Debates of March 5th, 1996

Indian Affairs

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

What about the B.C. Liberals?

[Ron Irwin, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

They find it fiscally responsible and publicly acceptable. Why will the Reform not admit that they were wrong when they attacked a group which has been negotiating with the white people for 30 years without success, through 12 ministers. After 30 years they finally have what they have been sitting at the table for. It is just and fair and we are proud of it.

[John Duncan, Reform, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is not a balanced deal. There is much controversy among the media. We are not attacking any group. We are trying to place responsibility where it belongs.

The minister can dance around the issue all he wants but his primary function is to spend taxpayers' money wisely and be accountable to the taxpayers when doing so. He has failed in the past. He has failed with this deal. The auditor general has confirmed this fact over time. We deserve better.

Will the minister commit today to giving the auditor general the mandate to exercise full oversight of the spending of federal dollars in the Nisga'a deal?

[Ron Irwin, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, balance is in the eye of the beholder. Not long ago the Reform Party said the Criminal Code had to apply to the Nisga'a. They agreed.

The Reform Party said that the charter of rights has to apply to the Nisga'a. They agreed.

The Reform Party said that you cannot constitutionalize the commercial aspect of the fishery. They agreed.

The Reform Party said they must pay taxes. They agreed.

Why will the Reform Party not stand up today and say that these people are reasonable? They dealt with us and did many of the things we wanted. They get no credit for their goodwill and I condemn the Reform Party for that attitude.

Corporate Downsizing

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

On Thursday the Prime Minister challenged business to create jobs. On Friday Conrad Black's Hollinger Inc. took ownership of the Regina Leader-Post , the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix and the Yorkton Enterprise . The next day 25 per cent of the employees of these newspapers, 182 jobs in all, were terminated because Conrad Black said: ``These newspapers made profits but not enough profits''.

In view of this latest corporate job massacre which is clearly a slap in the face to the Prime Minister's challenge, how long will the government tolerate this lack of corporate responsibility before taking any action?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister laid out a challenge to all Canadians, to the business community, to labour unions, to educators and to governments that we must all come together to deal with what is a very deep problem, the changing nature of work.

There is nobody on this side or that side of the House who approves of the kind of corporate downsizing that is going on without regard to the long term effects on communities in terms of the people. This is not behaviour that is supported by the business community itself. Loyalty from employees is very important if a company is going to do well. One person's employees are another person's customers.

This is a problem on which all Canadians have to come together to solve. It is a problem that we will all solve together and this government is going to lead it.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen in Saskatchewan and across the country a number of jobs that have been terminated by large corporations receiving corporate tax breaks from the national government.

Will the government give its assurance today that these corporate tax breaks are not provided to corporations that lay off employees, even though they are profitable? Will the government launch an investigation into the question of concentration of ownership and the lack of competition in the media?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, over the past couple of years we have eliminated the great majority of what the member would call corporate tax breaks.

The major incentives in place now are one that will encourage research and development which is very important and the lower tax rate for small and medium size business. As the member knows, small and medium size business creates over 95 per cent of the jobs in this country. That is one break that is worth keeping in place.

The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

Speech From The Throne

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne indicates the Liberals have not delivered on one promise they made in the last election campaign so they are making these promises one more time.

The Liberals have talked about creating jobs. Let us go over the list of jobs they have created. Bell Canada made profits of $502 million last year and laid off 3,100 employees. Petro-Canada made a profit of $196 million and laid off 564 employees. The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce made over $1 billion in net profits and laid off 1,289 employees. General Motors made a profit of $1.39 billion yet laid off 2,500 employees.

Shell Oil made profits of $523 million, an increase of 63 per cent over last year, and laid off 471 employees. Imperial Oil made $514 million, which was an increase of 43 per cent over the previous year, and laid off 452 employees. The Bank of Montreal made a $986 million profit, an increase of 20 per cent over 1994, yet laid off 1,428 employees. This is the job creation program of the federal government.

We have seen the government in every field give contributions in terms of tax breaks to these corporations which have a corporate responsibility, a community responsibility to use the profits they make to reinvest in Canada either through capital, through job sustenance or through job creation. This has not been done by the corporations because the Liberal government has allowed it to go unattended. As a matter of fact, the government is encouraging it.

