Debates of March 5th, 1996

Speech From The Throne

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

First a word, Madam Speaker, to congratulate you on your appointment as Acting Speaker. I would like to wish you the best of luck and, for our part, we can assure you that you can count on our full co-operation.

My speech will have two parts. I will start off speaking as the official opposition's critic on training and youth and then simply as the member for Lévis, to share with you what my constituents think of the speech from the throne.

First, with respect to youth, let me just say that, in a nutshell, last Tuesday's speech from the throne is a tacit admission of the fact that the Liberal government's youth strategy is a failure. Much pomp was displayed in introducing this strategy on April 15, 1994, and the then Minister of Human Resources Development promised it would resolve the unemployment problem, especially for young people. What is the youth unemployment picture today?

I heard my hon. colleague from Newfoundland mention earlier that, in his province, the rate of unemployment among young people under the age of 24 was 28 per cent, as compared to a

national rate of 17.2 per cent, as of January 1996, or about two tenths of one per cent less than when the Liberals came to power. We might as well say there was no change. At first glance, statistics do not appear to be any worse, but that is only at first glance because, when you take a closer look, you realize that, in many provinces, in almost all-three out of four-maritime provinces and especially in Quebec, the number of young people between the ages of 15 and 24 who are on welfare has increased.

Statistics vary from province to province, but according to Statistics Canada, there are currently 143,000 young Quebecers under 30 on UI rolls, that is to say, who are receiving UI benefits. But what Statistics Canada data do not say is that, in the same age group, there are 52,000 Quebecers on welfare. And these figures do not include young people who are still living with their parents, perhaps because their parents' level of income is moderately high. But they are nonetheless jobless, out of school and living in their parents' basement-this is more and more common-while looking for work. Yet, because of their parents' income or their own previous income, they do not qualify for UI benefits or welfare. They are not included in the statistics because they are not on the labour market. Statistics are very dangerous things.

What did the government say in its throne speech to remedy this situation? It too saw that its Youth Strategy had failed, so it told us "Now, we will ask business, big business in particular, to do its part and to try to do something especially for youth in future." As we know, big businesses are more likely to be unionized. The hiring standards in those big businesses would have to be changed if young people were to have any chance of being hired without seniority.

And what is the situation in our big businesses? On March 4 Michel Vastel reported that the five biggest banks in the country managed to make record profits of $4.9 billion in 1995 with 2,800 layoffs. GM Canada recorded a $1.4 billion profit while terminating 2,500 employees. Bell Canada made $502 million while doing away with 3,200 positions. Is this making employment opportunities available for young people? Even if all of these are unionized employers and if jobs were created up to the previous level, not one more young person would be hired. Far from it, the ones hired would be the people on the union call-back lists, so this does nothing to solve the problem of our young people.

Small businesses do what they can, but they too cannot create jobs when times are very hard for them as well.

Following along somewhat with what the hon. member for Gaspé has said, I say that the government will not help our youth by reducing access to unemployment insurance. They will not be helped by what is proposed in bill C-111, which triples the minimum number of hours worked, from 300 to 900, for new unemployment insurance recipients. That is not how our young people will be helped. Nor by deducting from them as soon as they start working, whereas in the past they had to work 15 hours before deductions were taken. Of course, they can get the overpayment back when they file their income tax, but they will in a way be lending money to the government for a year.

Neither will they be helped by cutting back on transfer payments to the provinces for post secondary education.

In this second portion of my speech, I will restrict myself to discussing a situation more specific to my riding. Even if the federal riding of Lévis is below provincial unemployment levels, less than 10 per cent last year, the two manpower offices in my area paid out $122,138,000 to UI claimants. With the planned cuts, which will be on the order of 12 per cent, as we all know, $14,656,000 will be lost to the economy. As regards the former workers at MIL Davie alone, it has been estimated that for the 435 UI claimants who return periodically, after the reform takes effect, the cut would be $1,400,000. Is this how we help the economy? I do not think so.

Some might think there were no federal officials in the Quebec City region. In my riding of Lévis alone, 600 people work for the federal public service. What did we do last year in the Quebec City region? The federal government cut 950 jobs. Did it help the economy in the Quebec City region or in the riding of Lévis? No.

