that it had to bring in the same amount of revenue and that we would undertake to replace the GST with something fairer. Let there be no mistake about it. We need the kind of revenue that is generated by the GST. Nobody in his right mind suggested that the revenue which was generated from the GST would be done away with. That was never ever said.

Let us go back to the themes in the throne speech. The one I am particularly pleased about has to do with job creation, the whole issue of jobs and growth. So far the government's record is not that bad.

In the first couple of years since November 1993 more than half a million jobs have been created. The unemployment rate has come down two full percentage points. It is now under 10 per cent for the first time in five years. Canada enjoys the highest growth rate of the G-7 countries, the big industrial countries, the United States, Japan, Germany, France, Italy and so on. The government under the leadership of the Prime Minister must be doing something right to have these results to show after only 28 months in office.

I want to focus for a moment on youth unemployment, particularly as it relates to Newfoundland. Going back to 1990, the youth unemployment rate in Newfoundland was 25 per cent. That is the 15 to 24 age bracket. In 1990, 25 per cent of them were unemployed. By 1991 it was 28.1 per cent unemployed in Newfoundland. By 1992 it was 30.2 per cent. In 1993, the last year of the Tory administration, it went over 31 per cent. It went from 25 to 31.1 per cent in the last three years under the Mulroney and Campbell administrations.

Beginning in 1994 we began to see a turnaround. It was still terribly high but it came down. It began to drop from 31 to 30 per cent, then to 28 per cent. It has come down in the couple of years this government has been in power but 28 per cent of one's young people in Newfoundland, ages 15 to 24, without work is still nothing to be proud of. It is lower than it was but it is nothing to be gleefully shouting about.

More needs to be done and the government has recognized that. It said so in the throne speech last week. It is going to take steps to double the number of summer student jobs. Summer student jobs are very important for young people. For most of them it is their first crack at a job. It is their first opportunity to prove themselves in the workplace. It comes as very welcome news that the government is going to do that.

I was also pleased with the emphasis in the throne speech on the knowledge based industries. There again, that is the wave of the future. That is the way to go. In Newfoundland we are getting in on that action too. A number of communities in my own riding are benefiting from the government's initiative in this area.

It is trade of course that is at the heart of the reason the government has been doing so well in fostering economic growth and creating jobs in the last couple of years. In that context I want to salute the Prime Minister's trade missions. They have been marvellous successes.

Unfortunately my time is up. Otherwise I would talk about some of the success stories that have flown from the Prime Minister's trade missions right into Burin-St. George's, right into the province and riding I represent, creating and stabilizing jobs there.

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague for Burin-St. George's with a great deal of interest as he addressed the questions of youth, youth training and the amount of attention we are paying to youth unemployment.

It is a very serious question in my riding as well. We do not want youth taking to the 401 because of the referendum that is hanging over our heads in Quebec. I bring to the attention of my constituents that as long as that referendum question hangs in the air, we have an obligation in this government. We have a responsibility to ensure that the debate is conducted with all the facts on the table, that there are clear rules of procedure, that the process is fair, that the consequences are clear and that all Canadians have a say in that.

I am very pleased that my colleague clarified the question on the goods and services tax. We never said we would get rid of the goods and services tax. We said we would harmonize it and we would raise equivalent revenues in the process of trying to deal with a new method to ensure that it is fair, understood by all and that small business will not be crushed by the mechanisms that have been put into place.

Does my colleague not get a sense of comfort because Newfoundland has developed such outstanding and creative artists in the field of song and dance? For example the CBC program "This Hour Has 22 Minutes" is so uniquely from Newfoundland. Was he not encouraged to see that we are focusing on cultural industries recognizing their worth and are supportive of the CBC?

We look forward to the budget speech tomorrow and seeing how well we are going to do with respect to our interests in cultural industries.

[Roger Simmons, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague for Mount Royal has given me the opportunity to say something on the cultural issue.

I am proud of the leadership the government is giving to this particular initiative. Yes it is tough times but the government has avoided the temptation to treat cultural industries as something that are dispensable. It has paid more than lip service to them and that is to its credit.

The hon. member has also given me an opportunity to beat my chest as a proud Newfoundlander. I never miss the show "This Hour Has 22 Minutes" and I hope she does not either. It is a marvellous show and I know all four of the characters. In the good Newfoundland sense of the term they are characters, all of them. It is a great tribute to Mary Walsh for having dreamed up the idea and having provided the leadership, following it through and now being part of the cast.

The danger of course for all you up along Canadians in fostering the cultural enterprise of this country is that you are going to allow very many talented Newfoundlanders to rise to the surface. I could mention Rex Murphy and his Sunday call-in show. We are going to take over this country altogether.