How is the government encouraging it? The corporations I have mentioned have made substantial financial contributions to the Liberal Party. They are large political contributors and what do we get in return? We get the Liberal government turning a blind eye to these very policies which are not job creation policies but job elimination policies.

The speech from the throne, which somebody has more appropriately referred to as the speech from the toilet, is exactly that. It does not seem to address the real problems of Canadians.

On Saturday we saw another disaster with respect to this government policy. On Thursday the Prime Minister in the speech from the throne challenged business to create jobs in Canada. He

pleaded by saying to the business community: "I challenge you to create jobs".

On Friday Conrad Black, a multibillionaire in Canada whose company Hollinger Inc. took possession of the Regina Leader-Post , the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix and the Yorkton Enterprise in Saskatchewan. The next day 25 per cent of the employees of all three newspapers were laid off. According to Mr. Black as quoted from the newspaper, the reason was: ``These newspapers made a profit but they didn't make enough profit''.

I am challenging the government, I am challenging the Prime Minister today to define for Canadians how much profit is enough before corporations have to stop laying people off when they are making profits.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Winnipeg—St. James, MB]

What is enough?

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

My colleague from Manitoba across the floor asks how much is enough.

There is an attitude in the corporate world and it is supported and nurtured by the Liberal government which says: "You can have as much profit as you want. We do not care as long as you keep giving us money and political contributions".

I want to mention a couple of things about Mr. Conrad Black. Toronto's establishment Upper Canada College expelled him for stealing and selling examination papers. This comes from a 1992 Maclean's article. I quote from the article: ``Black has frequently expressed a distaste for reporters, calling them a very degenerative group with a terrible incidence of alcoholism and drug abuse, who are often ignorant, lazy, opinionated, intellectually dishonest and inadequately supervised''.

This is Conrad Black who is now given tax breaks by the Liberal government to take over all of the daily newspapers in Saskatchewan and then lay off 25 per cent of their employees. We are going to give him a tax break because his company is going to buy a printing press in Saskatoon and who is going to subsidize this? The Liberal government policies. This is absolutely outrageous. I think Canadians are sick and tired of this, particularly those in Saskatchewan.

I also quote Thomas d'Aquino of the Business Council on National Issues: "The Prime Minister left the impression that we were not creating jobs but frankly we are a bit disturbed by that because over the last three years the private sector has created about 600,000 new jobs". The private sector may have done that but while the small and medium size businesses in the private sector have done that, the large corporations are taking all of the tax subsidies allowed by this government. They are laying off people and the smaller businesses are starting up and creating their own jobs, many of them very low paying.

Mr. d'Aquino said as well: "We have not been asleep at the switch. We have not been creating as many new jobs as we would like, but to suggest or leave the impression with Canadians that chief executives are out there just downsizing and throwing people out on the streets without any sense that you know in fact it is going the other way, it was a mistake".

The evidence we have seen in this country in the last six months is exactly contrary to what Thomas D'Aquino of the Business Council on National Issues is saying. It is entirely the opposite to what the speech from the throne is saying in terms of creating jobs. I believe many of the Liberal backbenchers are ashamed of the throne speech because of the things that are happening with respect to the lack of commitment to the Liberal Party's jobs strategy.

New Democrats are calling for the government to implement a Canadian code of corporate citizenship. This is a very important code. It would say to the business community and to Canadian citizens that if they are making a profit that they are operating in this country, that they are committed to building their communities, to maintaining jobs in various occupations and as well, they are making a profit and will share the money through a fair taxation system and also will give their employees a decent increase from time to time.

I am absolutely opposed to the speech from the throne and I will be voting against it when it comes before this House.

[Morris Bodnar, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard in the speech by the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden about the cuts that have been made in Saskatchewan. No one is happy at all with the cuts that have been made by Hollinger.

The hon. member has not mentioned the cuts that have been made by his former colleagues, the NDP government in the province of Saskatchewan. Saskpower has cut literally hundreds and hundreds of jobs in the workforce and the government in Saskatchewan has devastated rural health care. Nothing is being mentioned of these matters.