Worse than that, to add insult to injury, they announced recently the closure of the Department of Human Resources' information centre, which served people receiving old age pensions and unemployment insurance in Quebec City. Where was it transferred? Not where it could be amalgamated with another, but, rather, to the riding of the Prime Minister, in the city of Shawinigan. This, on top of the closing of the regional manpower centre in Trois-Rivières last year. Where was it transferred with its 108 employees or maybe slightly fewer, because some positions were cut along the way? To the Prime Minister's riding.

People always say it pays to have a Prime Minister in your riding, but when they take things that belong to a riding and move them to the Prime Minister's riding, this is not creating jobs for some, it is deleting jobs for others. This is not normal.

The famous speech from the throne and the red book talked of funds for defence industry conversion, but none of it went to MIL Davie. There was talk of a ferry, but we still have no ferry. The member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, who had promised one to his constituents, does not dare return to the Magdalen

Islands, because his constituents wrote in the papers: "Do not come back until the ferry has been replaced".

The situation is worse for the marine industry around Quebec City. There was talk of cuts, but people objected so much they decided to wait. They talked of increasing coast guard fees and reducing services: four icebreakers instead of five. That would have cut another 50 jobs. But they also wanted to increase fees. It would have had an impact if implemented, and yet, they are still threatening to implement it, 80 cents a tonne more, which would mean that the ship owners will change routes. They will use the port of Halifax and especially American ports.

Is this sea traffic policy? Is this merchant marine policy? No it is quite the opposite. The aim is to get ships out of the St. Lawrence and send them to the United States. This is a long way from what the Liberals promised in their red book.

They talked about the CN. They privatized it, but did nothing to help the SLRs. The bill is still on the table and there is nothing in it for the SLRs. The former Minister of Canadian Heritage announced two days before his demotion-I will close on this because it is very symbolic-finally acknowledged that the old Quebec City bridge was a national heritage construction. It has to be more than a symbol; there has to be money involved, because the Quebec City bridge is coming to symbolize the decrepitude of Canadian federalism.

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I must commend my hon. colleague for the profile he has presented of his region and his riding.

I must say that the picture he has painted is exactly the same wherever you go in Quebec. Our regions are emptying, our ridings are plagued by unemployment. In Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, we have remained unbeaten for years in terms of unemployment in Canada. Our people do not deserve this. Absolutely not. This government-and my hon. colleague alluded to this-is kissing an entire generation of young people goodbye. It is sacrificing that whole generation. They are without jobs.

However much the government boasts about its infrastructure program-government programs are useless anyway-the fact remains that no real job creation has taken place, only very temporary work was created. No progress has been made in bringing the unemployment rate down in even one region of Quebec. One thing is clear to us in Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean: we may not get support from the federal government-and we are not talking about billions of dollars here-but we know how to innovate.

Consider the following example. The local ALCAN employees union brought the plants in Jonquière, Laterrière and Alma together through a work sharing arrangement. With no big grants or major outlay of money on the part of our governments, it succeeded in creating 120 direct jobs- you can imagine what this will mean in terms of indirect benefits down the road. It merely cost $10,000 per job created. That is what I call a job well done. That is what innovating is all about.

Compared to the millions of dollars sunk here and there sometimes just to maintain a few jobs, not even creating any-millions, if not billions, are spent here without much success-these workers who assumed responsibility for themselves managed to create jobs for just $10,000 per job. Why could the government not be as innovative as them?

I think that innovation involves job training, and that is what my question to my hon. colleague is about. He did not get a chance to elaborate on the subject of job training, and I am convinced that he was all set to do so, but ran out of time.

I would like him to share his thoughts about job training in Quebec.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, our traditional position, Quebec's traditional position on job training, the one that was taken by all parties and all members in the Quebec National Assembly, is that the funds now allocated to job training by the federal government should be transferred to Quebec so that it can take on full responsibility.

Among the topics I have not covered, there is one area I would like to address in the minute I have left. Some people may feel it is only in the Gaspé region and the maritimes that the UI bill will have a noticeable impact. I would like to point out that, according to the figures of the Department of Human Resources Development, agriculture will be cut by 12 per cent as a result of the reform. Forestry will be cut by 14 per cent, manufacturing and construction by 9 per cent, transport by 8 per cent, the hospitality industry by 8 per cent, government and other services by 7 per cent, trade and real estate by 6 per cent, education by 4 per cent, and health care by 3 per cent.

This is in addition to the cutbacks that the provincial governments will have to impose, again as a result of the even deeper cuts that the Minister of Finance will probably announce tomorrow.

Everybody loses in this reform. What is the government waiting for to set this bill aside and start over with a new, real one?