As you know from John Crosbie, Brian Tobin and Don Jamieson and others who have come here, acting is what we do well in Newfoundland. If you encourage us at all, you could be in a lot of trouble up here.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the answer given by the member for Burin-St. George's to his colleague concerning a cultural affairs program. This is all very nice, but the issue here is youth unemployment. The member is pleased that the unemployment rate is a mere 25 per cent, that it has gone down somewhat. I find that rate to be very high. It is at least 8 per cent higher than in the rest of the country.

I have a question for the member, since he provided some figures. Last year, when I sat on the human resources committee, we went to Newfoundland. People told us, of course, that the number of UI claimants had gone down, that the number of welfare recipients had gone up, and that young Newfoundlanders were leaving the province in droves because they could not find work there.

Since the hon. member surely knows by heart the exact figures for Newfoundland, I would appreciate it if he would provide them.

[Roger Simmons, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Lévis for his question and comment.

Without blaming the translators, something obviously got lost in the translation. I said in essence what he implied at the end, that while the youth unemployment figure is down to 28 per cent I immediately followed up by saying that is nothing to be particularly proud of. That is what he is saying. It is still very high. I said in my speech, in fairness, that it has dropped down a little and we can take some encouragement from that. However, I believe my next sentence was that it was nothing to be particularly proud of. That is not good enough. I agree with him that it is a little better, but just a little.

That is why I took comfort from the fact that we have a federal summer student job creation program which will double the number of jobs this year.

I agree with my friend from Lévis that we need to do more, particularly in the area of youth unemployment. So much needs to be done and he and I are on the same wave length.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not wish to ruin the day for those who are watching us on television, but I have bad news for this House, as well as for the people of Quebec and of Canada.

I would like to divide my reply to the throne speech into three phases.

The first thing that struck me was how the Prime Minister seems to be haunted by the last referendum. I think that he has not yet grasped that federalism won, that the message being sent was that real changes were needed, but that, for now, people expected that we would deal with the economy while trying to let old wounds heal, wounds that were still raw when we came back here in November. The expectation was that the House would renew its efforts on the economy.

But no, the Prime Minister seems to have made Canadian unity his priority, while it was not one, not a problem, at the beginning of the government's mandate. I wonder. How could public confidence be gained? I do not think the throne speech has succeeded in making people feel more secure, even if there are references at various places to safety and security, whether environmental, individual, or international. I do not think the government is managing to make people feel any more secure, because it is not saying what the people want to hear.

But since it seems intent on talking about it, I am not in the least ashamed to show my colours in the matter. What about those three little points they passed before the holidays: the distinct society, a form of decentralization-for when, I do not know-and veto rights? We know where all that got them. No one wants to hear any more about it. Reference is made to a distinct society, but the attitude we had adopted, and which we maintain, is that this was not enough and, even, that the proposal made to us was hollow.

I tell myself that I am perhaps still naive, that I perhaps do not understand everything, that there is perhaps something hidden there I will have to understand at some point. But reading the papers yesterday, we could see that the new Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Stéphane Dion, is thinking exactly the same thing we are: the distinct society is meaningless.

He said as much in black and white using the new terminology borrowed now by the government-security-with the aim of reassuring people from Vancouver attending the conference. I cannot wait to see Mr. Dion come and repeat that to the people of Quebec, who were expecting real change. He is saying in black and white that this is not important, that it means nothing and that we should not be concerned with it.

He was talking to a strongly federalist audience-they are allowed-but he was telling them what they wanted to hear, and it is not what Quebec wants. It provides no security for the people of Quebec to hear a discordant speech like that, something that is supposed to bring back unification, but that is meaningless.

The other minor point I would like to make in the debate on the throne speech, still on the subject of the referendum and the fear of the sovereignty movement, is the possibility of the federal government holding a referendum. I would like to advise my colleagues in the House right off and advise the government that never will Quebecers, at least the people in my riding, allow the Government of Canada to tell them what to do or to impose its will.

What they expected after losing the referendum was real change. We have accepted defeat. People have come to me and said: "Yvan, we were not with you, but we hope there will be change. If there is no real change, however, have no fear, we will be behind you".

So, this is a signal and I hope the government will understand. It could be said they are working to help us, when we are really trying at the moment to find a period of calm. We are really trying to build what could be a partnership between two peoples living together in this huge space. I have no problem with the name Canada. What I want is for us to be able to do what we want in our own territory, to be sovereign in our territory.

I am going to speed up, because I would like to talk a bit about the economy. What do we find in this speech regarding the economy? Try as I may, I cannot find much to reassure us. On the contrary, I see disturbing things. With regard to an effective social safety net, the people in my riding were wondering about the status of UI reform since Parliament had been prorogued. I told them that they could continue to demonstrate in an organized manner, without disrupting their neighbours' lives while still showing their dissatisfaction.