When the federal government is creating work in Saskatchewan the NDP in Saskatchewan appears to be destroying the jobs as quickly as we can make them. Has the hon. member overlooked this particular matter of the job devastation which has occurred in Saskatchewan with the provincial government or is it simply something that has slipped his mind?

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

As usual, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from Saskatoon does not have his facts right. Saskatchewan has seen an offloading by this federal government of $600 million over three

years. Six hundred million dollars amounts to $600 for every man, woman and child in Saskatchewan. On top of that we have seen the elimination of the Crow benefit by the government opposite which amounts to another $350 per man, woman and child per year. Almost $1,000 per person per year is now lost out of the economy in terms of revenue sharing and equalization with respect to social programs.

The government has not done what Alberta has done or what the Liberal government opposite has done, simply hacking and slashing. What we have done is we have taken a balanced approach to the problem. The balanced approach is that they are making up some revenues in terms of trying to minimize the impact of that cut. As well, they are going through a process of attrition, early retirement and other procedures where people have some dignity in terms of what they are doing after they leave certain positions.

The member talks about devastating health care. This government promises in its red book and in the speech from the throne to improve health care and make it better. How can the government make it better when it is cutting $7 billion from the health care plan without looking first at efficiencies?

For example, if the Liberal government repealed Bill C-91, the drug patent legislation, we would save the governments, the drug plans and the health care plans in this country over $2 billion a year right off the top. That is the increased cost this bill has allowed prescription drugs to increase by as a result of the government's supporting the large pharmaceutical companies that give substantial contributions to the Liberal Party to get re-elected, which is no surprise to the member from Saskatoon.

The government allows little things like this to proceed while it costs our health care system and devastates it from another perspective. I think it should be looking at that issue very closely and addressing it.

I thank the member for his question. Now that he has the facts he will be able to go back to his riding and share them with his constituents.

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in this historic throne speech debate.

This is my first foray in the House of Commons debate as minister of Canada's environment. I am proud to bear this responsibility. I am equally proud to stand before the House and reinforce this government's direction. A government stands or falls on its record. In this regard, the Liberal government stands and stands tall.

I have listened to opposition members with some degree of interest, and some of their criticism may be valid. However, taking it in total, they act a bit like grasshoppers on a Sunday morning. They fill the air with a lot of noise but all they are looking at is the one single blade of grass in front of them. If they could just get a little higher and have a wider perspective they might see the whole meadow because it is a big meadow.

The priorities before us in the throne speech are straightforward. We intend to build on our accomplishments of creating jobs and growth over the last two and a half years, provide additional security for Canadians and continue to modernize this federation to ensure national unity and national prosperity.

As the speech from the throne confirmed, the environment has a big role to play in all three of these priorities. Sometimes the Canadian environment's profile slips, hidden for a while behind media generated fog on other issues. However, I can assure hon. members that it is constantly in the public's mind and it is consistently at the very front of the public's mind.

Not many months ago a major research study indicated that the so-called elites of our country, senior mandarins, senior politicians, senior media and senior captains of industry, the opinion shapers, ranked the environment 10th on the list of 22 issues. Yet in that same study the general public, people we are accountable to, placed the environment as the second most important issue in their minds. One good reason Canadians feel so strongly and passionately about their environment is it is at the very core of Canadian identity.

Our environment is linked to national unity with bonds of Canadian granite. Our environment is part of our national imagination in the same way that black spruce is part of the forest. After all, does it not pervade our literature like a prairie wind and a call of the wild? Do we not have a maple leaf on our flag that we salute and defend? Do we not have birds and animals on our coinage? Do we not sing songs about four strong winds, about the Canadian Rockies and our Atlantic and Pacific heritage? You bet we do, and so we should.

Our natural heritage, whether it is in the Nahanni River of the Northwest Territories, the wild shores of the Labrador coast or the glaciers of our rugged Rocky Mountains, is not only part of our very being and shapes who we are, but it is also a major draw for international tourists and a major reason why immigrants come to Canada to invest, work and live.

Let us also not forget that our Canadian natural heritage is also important to the world. For example, 20 per cent of the world's fresh water supply is located in Canada. I might add that 18 per cent is in the Canadian Great Lakes alone.