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to say that I am sharing my time with the member for Durham. I also would like to congratulate you on attaining your new position in the chair. I look forward to working with you over the next couple of years. Congratulations.

The throne speech to open the second session of the 35th Parliament is a basic statement of Canadian values, along with a blueprint that recognizes how we must form partnerships and organize for the future.

We know that government cannot isolate itself from the people it serves. We cannot as a government work in a vacuum. However, what we can and must do is establish a framework from which partnerships can develop and prosper. Partnerships with Canadians and the numerous groups and organizations representative of all walks of life are very important to recognize those divergent values and ideals.

In part, the throne speech indicated the government's commitment to the economic renewal of rural Canada in a way that is tailored to the needs of rural Canada. In particular, my area of Essex-Kent is very happy about that.

For those who reside in my constituency and for all Canadians living in small urban and rural communities that dot our map the government is continuing its efforts in recognizing the needs of rural Canada. This type of commitment will help ensure that rural Canadians are able to participate fully in the Canadian economy.

This statement for the future builds on initiatives commenced over the last two years, initiatives such as the rural secretariat within the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food. This secretariat, first established in 1994, is developing partnerships within government agencies such as Industry Canada and the Farm Credit Corporation to help access government services and programs.

The Canadian rural information service, a secretariat and Agriculture Canada partnership, has become a clearing house for rural information and responds to rural Canadians' requests for services they need. The initiatives reach out to all of us.

The throne speech spoke of expanding access to the School Net and community access programs to increase technology use in rural Canada. It provides opportunities for our most valuable resource, our country's youth, for youth development, youth opportunities, youth jobs, regardless of where young people live. There are some examples of the partnerships in which we will engage to ensure future prosperity of all regions. In rural Canada we have already seen the benefits of the partnerships between the government and its citizens. We look forward to increasing such initiatives.

The last federal budget announced an adaptation and rural development fund, called ARDF. The estimated $60 million annual budget in ARDF will assist farmers in their desire to diversify their operations, become more profitable and develop new markets.

In Ontario, ARDF is being viewed as an opportunity to help the agriculture sector adapt itself to a rapidly changing environment.

The commitment of the government as outlined in the throne speech to rural Canadians is not merely lip service but a very reasonable approach to building our nation. Building on current initiatives, it is anticipated that the rural secretariat will play a lead role in developing partnerships with federal agencies, with provinces and with rural stakeholders.

This commitment is also a recognition that rural development is not limited to the agriculture and the agri-food sector. Today's technology applications, and its unknown limits of tomorrow, require us to ensure access to new information infrastructures so that rural Canadians have the tools to create jobs and generate growth opportunities.

The government also remains committed to rationalizing federal services. The throne speech referenced our interest in developing a national food inspection service that would combine various food inspection branches both as a cost savings and a service improvement. Federally, food inspection is undertaken by the ministries of agriculture, health and fisheries and oceans.

Food inspection is a shared responsibility. Therefore we are anxious to explore ways in which partnerships can be arranged with the provinces so that we can move forward and create a truly national food inspection service. Inspection at the primary and processed food protection levels will serve two purposes. It ensures Canadian consumers purchase quality products that are without doubt among the best products in the world. It will also provide uniform standards for all of us.

Recently the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food met with his provincial counterparts where all expressed a keen interest to move forward in these initiatives. Last year the minister consulted with Canadians, producers and the industry on these initiatives. It is in partnership with all stakeholders that we will be able to redesign our system, streamline the inspection process, improve efficiencies and become cost efficient. Our real competitive edge for the future will result in these types of partnerships.

The government, from the beginning of its mandate, has recognized that governments do not create jobs, rather employers create private sector jobs with the vast majority of new jobs being created by small and medium size business. For our part the government must create an economic climate necessary for businesses to flourish.

A cornerstone of our economic program is the reduction of the deficit. It is not the slash and burn deficit reduction technique that many people have witnessed in this country. It is a process that makes the transition safe and reasonable for all Canadians.

Our approach, and the Minister of Finance has stood fast in his commitment to this, has been to set reasonable short term targets, establish goals that while they challenge our initiative, do not break the economic backs of public and private sector partners, and deliver a balanced and reasonable approach to the divergent needs of economic development and fiscal restraint.

We remain committed to reducing the deficit to 2 per cent of Canada's gross domestic product by 1997-98. When we achieve this goal we will have reduced the deficit as a portion of our economy by two-thirds, the most successful deficit reduction in the history of Canada. This achievement will be good for all Canadians. It will mean we have brought our spending out of that spiral of continual upward movement into a reasonable form that Canadians can handle.

