Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on the speech from the throne delivered on February 27, at the opening of the second session of the 35th Parliament of Canada.
I believe that this speech has no substance, and is nothing but a series of good intentions and vague promises. It opens the way to a Canada-wide referendum to decide on the future of Quebec. It seems to me that the federal government is denying and disregarding the legitimate right of the people of Quebec to decide its future alone, and this is totally unacceptable.
In spite of the mounting expectations and pressing and repeated demands of Canadians and Quebecers, this document contains no real measures to stimulate the economy and create jobs. This speech contains nothing for regions experiencing serious difficulties; it contains for Montreal, which is facing serious problems; it contains nothing that could give hope to the people of my riding, Bourassa, in Montreal North, who are going through hard times. Given the present situation, Canadians would have had the right to expect a plan for economic recovery. Instead of that, the government of Canada puts on the table a jumble of old commitments that were not honoured during the first part of its mandate.
The Liberal government's record in the first half of its mandate is very disappointing. The future is more uncertain and worrying today than it was two years ago.
Many people are concerned about cuts in social programs, particularly in unemployment benefits. Employment security is a thing of the past. Generosity and compassion for the most disadvantaged in our society and protection for the most vulnerable tend to diminish and even disappear.
The Canadian economy continues to stagnate. But in spite of this economic downturn, Canadian businesses have had record profits. Statistics Canada reported recently that, at the end of the 1995 fiscal year, these profits totalled $95 billion compared to $80 billion in 1994, an increase of 19 per cent.
It must be said that, in 1994, business profits had already increased drastically during the year, from $17 billion in the first quarter to $23.6 billion in the last quarter. Total profits for the 1994 fiscal year climbed by 44 per cent to reach $80 billion.
On the other hand, salaries increased by only 0.9 per cent in 1995, which is less than the rate of inflation. This means that workers saw their actual earnings decrease. In this context, I understand why there were many strikes and many demonstrations against employers, even against certain governments, including the government of Ontario.
I would like to take this opportunity to send my support and my solidarity to the members of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union who went on a strike against the budget cuts imposed by the Mike Harris Conservative government. This is a struggle for justice. I hope this conflict will not be prolonged indefinitely and that the Harris government will resume negotiations to sign a just and equitable collective agreement.
The speech from the throne states that economic growth depends on trade. True, imports create employment. The government says it will carry on efforts to extend NAFTA to other countries. I agree with the principle of liberalization of trade.
I recently visited Chile, a country that is supposed to join NAFTA. However, it is on hold because of internal problems in the United States. The promise made by government leaders and heads of states in Miami in 1994 has yet to be fulfilled.
I pointed out something to the Government of Canada. In the beginning, the government wanted to exclude parallel agreements on labour and the environment from the negotiation of an interim bilateral trade agreement between Canada and Chile. I thought it was unfair and unacceptable on the part of the Government of Canada to be excluding social measures from the bilateral agreement between our two countries, because I believe any trade agreement, any trade treaty must include social measures in order to protect the workers and small businesses who will be affected. Such agreements must protect the rights of workers, in particular their right to form a labour union, to negociate collective agreements, to strike, as well as the principle of non-discrimination, pay equity, the minimum working age in order to prohibit child labour, measures concerning occupational health and safety, minimum wages, etc.
Fortunately, there is now, here in Ottawa, a Chilean delegation negotiating this agreement with the government of Canada and, thanks to pressures from Canadian and Chilean organized labour and thanks to our own pressures, the federal government has finally decided to negotiate such social clauses with Chile.
The speech from the throne mentions that the government will review the Citizenship Act. The new Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has already begun to make statements about that. There are two controversial topics: first, dual citizenship, and the federal government's position is not clear yet. It has only served one purpose: to threaten Quebecers during the last referendum with the loss of their Canadian citizenship, should they become independent.
There are 400,000 Canadian citizens who have dual citizenship, some even have multiple citizenship, including a number of government members and ministers. When the bill comes before the House, I would like the government to recognize what is already a right in Canada, dual citizenship.
With this bill, the government wants to strengthen national unity, but I believe the results speak for themselves. Once again, when the bill is debated, it will be apparent that there are two nations, two official languages, two main cultures, and indeed, two countries: Canada and Quebec. As far as we, in the Bloc Quebecois, are concerned, our position is clear. We are in favour of maintaining the acquired right of dual citizenship.
Another question the minister wants to raise is that of the oath of allegiance to the Queen. We all know that this is a sensitive issue. Many English Canadians feel some attachment, even a profound attachment, to the Queen of England. I must say the debate on this point is not very fierce in Quebec. In spite of all the respect we have for the Queen, we feel that the reference to her in the oath of allegiance is somewhat a thing of the past and that Canada should follow the example of Australia, which eliminated any reference to the Queen of England in its oath of allegiance.
When I became an MP, I did not want to take an oath of allegiance to a Queen that I see as a foreigner. I come from another country. In Chile, we did away with the King of Spain a long time ago. But I was told that if I wanted to become a member of the House, I had to swear allegiance to the Queen.
Mr. Speaker, you indicate that I must conclude. I find this throne speech very disappointing and I think there is no vision of the future in it.