I want to contribute to the preservation and improvement of this heritage. I am committed to it and I am proud of this commitment. We will cultivate security and fairness in our environment, thereby reinforcing our national pride.

As the throne speech stressed, we will speak in the national interest with a strong voice at home and abroad to protect both our environment and the health of Canadians. Because environmental security is a goal of Canadians, the House will soon debate a revitalized Canadian Environmental Protection Act, CEPA. It will change the emphasis of government from reacting to the toxins and pollution at the outflow of the pipe to preventing the pollution at the front end.

We also know this can succeed only if there is a partnership between governments and their citizens. That is why the legislation will allow citizens, not just their governments, to start action in our courts in order to clean up their environment. This legislation will not only help defend our environment and the health of our fellow citizens, but it will be an example of how this government keeps its word.

In the red book we promised to focus on preventing pollution at its source. CEPA will do this. We said that the winning industries of tomorrow will integrate environmental and economic efficiencies and CEPA will help make this a reality. We predicted that in the years ahead stricter environmental standards will be propelled by a number of international environmental, moral and market forces, and CEPA will help Canada respond to those very forces.

The House will also see an endangered species protection act. This too will be part of our environmental security thrust. This is important legislation and we need to get it right. We need to establish with the provinces a strong national framework within which endangered species may seek their legitimate protection. I have already received some important input from the committee, from environmental groups as well as industry and I anticipate hearing more before finally proceeding.

Although our watchwords are co-operation and partnership, we know that Canadians expect their national government to speak out and act on the issue of the environment which ultimately may affect their health. These are issues which do not respect political boundaries or lines drawn on a map. We intend to meet their expectations.

When we talk of partnerships we must also stress and recognize the role played by the provinces and the territories. We should never, therefore, fall into the trap of playing politics with our ecosystems.

After all, as federal and provincial ministers, we are the managers of an environmental heritage that we will pass on to future generations.

I already had discussions with my provincial counterparts and we all agree that we face an enormous task. As we know, progress has been made during the past few years, because all levels of government responded to the wishes of the people. They put the environment at the top of their priorities and they worked together as partners.

I am pragmatist and I will bring a pragmatic approach to working with my fellow colleagues from the provinces and territories.

However, this co-operation does not mean giving away the store which is the message I get from some of my hon. friends across the aisle. It means ensuring there are no gaps in our joint pursuit of environmental protection. We intend therefore to strengthen those partnerships and those processes in order to achieve that goal.

We can point to a number of examples of how partnerships have already produced significant and successful results. Look at the work that has been done between the province of Quebec and the federal government to clean up the St. Lawrence and protect the habitat of the beluga whale.

Look at the partnership approach to the successful recovery programs for the return of the peregrine falcon to southern Canada. These magnificent birds have disappeared from southern Canada but are now raised through a federal provincial recovery project at a federal facility in Wainwright, Alberta, then released to the other provinces across the nation. Our work, together with the provinces and the territories, is really like a measured journey; we do it one step at a time.

At the same time our environmental work cannot be allowed to start and finish in our own backyard. Just as environmental security does not fit tightly and neatly into municipal and provincial boundaries, it also refuses to be defined by national borders. Consequently the environment is an integral part of our foreign policy and we will continue to show leadership abroad on such issues as climate change, biodiversity and ozone depletion. On this issue we truly are all in the same boat.

We will see unity in action when it comes to Canada's environment. There will be people working with other people. This will mean governments, communities, neighbourhoods within communities, environmental organizations and industry all working along side each other.

There was a classic example yesterday in my riding. The federal government through our department's action 21 program was able to support financially a group of individuals who have taken the initiative for the last number of years to restore Black Creek, a major tributary to the Humber River. The impulse, the incentive and the idea came from local residents. They were in essence ahead of their governments. That is what action 21 is about, trying to empower citizens locally in thinking locally and hopefully pushing governments to act nationally and internationally.

The throne speech also mentioned three specific areas for job creation: youth, science and technology, and trade. These three areas fit in very well with our priorities for the environment. It is reassuring to note that a growing number of industry leaders think that the fact they are being compelled to protect the environment is not a barrier to economic growth. The truth is, many of them believe that environment protection represents an opportunity for growth in the Canadian economy.