In terms of business investment, the private sector will respond positively to the deficit reduction program. By continuing to bring our country's financial house in order, we will create the economic stability that will encourage consumer and investor confidence to increase.

At the same time, it is necessary for the government to foster a relationship both with the private sector and our provincial counterparts so we can collectively invest in economic growth and job creation. The throne speech reflects that partnership, giving young people an opportunity to put education and enthusiasm to work and gain valuable job experience. Co-sponsoring with business and labour, new initiatives put young people to work.

Every effort has been made for the government to reach out to every sector of the community and identify partnerships that will be positive for our nation. As I indicated in my opening comments and reiterate now with my last few words, the throne speech has set the stage for Canadian governance in co-operation with all of us.

We can see, as certain initiatives have developed, how it is possible for partnerships to be successful. From history we have learned that governments cannot and must not proceed on their own without the co-operation of all Canadians.

In the coming months and years, as more partnership initiatives are introduced and implemented, I am sure we will as a nation reap the benefits of the positive course of action set by the throne speech.

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague across the way did not interpret the throne speech the way I did.

I see this as a repetition of promises that have not been kept. There is nothing in his speech on how to make taxes more equitable, help the defence industry convert to civilian applications, for example, and especially there is nothing on how to reduce overlap.

What I remember most clearly from his speech is his statement that the federal government should develop partnerships with the provinces in order to create jobs. Yet, in the throne speech, his government continues to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction by recycling large portions of a watered down Charlottetown accord.

The throne speech shows the government's tendency to bypass the provinces and yet the hon. member is asking us to develop partnerships with the provinces. How can the provinces do so when the federal government has demonstrated its intention to go over their heads in developing partnerships with municipalities and with various organizations either in mining or in forestry? I do not understand that kind of language.

Sometimes they want to establish a relationship with the provinces but not at other times. What is my colleague's reaction in this matter? Does he think that the federal government should first develop partnerships with the provinces?

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Essex—Kent, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would suggest that all initiatives of the government have been to create positive co-operation between the provinces and the federal government.

I do not question the initiatives that have been taken to create a positive relationship not just with the provinces but with all the stakeholders in the country. To illustrate this I might use this point. In the last two weeks the minister of agriculture has gone across the country to bring national leaders together in a forum. He had the national leaders put forward their concerns with agriculture. He had them look at the opportunities that could come from those difficulties and develop a creative plan under which we could put forward recommendations to overcome them.

As he did this exercise two weeks ago, he did a similar exercise in six regions across the country, bringing in all the provincial leaders at the same time in the agriculture, agri-food and finance industries. He has gone out of his way in order to bring in all of those concerns and put them together so he can set federal direction in order to answer the problems we have in the agriculture and agri-food sector today; develop new markets, develop new opportunities, everyone moving in a direction on-side and supportive of each other.

This type of action certainly is not mentioned by the opposition. It does not recognize the value of bringing all of these groups together, having one strong voice to make certain the agriculture and agri-food industries speak as a group in order to develop opportunities and a business plan for the future. That business plan, which the minister is working on right now, shall be prepared

and ready hopefully by June but through the summer at the latest. We will then see how we can move together.

The incorporation of industry, provincial governments and the federal government's viewpoint is critical. Again, it is not easy to have 13 areas of government all agree. It is a process that must be done very carefully and reasonably in time to make certain that all voices are heard and considered on a fair basis.

My response is yes, there is a tremendous amount going on. We all should be very excited about those opportunities of bringing everyone together, getting rid of the overlap and trying to iron out the system. It cannot be done in one year. It has to be done carefully over a longer period of time, and that is the direction the government is taking.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member from Essex-Kent very aptly leads into my dissertation about the speech from the throne. Basically my speech also deals with the prospect of the evolution of our federation.

We talk a lot in the Chamber about devolution. I think that is an inaccurate word. Basically what we want to do with our federation is evolve it. We have been around for 127 years and it seems reasonable that we should enter into some changes within the federation to make it more economically viable.

Canadians have historically refused to invest in themselves for a variety of reasons. The Canadian economy has been typified by foreign investment. Canadians have been reticent to invest in their own enterprises. As a consequence we have suffered as a country.