I told them the government would set out its agenda in the throne speech and that the Minister of Finance would put figures on the government proposals a week later-as we will hear in tomorrow's budget speech. It is clearly written here that the government will ensure the UI bill will reflect conditions in the labour market while respecting the fiscal parameters of proposed reforms.

In other words, the status quo. We expect the new Minister of Human Resources Development to fully review this bill, as the Minister of Finance has indicated that fiscal parameters would represent cuts of at least 10 per cent. The die has been cast. All that can happen this winter are cosmetic changes. Is this what I am to understand?

In this case, the people in my riding have a right to be concerned and to continue to demonstrate. We had already suggested that the government should go after family trusts and urge all Canadians to pay their fair share of taxes.

Allow me to quote a few lines from the speech made by our leader, the hon. member for Roberval: "Total profits for the five major banks reached $4.9 billion, but 2,800 jobs were cut". This is shocking. If the government is looking for a new source of tax revenue, it should start there.

"GM Canada reported record profits of $1.4 billion, while at the same time laying off 2,500 employees-Bell Canada recorded profits of $502 million, but also eliminated 3,200 jobs". There is nothing reassuring about this if large corporations like these are really interested in short term profits.

Madam Speaker, you are indicating to me that my time is almost up, but I am sure some members will want to ask me questions so that I can elaborate.

It is not by threatening to retaliate against companies that do not comply-I think that, in the budget speech, the government should show its true colours right away and raise new taxes to ensure that the burden is distributed equally.

In conclusion, there is nothing new in the throne speech, except that the government has made Canadian unity a priority, when everyone is asking it to tackle our economic problems. What I find most outrageous is that they prorogued Parliament, but for what? They are already talking about reinstating the old bills. The government should really do its homework, listen to the people and work on the economy.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member discussed several issues, but what really caught my attention is the fact that the government wants to reinstate, without amendments, the Unemployment Insurance Act. I sense that the hon. member did not have enough time to say everything he wanted to, regarding this issue. He told me about it on other occasions. I want to ask him what has been going on in eastern Quebec over the last few months, since Bill C-111 was first introduced, and to tell us about how satisfied people are regarding this measure.

I am sure his answer will be of interest to you, Madam Speaker, since, as we all know, you come from Edmundston, in New Brunswick, where the issues are the same. So, I ask the hon. member to tell us more about the unemployment situation in his area.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is an excellent question and also an excellent opportunity provided to me by the hon. member for Lévis.

I jotted down some notes. In the Gaspé Peninsula, the working population currently stands at about 43 per cent. This means that only four persons in ten are working or actively looking for work. This is a very serious situation. It means that out of 10 people who are of labour force age only 4.3 actually work.

This gives you an idea of why there is so much discontent right now. What can these people turn to? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Moreover, let me repeat that, given the financial implications of the speech from the throne, we can anticipate a 10 per cent cut.

Since the Gaspé area, including the Magdalen Islands, gets something like $170 million under the unemployment insurance program, a 10 per cent cut means $17 million less in the region's economy. This is in addition to the reform made to the costs of fishing permits, which was implemented by the former minister and which the new minister intends to maintain. The minister hopes to get some $50 million from the fishermen's pockets with that.

The Gaspé Peninsula accounts for about 10 per cent of Canada's fish harvesting. Ten per cent of $50 million is another five million. In other words, we are in deep s-, up to our necks, and this is the moment the government chooses to take $22 million out of our region.

You can see why people in the Gaspé Peninsula and on the Magdalen Islands are upset. Seals are not the only ones looking for food; people are hungry too. They want to work, but they get no offers.

So, what do they do? They show their discontent. Wherever we meet them, they tell us: "We want to work". But what is there for them? Nothing. It must be understood that these people have been told to wait and wait, that they are alone to face the big federal machine. At present, they have forum to get their message across to the government.

It is easy to say that the minister will organize public hearings, but the closest one that was proposed, and that was a video conference, was in Rimouski. It takes half a day to drive from the Gaspé Peninsula to Rimouski. This is a lack of respect toward people who are supposed to live off UI benefits, who are being bled dry, and who will lose another 10 per cent which, as I said earlier, amounts to $22 million.

Time is running out and so are people's hopes. Those who live in the Gaspé Peninsula are proud people, like those who live in your region, but the government must understand that the fate of these regions is in its hands. If the minister really wants to go forward with that reform, he should at least be man enough to say: "I am putting a stop to that. I am imposing a moratorium". Until the unemployment rate goes down, the minister should shelve his reform. This is the message that people from the Gaspé region asked me to convey to the minister.