More work needs to done. Every captain of industry, big, medium and small, needs to be convinced of this truism. Take a look at some of the leading industrial nations. Japan and Germany are both world leaders in energy efficiency, pollution prevention and control technologies. They have the very same environmental standards that we will be proposing in CEPA. Clearly environmental partnerships and environmental sensitivity have not held back the performance of those two countries and their respective economies.

In Canada it is true that we need jobs for Canadians and especially jobs for our youth.

I am a firm believer that when it comes to Canada's environment, it is not an either/or proposition. The choice is not jobs or protecting the environment. As a country we can and should have both. We can expand our economy and we can protect and promote good environmental practices at the same time.

Toward this end, the government will support the development of the Canadian environmental industry across the country. Our support is based on the recognition that this is a pivotal jobs and growth sector and provides the new technologies required to clean up the environment both at home and abroad.

Today the Canadian environmental industry sector employs more than 150,000 Canadians and generates sales of over $11 billion. Globally the market for environmental products is exploding. It is currently estimated at $425 billion. This market will double by the turn of the century.

One can see the niche for Canadian know-how is already in place. What we have to do is expand the niche and the playing field for Canadian firms, for Canadian technology and consequently for Canadian jobs.

That is why Environment Canada is an enthusiastic supporter of the Globe '96 conference that will be taking place later this month in Vancouver. It will truly be a showcase of our technological know-how to the world.

The greening of industry means jobs for today and jobs for tomorrow. High tech environmental industry will also provide much needed employment for Canada's youth.

The young are so often the rest of us when it comes to defending and promoting the rights of the environment. I have a 5-year old who often reminds this 40-year old about the bad practices of littering. It starts early.

Those of us who have crossed the magic line that separates our world from the energy and enthusiasm of the young should be very wary if we try to speak for the youth of Canada or that we speak on their behalf.

Quite frankly, they can and do speak for themselves powerfully. Our youth want to participate in the decisions and act on environmental issues that affect them and all of us and our country. That is one of the reasons Environment Canada will double the number of students we will hire this summer to work on environmental projects.

We have also initiated discussions with the youth corps to establish jobs with young people involved in the projects of the environment across communities. Ultimately such projects will strengthen the national fabric and prepare Canada for that exciting new century.

Canadian young people should lead, not follow. Their passion and energy can be mobilized from Canada's city scapes to our northern tundra. The government knows youth are not simply partners for tomorrow; they are tomorrow.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the minister for his nice speech full of fine words which started off with great flights of poetry.

The minister used a quotation to tell us, among other things, that the Great Lakes represent 18 per cent of the world's fresh water supply. We know that there are thousands of chemicals in the Great Lakes. We know that the fish are dying, that birds that eat these fish end up with crooked beaks and crooked legs. It is polluted water, not fresh water.

Granted, these lakes contain 18 per cent of fresh water supplies, but it is certainly not drinking water.

The minister told us about the numerous bills he will table in this House. We will examine them, of course, according to their merit, as they are tabled. I would like to ask him a question, since he is making many commitments here today. I would like to ask him if he is willing to make real ones, not nice promises, but real commitments. We know about the Irving Whale , which has been at the bottom of the river for many years. My colleague the minister knows very well that, qui va piano va sano e va lontano , as the saying goes in his mother tongue.

But in that case, we are getting absolutely nowhere. Last year, $12.5 million were spent trying to refloat it. I would like the minister to commit to pass on the $12.5 million bill not to taxpayers, but to the Irving company. That is the issue.

[English]

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, York West, ON]

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

He is absolutely right to highlight the issue of water. I completely concur with him. It is an issue within the environmental domain that certainly goes beyond the boundaries of the environment. People feel quite strongly about the fresh water supply. Quite frankly, there may be conflicts and wars years down the road over the whole question of water supply.

In my remarks I was trying to highlight not only the Canadian issue but that when Canada contains 20 per cent of the world's fresh water supply, the lion's share in the Great Lakes, it signals a national priority we should attach to water and obviously the international repercussions as well.