Why have we been shy about this investment procedure? I do not really know. The bottom line is the speech from the throne did attempt to address that in some very real and meaningful ways. I refer to a specific aspect which talks about the formation of a national securities exchange. Securities legislation is basically the jurisdiction and purview of the provinces.

Canada is the only industrialized country in the world that does not have a national securities exchange. What has this done? It has fractionalized our capital markets. It has prevented people from properly visualizing and assuming masses of capital for the investment of our own enterprises.

The concept of a national securities commission would not override the jurisdictions of the provinces but would envelope them. Basically the concept is to provide a basic national securities exchange commission which would have a national regulatory environment. Basically what it talks about is harmonizing all the provincial regulatory procedures so that it is one. What is the problem today?

A mutual fund registered in Canada has to register with each individual securities commission throughout the country. It is a very expensive process and basically many people do not do that. A lot of these offerings are not available throughout the country. They are available only in certain jurisdictions.

Another aspect occurring in Toronto, what is called the dealer's network, which is an over the counters market, is the strange evolution that we are having listings on that market which are basically extraterritorial. In other words, they are British Columbia listings, possibly Quebec listings, registering with the Toronto over the counters market.

We have the strange situation in which Ontario's securities legislation is basically being applied to British Columbian companies. One can see this is creating a great deal of confusion and overlap.

We often compare ourselves with the United States. I would like to make a quick comparison with Japan. In 1951 Canada and Japan had the same gross domestic product. That is a very interesting statement, especially because the Japanese economy by the year 2000 will surpass the gross domestic product of the United States.

That country has half the population of the United States and almost none of the natural resources. We must ask ourselves in Canada what we are doing and why we are falling behind the world. It is because of interprovincial bickering that prevents us from properly pooling some of our capital resources.

If Bill Gates were a Canadian he would never get his company started here. Why? We do not have a pooling system and a risk taking orientation within our financial institutions. Because many of our start-up companies are looking for equity capital they are forced to go to the United States.

They end up being taken over by Americans and we are back to where we started. We are on a treadmill of not being able to properly invest in our own companies mainly because of our own institutions.

Because of the great fractionalization of our equity markets, many of our companies go wanting even where they get a listing on the over the counters exchange markets. There is a whole area there that causes a great amount of fees being charged. The legal bureaucracy and regulatory environment almost prevents small and medium size companies from accessing this.

The history of many of these companies is they lost control when they tried to go through this process. The whole idea of a capital based system is to make it easy for small and medium size companies to access these markets.

I was pleased to serve on the industry committee when we talked with some of our biggest banking institutions about access to capital for small and medium size business. Again and again these

bankers told us the problem with small business was not its access to debt capital but its access to equity capital. This was rather strange for a bunch of institutions that only recently took over most of those brokerage firms themselves.

It is an interesting observation that the only bank which now loans to junior securities investment firms is the Toronto-Dominion Bank. Remarkably the Toronto-Dominion Bank is the only bank that does not have a securities arm. We can see there has been consolidation and economic concentration in the whole area of securities.

What I am saying is those banks are also federally regulated. It seems a logical conclusion that our securities industry should also have a federal focus, a national focus. I doubt that many of our provinces are on side on this. The maritimes basically are very interested in pursuing this. Ontario is also very supportive of moving forward with the dealer's network.

To give an idea of the over the counters market, which is part of that market in Toronto, it has zeroed in on small and medium size business. In 1993 it had tradings of over $10 billion. By 1994 it was up to $15 billion. By 1995 it was $17.5 billion worth of trading in small and medium size company stocks. This represents a 70 per cent increase in only three years. We can see there is a tremendous demand for this vehicle.

The over the counters market is still somewhat unsophisticated because of the capital markets we have. We are fractionalized. We are a very small market in the first place in Canada. We made it even smaller by dividing it many times over.

We need a three tier system of access to these over the counters markets, a junior market in which everybody will know the risk involved and then basically tiered into the larger markets like the TSE. It will provide a cheap access to allow start-up companies to find capital in Canada rather than forcing them to go south of the border.

I look forward to the initiatives of the government in this area and look forward to working once again with the provinces in creating a national securities commission in Canada.

[Dianne Brushett, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Durham for his very excellent address.

I would like the hon. member to elaborate further on the three tier system. The access to capital for the nurturing and development of small business in Canada is extremely important. We need to know how to get those patents into technology, technology into commercial development and production and into the marketplace.

It is a complex process, a costly process. How can we accelerate the access to our financial institutions which are reluctant to participate in this process of development and get the encouragement from day one when research at our universities becomes part of a patented process and development progress into a product that is viable and marketable in society?