He is also right that there are things in the water we wish were not there. The are causing harmful effects to fish, and increasing scientific evidence shows that obviously this has an impact on the health of Canadians and on reproduction.

That is what a reinvigorated CEPA would also do in terms of the battle against toxins. I hope we can enlist him and the support of his party on the whole question of CEPA when it comes before the House of Commons.

He also spoke about the Irving Whale . To be fair I think he trivialized a very complex situation. There was commitment by my predecessor a while ago to try to raise the Irving Whale .

There are people who will harp and ask why. It is very simple. It is well acknowledged that the problem will not go away. To think that leaving that barge at the bottom of the ocean is the solution is simply postponing the solution. It is a bit like the commercial which says: "You can either pay me now or pay me much more later". I do not want to do the latter if we care about our young and future generations.

Different people have different solutions. There are a number of individuals in the majority who suggest raising the barge. It is not an easy situation but it is the best situation. Other individuals suggest we should pump the oil from the barge to the surface, not an easy task at all.

We must recognize the complexities involved in the issue. That is why we have done a further environmental assessment, the fourth assessment in conjunction with independent counsel to galvanize the best possible solution to a problem which is obviously ticking away.

Our interests are in the best interest of the environment and the health of Canadians. The hon. member knows there has been an additional RCMP investigation into how the PCBs got into portions of the oil supply.

I issue a warning that we not seek to politically trivialize what is obviously a very complex situation, one in which at the end of the day the government will be seized with doing the right thing in the interests of the environment and the safety and health of Canadians.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the minister on his new appointment and wish him well.

The minister is probably aware of an event that took place in the last two years in my riding of Wild Rose on the Stoney reserve. Several thousands of acres of forest were virtually devastated. As a result the government is being sued by the Indian reserve to the tune of $50 million for the damages that occurred through the loss of trees, et cetera.

That whole episode is just beginning. We will reap some very sad rewards from that event. The sad part of it is the government was warned by me and other members on this side of the House that this was happening. We urged and encouraged it to get involved and do something about it before it was too late. Now it will be at least 40 years before another tree will be removed from that entire reserve.

There are literally hundreds of residents on the reserve who are wondering where all the money went for all of this. That is one problem. The other problem is the destruction of the ecosystem. There is unbelievable damage there.

If the minister has not seen it I encourage him to fly over it, like I have, and take a look. Is the minister prepared to do something about that situation? What steps will he take in the future to make certain we never face that kind of thing again?

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from Wild Rose for his congratulatory remarks.

Given there is an impending lawsuit on this file it may be inappropriate to specifically talk about this one dossier. In the generic sense the hon. member is reminding us all that there needs to be a balance, that there needs to be both development and respect for one's environment. That is what the term sustainable development captures.

There are other instances now in which provincial governments are doing assessments on how we plan to manage the growth of our forests in the future. It is an issue the federal government takes seriously. It is an issue I have spoken to a number of ministers about. The hon. member stresses a point that should not be lost on any one of us.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the minister on his speech. I certainly appreciate tying the economy in as we recognize economic growth is dependent on acceptable environmental practices.

I wonder if the minister would enlighten the House and expand on his department plans as they relate to the Arctic.

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member from Waterloo for his comments. He is right about the integration of the economy and the environment. Clearly that has to be the future practice. Therein lies the challenge not only for our government but for provincial governments across the land and governments across the world.

When I was at the OECD meetings a few weeks ago one of the things we stressed is that we should share the Es in the OECD; that is to say the environment and the economy. One of the suggestions Canada put forward in a very practical way when we discussed how often ministers should meet was that perhaps we should have more infrequent meetings but have the meetings with the OECD ministers of finance and economy together with the ministers of the environment. If we did that we would move the files much more rapidly than sometimes happens with the frustrations by all governments in balancing and costing the environment into the economic equation.

The member also asks about our plan for the Arctic. As he probably knows, there are two very important conferences coming up. I believe my new parliamentary secretary will be playing an active role in both.

One conference will be of parliamentarians from around the world. I will be attending, as well as the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the second conference dealing with the setting up of an Arctic council. The environment is in the forefront of those concerns because development elsewhere is having a detrimental effect on the environment of the Arctic which should be kept as a polished jewel.

[The Speaker]

I will now recognize the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm. My colleague, am I to understand that you will be sharing your time with the hon. member for Drummond?

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

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Drummond.

Ever since my constituents from Berthier-Montcalm have asked me to represent and speak for them in the House, I have witnessed all kinds of manoeuvring on the part of the government.

Each time I have spoken in the House, it was solely to defend the real interests of Quebecers in my riding.

The throne speech, and all that goes with it, is an illustration of the governement's political manoeuvring that I have witnessed and about which I cannot keep silent.

It is always important for a government to take a clear position on political issues, and to state its agenda as honestly as possible, so that taxpayers have a good understanding of their government's vision. As far as the recent throne speech is concerned, taxpayers will have to wait to get a clear understanding of the government's vision, because it does not seem to have any.

Indeed, the throne speech not only leaves us in the dark, but it is nothing more than a bunch of empty promises; it is confusing and clearly lacking in substance.

One wonders why a throne speech was delivered. Those familiar with the parliamentary system will say that a throne speech was delivered because the session had been prorogued. Still, it is not clear.

Granted, the session has been prorogued, but the government, making the word prorogation meaningless, presented a motion to reinstate the bills just as they were before prorogation.

So, there was a prorogation, minus the legal implications of such a decision. Now, we have a speech from the throne that looks a lot more like an excerpt from the Petit catéchisme than a true speech from the throne, in which a government clearly states where it is headed. This throne speech lacks imagination to say the least.

Its vagueness is disconcerting. Yet, this government has been in office for over 28 months. Consequently, people had every right to expect more than wishful thinking. They wanted concrete commitments.

People wanted to know how the government was going to make our taxation system more fair. They wanted to hear about effective assistance programs for our defence industry conversion. They wanted to hear about eliminating overlap and waste. Above all,

they wanted to hear the government talk about a realistic and detailed plan to revitalize the economy and promote job creation.

Upon reading the speech from the throne, we can only conclude that the Liberal government did not understand what people wanted to hear. According to the very words used in the speech from the throne, the government will work, challenge, support, ensure. But, after two years in office, it is no longer time to ensure, work, challenge or support: it is time to act.

In the first two thirds of its speech from the throne, the government tells us a lot more about its mood than about anything else. Even staunch federalists, such as the Conseil du patronat, had no choice but to criticize the government for, among other things, its tendency to keep throwing the ball back in the court of the private sector when it comes to job creation.

However, as a Quebec member of Parliament, I was particularly surprised at the federal government's intention to remain involved in all major activity sectors, including those that come under provincial jurisdiction.

Upon reading the speech from the throne, it is obvious that Ottawa crowns itself as the great guardian of Canadian values and the protector of citizens against their own turpitude and that of their provincial government.

It has appropriated for itself the mandate of being the protector of the social union. Whatever our political opinion about the future of Quebec, it seems to me that in the last referendum, hundreds of thousands of Quebecers, including people who voted against sovereignty, were of a different opinion. By acting in this manner, the government has shown clearly that it did not understand a thing about the claims of Quebecers.

I will give you a few examples. In the speech from the throne, it is said that 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. Any new program will be designed so that non-participating provinces will be compensated, provided they establish equivalent or comparable initiatives.

This approach is totally unacceptable for Quebec, for several reasons. First, the government has not indicated that it intends to withdraw entirely from areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, as has been requested for many years by the Quebec government. On the contrary, the federal government is confirming its right to interfere, albeit within a certain limit, which is that a majority of the provinces will have to agree to the establishment of new programs under certain conditions.

The provinces that do not agree to take part in the federal program will be entitled to financial compensation only if they establish an equivalent or comparable program. This is clearly a backhanded way for the federal government to keep control of programs and have its views and national standards prevail. Moreover, we simply do not know whether or not provinces that opt out will be fully compensated. The only purpose of this tactic is to isolate Quebec once more.

Further down in the throne speech, we read that the government will transfer to community based groups, municipal authorities and the private sector the management of the transportation infrastructure. Where do the provinces fit in that scheme? It is obvious the federal government is bypassing provincial legislatures in order to keep its control over community based groups, municipal authorities or private companies to whom it will transfer powers that were never its own in the first place.