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her question.

Basically one of the issues for small and medium size business is pooling. As we expand in the area of over the counters and junior markets in Canada it allows pension funds, banks and other financial institutions to pool relative securities. The whole object of the exercise is risk aversion.

Many of our institutions do not want to see a high concentration possibly in a few companies but they are willing to look at a wider base of possible technology stocks that transcends a global environment in Canada and therefore would inject funds for that purpose.

Once again, the object of the exercise of a more sophisticated securities market in Canada is to provide that area where businesses could pool similar stocks and then sell them to these financial institutions which could then more effectively participate in growing the Canadian economy and creating those new technologies.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member.

In talking about small and medium size business, it seems the whole focus from the government's eyes, the banks' eyes and form those who provide capital is very narrow to the extent that they seem to be most concerned with small and medium size business in technology, research and the development of new the technology sector of business.

However, one of the big problems is what we would call the bread and butter basic business, retail business, wholesale business, people buying things and reselling them. There are hundreds of thousands of these businesses across Canada.

It is truly that sector, those types of business that have the most problems securing capital to either start up, expand or improve their businesses. They are generally looked at by the banks as second and third class citizens when they come to the banks for a loan. They generally need to have $3 in their pocket for every $1 they want to borrow.

What does the government have in mind to tell the banking institutions that would encourage them to start paying attention to these more basic types of business of which there are hundreds of thousands in this country?

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will be dividing my time with the member for Regina-Lumsden.

It has been just over a week since we all trooped off to the other place to be subjected to 20 minutes of vacuity, the exercise so aptly described by Ottawa Sun columnist Joe O'Donnell as the drone from the throne.

I envied the handful of napping Liberal senators who took the opportunity to catch up on a little sleep. On my feet and pressed against that brass rail I did not have that option.

The government came out swinging in this throne speech with a promise to double the number of federal summer jobs for students. There will not be a dandelion left standing on a single federal lawn from sea to sea to sea. If only this government would cease to suck the life out of our national economy, young people would be able to find real jobs instead of relying on this son of the Company of Young Canadians or whatever it is the government has in mind.

The government then proposed to introduce another business subsidy boondoggle, this time for environmental technologies, biotechnology and the aerospace industry. Will this be a continuation of the de Havilland-Boeing-Bombardier saga? The word on the street is that there is $300 million in pork which will be available to those with the appropriate Liberal and Quebec connections.

Within the throne speech there is one little paragraph on criminal justice. There is a reference to "innovative alternatives to incarceration of low risk offenders". I wonder if this means more experimental facilities like the Okimaw Ohci Healing Lodge in my riding.

The women currently living there have all committed very serious crimes. The most common sentence among them is life-10. The concept of gentle handling as a means of rehabilitating them may have some merit. I do not question that. However, do they have to be accommodated in facilities that are much finer than anything available to many of the law-abiding, hard working, tax paying farmers and ranchers in the surrounding area? Social injustice cuts both ways. In case anyone has forgotten, this country is broke.

The capital cost of this penal Taj Mahal was $9 million, $300,000 per inmate at full capacity. The annual operating cost will be $86,000 per inmate if the place operates within its budget, which my sources tell me is highly unlikely. This year the cost per inmate will be astronomical because to date Correctional Services Canada has been able to find only 14 serious offenders whom it believes can safely be kept in this open facility with 26 staff members on duty.

Few people will mourn the closure of the old women's prison in Kingston, but surely there has to be a common sense middle ground where people can be treated humanely without ripping off the long suffering taxpayer.

On the day following the throne speech we heard the expanded version. We were treated to an hour by the Prime Minister who delivered the same message with a few rhetorical embellishments. He said that the government had broken the back of the deficit, which brings to mind a certain Mr. Trudeau's famous remark: "We have wrestled inflation to the ground". Remember that one?

If cutting the deficit by a third is breaking its back, I am in desperate need of language lessons. If the Prime Minister had said the country is going down the drain more slowly than when the Tories were in power, that would have been an honest statement and I would have applauded wildly.

The Prime Minister made one sensible comment in his speech when he said: "Government does not create jobs. It creates the climate for the private sector to create jobs". It is the epiphany, the Prime Minister's conversion on the road to the next election. Does this really mean that we can all look forward to an end to pork barrel politics, bloated regional development agencies and $6 billion infrastructure programs that provide neither useful infrastructure nor long term jobs? If I could use another biblical reference, that would be equivalent to the second coming or perhaps the congelation of the inferno.

The Prime Minister then went on to state that his government is prepared to withdraw from certain areas of provincial jurisdiction. He has obviously been doing some serious reading of the Reform policies. Out with the red book, in with the 20/20 program. My cup runneth over.

If the Prime Minister would like a Reform Party membership, I would be more than happy to forward his $10 to our Calgary office. However, I am afraid his application would be refused since he still does not believe in nor even understands the concept of fiscal responsibility. He is apparently unconcerned that our national debt of $578,288,000,000 is growing by $1,036.26 each second of this day and that our per capita national debt at 7.46 a.m. was $19,439.56. That is unconscionable.

[Dianne Brushett, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, to the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia, that was quite a speech.

I would like to know what he thinks about entrepreneurship and if he has ever in his life looked at the history of the Bombardier company. Perhaps 40 years ago a French Canadian family from rural Quebec started a company in its garage from nothing. It repaired snowmobiles. It was building and looking to the future, employing young Quebecers, young Canadians.

Does the hon. member not see Bombardier today as an international company which sells high speed rapid transit vehicles throughout the world? It is a success story not only for Quebec but for Canada. Does the hon. member not appreciate that?

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's intervention. Yes, Bombardier in its infancy as a company was an icon of Quebec and the rest of Canada and I was a great admirer of it. I will go along with her on that.

However, it has since become a bottomless sinkhole, taking in hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grants. There is no company on the face of the earth that could not survive, be profitable and prosper under circumstances like that. It is a national and international scandal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia for allowing me to share his time and the House leader of the Reform Party who helped to make that arrangement.

We have seen the speech from the throne. Most people in the House have indicated that the speech from the throne from this government is not worth the paper it has been written on. It talks about promises the Liberals have made in the past. It talks about the promises very clearly and about the Liberals breaking those very same promises. The promises from their 1993 red book were so good that they have offered them up one more time in the speech from the throne. They did not carry out the promises in the first place.

The Liberals promised jobs, jobs, jobs and they delivered talk, talk, talk. There was no action with respect to the jobs they said they would create. They promised to build up Canada. They promised to strengthen our country. Instead, they have ripped apart this country from sea to sea with respect to the national unity issue.

We have also seen a total abandonment of the government's responsibility to clearly hold as a priority the rights and interests of the citizens of this country in terms of their right to employment and other matters.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

You will be judged according to your friend.

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

We hear the member for St. Boniface chirping from his seat. He is anxious to get into the debate. He wants to get in here and talk about this issue, and I hope he will.

The Liberals promised they would create jobs. They promised they would reform social programs and unite Canada. Of course they have failed. There is talk about job creation and social reform in the speech but that is not what Canadians are getting.

The federal government is actually doing less about jobs now than it was a year ago. Instead of a hand up for Canadians there is a handout which is shrinking on a daily basis. There is deficit reduction but it is neither balanced nor fair. National programs and national standards, which have been the glue that has held Canada together, are being wiped out rather than being improved.

The Liberal members sit in their seats and say that what I have just said is nonsense. Let us talk about some of the things they have encouraged in terms of a situation-

[The Speaker]

This would seem a good time to interrupt. I do not want to stop you in full flight later on. You will have the floor when debate resumes.

It being 2 p.m., we will now proceed to Statements by Members.

Middle East

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask this House to remember the victims of the terrorist attacks this week in Israel.

Once again enemies of peace in the Middle East have surfaced and the innocent have been made victims. We urge the Israeli government and the Palestinian authorities to continue their work together for peace and to resist violent attempts by marginal groups to derail the peace process.

The Israeli government and Palestinian authorities have shown the world that former combatants can sit down together and reach a peace agreement. The terrorists who are trying to derail the process are being condemned by Canada and the international community as a whole.

The people of Canada have always strongly supported peace in the Middle East. We reject violence as a means of resolving the complex divisions between peoples there. A motion passed by the House yesterday was a demonstration of our solidarity with the

champions of peaceful political solutions to this too longstanding conflict and a condemnation of those who would see it destroyed.

Family Fair

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for the first time in the Montérégie region, a fair will focus exclusively on families living with older relatives. This free activity, which has been organized by the Association des familles soutien des aînés de Saint-Hubert, will take place on March 9.

A number of stakeholders will be present and several mini-conferences will be held on physical and mental health, as well as the rights and safety of the elderly. Legal advice will also be provided.