The throne speech also says that the government is willing to withdraw from such areas as manpower training, forestry, mining, and recreation. The federal government says provincial governments, local authorities or the private sector will take on these responsibilities. It takes some gall to mention in the throne speech that the federal government is willing and ready to withdraw from areas under exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

The government had already announced its intention of withdrawing from manpower training. This devolution was supposed to come quickly. But the new minister in charge has qualified that promise by suggesting it might take up to three years. It is still the old song and dance routine of the federal government.

But that was still not enough. The federal government had to be more arrogant towards Quebec. So, it will propose to the provinces a partnership in areas under provincial jurisdiction. It does not have to propose any partnership. It only has to withdraw from and stop interfering in areas where it does not belong. It is clear. It is easy. That is the message sent by the referendum held in Quebec last October. Also, a partnership means that the parties involved pool powers they actually have, and not that areas of jurisdiction are taken over and managed by the party with the greater spending power. That is surely not the changes the 50.4 per cent of Quebecers who voted No last October 30 were expecting from the federal government.

If the government had gotten the message, it would have stated in the throne speech that it was immediately withdrawing from every area of provincial jurisdiction.

Lastly, I have one more example of how the government has learned nothing from the latest referendum in Quebec. When the hon. Pettigrew and Dion and the Minister of Indian Affairs threaten Quebecers with a plan B, where the government would play hard

ball with Quebecers, they are really on the wrong track because Quebecers, who are on their way to sovereignty, will never bow to the threats made by these ministers.

What we want right now is for the federal government to at least abide by the Constitution it claims to protect and to withdraw from all areas where the provinces, including Quebec, have exclusive jurisdiction.

[Nic Leblanc, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will add a few words to the remarks made by the member for Berthier-Montcalm about exclusive jurisdiction. When I read the speech from the throne, it made me laugh.

The federal government says that it: "-will not use its spending power to create new shared-cost programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction- " that is what my colleague mentioned a few moments ago. "-without the consent of a majority of the provinces."

There is something wrong here. The people who wrote that did not know what they were talking about. It also says:

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

I looked it up in the Petit Robert and Petit Larousse dictionaries, and I found that "exclusive jurisdiction" excludes any sharing or participation, that it refers to a single person or group of persons or of things.

That means that if the Canadian government recognizes that a province has exclusive jurisdiction over an area, it is supposed to have complete control over it. It is just as if somebody told me: "I recognize this is your backyard. I know it is in your backyard. It is exclusively yours, you paid for it, it is yours. However, if the neighbours so wish, we will dig a pool in your backyard, and you will not have any choice. We will install a pool in it. Also, if you wish to do it on your own, you may not do so; we will help you dig your pool. But if you decide to share your pool with your neighbours, it will have to have a certain depth and a certain size".

It is very contradictory. I do not understand the speech from the throne when it speaks of exclusivity, and I appreciate what my colleague is trying to say when he speaks of exclusivity. It is incomprehensible. There is something wrong in the speech. The person who wrote it did not know what was meant by exclusivity.

In any case, there is a lot of hypocrisy in the government's approach towards the provinces. We must reread that. I wish my colleague could explain further what he really understands in this paragraph which I have just read. I find it incomprehensible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Longueuil, for allowing me to clarify my thought. I will use an example I saw in the newspapers the morning after the speech from the throne. Here is how a paper that will remain nameless, Le Devoir , interpreted that paragraph. The author used education as an example of exclusive jurisdiction.

The situation can lead to misunderstandings. If a majority of provinces, six provinces for example, decided that the federal government could administer a national program in education, Quebec could protest all it wants, it would have to establish an equivalent program meeting the national standards imposed by Ottawa to get part of the funds under that program, to get back part of the taxes that Quebecers pay to the federal government. For us, Quebecers, that would be unacceptable. If there is one area that is vital for Quebec, it is education.

According to what the speech from the throne says about exclusive jurisdictions, the federal government could interfere in an area like education and that is truly unacceptable for Quebec.

The federal government has no right putting its nose in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. It should stay clear of such exclusive jurisdictions. That is totally unacceptable for us, in Quebec.