This family fair is an ideal opportunity for elderly people, and those responsible for them, to get useful information.

I want to congratulate the Association des familles soutien des aînés de Saint-Hubert for its praiseworthy initiative.

Fisheries

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last year on August 26 I went fishing in a native only commercial fishery. My vessel was immediately boarded by DFO officers and I was charged. Now six months later I have been quietly informed by the government that it will not be proceeding with the charges against me. They cannot make them stick. In allowing for a racially exclusive fishery, the minister has exceeded his authority and defied the B.C. Court of Appeal.

However, the government will still have to defend its actions in court. Last fall I filed a statement of claim in the Supreme Court of British Columbia asking the court to declare that the minister acted improperly in excluding commercial fishermen from the native only fisheries. The government will not be able to avoid the issue; it will have to answer to the judge.

The Late Sir Robert Williams

[Colleen Beaumier, Liberal, Brampton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this past Tuesday, February 27, Brampton lost one of its outstanding citizens and a pioneer in the field of prisoner rehabilitation. Sir Robert Williams passed away following a brief illness at the age of 84.

Sir Robert Williams compiled an impressive list of community achievements over the past three decades. In addition to spearheading the Foundation of St. Leonard's House, which was the first home in North America devoted to prisoner rehabilitation, he was a founding member and later the chair of the Peel District Health Council. He was an active member of the Brampton Rotary Club, a director of Peel Community Services and chair of the United Way. In recognition of his outstanding achievements he was named Brampton's Citizen of the Year in 1981 and was the recipient of the Order of Canada.

Sir Robert Williams is survived by his wife Mary and his son Robert Jr. He will be missed by many. His contributions to his community and country will always be valued.

Hon. Lucien Bouchard

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on August 29, 1988 a member of Parliament stood in this very House to give his maiden speech. Speaking on free trade he said: "This will have an impact on the very future of this country and it will help Canada achieve the place it deserves among nations". The hon. member continued by saying that free trade "is the affirmation of our country's global role". He said: "Nothing which makes this country-different from the United States is affected" by the agreement.

Who was the member? He was the newly elected member for Saint Jean, Quebec, the Hon. Lucien Bouchard. Canada was a country in 1988 by admission of the now premier of Quebec and it continues to be the best country in the world according to the United Nations. Vive le Canada.

The Late Marguerite Duras

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to mention the passing of Marguerite Duras, a great French writer of international stature. Through her talent, Marguerite Duras helped French literature and culture remain one of the main foundations of contemporary humanism.

She spent her life writing; she lived through and for writing. As the author of many books, she made a name for herself in several literary genres, such as stories, novels, plays and screen plays, including the one for the famous movie "Hiroshima mon amour". Her novel L'Amant , a book that was stopped at the border by Canada Customs, won the Prix Gongourt in 1984.

The Bloc Quebecois salutes this great woman who was called by Le Devoir a ``luminary of 20th century literature''.

Child Support

[Sharon Hayes, Reform, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the issue of child support. Any reform to the child support or taxation system must be more than a half measure by ministers to placate special interests or to fudge broken government promises.

The child support issue is not simply a woman's issue; it is a family issue. Child support must be family support. It must address the interests and concerns of children and both parents.

How the tax is calculated or how child support payments are enforced will only make sense with a fair and just support settlement.

Change is needed to remove the necessity of adversarial lawyers in a family court. Change is needed to bring federal and provincial jurisdictions together and change is needed to create fair guidelines and formulas.

The policies of governments have contributed in a very real way to the breakdown of family units in Canada. In child support as in all government decisions, Reform believes that the well-being of families should be the priority.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

[Simon de Jong, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there is a general agreement that Canada needs a public broadcasting system so that Canadians are able to see and hear each other. Twenty-five million Canadians tune into the CBC at least once a week.

I also believe Canadians support the CBC's need for stable, multiyear funding. However the special tax proposed by the Juneau report is not the answer. Canadians are in no mood for any tax increases. A new tax for the CBC would unleash a storm of anger directed at the public broadcaster which is the last thing the CBC needs.

Providing stable long term funding for the CBC should not be achieved by new taxes or manipulating the tax system. The solution is quite simple. The government should guarantee funding for five-year periods.

This government promised in its red book: "A Liberal government will be committed to stable multiyear financing for national cultural institutions such as the Canada Council and the CBC". All it has to do is to live up to the political commitment it made to the Canadian people.