Debates of Oct. 2nd, 1997

Speech From The Throne

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have not yet finished answering the question. The member is prejudging my answer. How could the member say that I am not answering the question when he does not give me the opportunity to answer the question?

When the deficit has been reduced from $42 billion to nearly zero and the budget will be balanced in two years, that is a sign of fiscal health.

We recognize that there is still a debt. We do not deny that. That is why we continue to work to increase the economy of the country so that we will have the revenues and eventually we will be able to repay the debt. The government has stated that when we have the fiscal dividend we will spend half of it for the repayment of debt and reduction of taxes. However, in contrast to the Reform Party we will spend half of our fiscal dividend for social and economic programs for the country, for medicare, education and for research and development. The Reform Party does not care about the essence of politics. It does not care about the essence of government. Government is for the people. It is not only for the reduction of debt. A reduction of debt is not the ultimate essence of our obligation. We will reduce the debt. We will reduce the deficit because we would like to serve the people. Meanwhile we need a balanced approach. The Canadian people gave us that mandate and so I am pleased to be part of the government.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. friend. He spoke with a great deal of eloquence about how well the government has done in his view. I suspect, knowing his constituency well, that he deals with a great number of immigration problems.

Years ago one of the dark sides of Canadian history was the head tax on Asians. We have rejected that as one of the darkest moments in our history as a country.

His government recently imposed a major head tax on all new Canadians. He will know that this poses an incredible burden, in particular on poor families coming from developing countries.

I would be curious to know what my hon. friend says to new Canadians who are applying to have relatives, friends and extended families come to Canada and have to pay these exorbitant head taxes now as a result of the taxes imposed by his government on new Canadians.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, when the issue was emerging a couple of years ago I consulted with my constituents. Every new Canadian that I spoke to understood that we are in a tight financial situation. They understood that they would have to pay the $975 landing fee, but what they did not understand, and for which I fought with them, is that the fee must be paid at the time of landing and not before. On that we succeeded.

I might inform the hon. member from the NDP that even the NDP member of the Manitoba Legislative Assembly signed the petition accepting the landing fee.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, I need to challenge the hon. member. Of course we ask questions about the diversion of the taxpayers' dollars to paying interest which really is what happens when we have a $600 billion debt. One-third of every dollar that taxpayers send to Ottawa is simply transferred to financial organizations that have lent the government money. That is money that is not available for government programs.

How can this member claim success for the government's fiscal policies when what it is doing is arranging to spend one-third of the taxpayers' dollars on things that have nothing to do at all with delivering government programs to needy people in this country?

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, perhaps the best way to answer the question would be with another question so that the members could get the meaning.

Let assume for a moment that we spend all the revenues of Canada to pay our debt. What would happen to the people of Canada? What would happen to the people who get sick? What would happen to the children who are hungry? What would happen to the children who would like to get an education?

We have placed our priorities. I consulted at the doorsteps during the last election. I presented the program of the Reform, the program of the NDP. Canadians shared their confidence with us because they believe a balanced approach is the way to govern the country.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, as this is the beginning of the 36th Parliament, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the people of Drummond for once again demonstrating their faith in me. They can count on my co-operation and be assured that I will defend the interests of this riding with a booming economy, which is also referred to as the heart of Quebec. As I did at the beginning of the 35th Parliament, I want to offer my constituents my full co-operation and promise them that I will do my utmost to promote their interests.

Since I will continue to act as health critic, my comments today will pertain mainly to the throne speech sections that touched on health issues.

But first, I must condemn this Speech from the Throne for promoting nothing less than a Pierre Elliott Trudeau style of federalism with all its consequences. This overbearing and centralizing federalism adamantly refuses to recognize the equality of the two founding peoples, thus thwarting the legitimate ambitions of the Quebec people. This type of federalism wants Quebeckers to choose between being unique like the Pacific salmon or facing the threats of plan B if they want to assert themselves. Never before has a Speech from the Throne so openly threatened Quebeckers' right to decide their own future.

In the face of this spurious choice of a renewed federalism provided everyone fits the same mold, we say that our aspirations are legitimate, that they are imbued with the spirit of democracy and that we are marching down that road to freedom and to our future.

Getting back to the issue of health care and the government's plans as stated in the throne speech, I would like to talk about the way the cuts were distributed. The Liberals go around preening and busting their britches over their balancing the budget by next year. However they are not saying how they got to that point.

They do not mention that for the most part cuts have been made at the expense of the poorest of the poor. Nor do they boast about the fact that they cut $4.5 billion in transfer payments to the provinces, including $1.3 billion to Quebec alone. Also, they neglect to mention that the government has grabbed the surpluses in the unemployment insurance fund, to which it stopped contributing several years ago.

Not a word either about the federal departments' expenditures, which were supposed to be cut by 19 percent but were reduced by only 9 percent, or less than half the Liberals' rather modest goal. Moreover they hide the fact that 54 percent of the cuts made were to social programs, health care and education.

But we in the Bloc Quebecois are going to tell it all. We are not going to let the Prime Minister and his finance minister get credit for the sacrifices made by others.

This is typical of Liberal smoke and mirrors. Governments in Quebec and the other provinces are made to look like heavies, because they have been forced to make cuts and not Ottawa, which in turn steps in as a saviour using the money it took from workers and the neediest and reinvesting mere crumbs in areas which are not even under its jurisdiction, namely social programs, education and once again health care. I say “once again” because this is not the first time the Liberals have tried to intrude on health care.

They date back to the first red book, which called for the creation of a national forum on health, raising objections from all of the provinces because they had no representation on it. No provincial minister was allowed to take part. And anyway, a number of them had already carried out a similar exercise. Here, once again, they were having standards and views dictated to them, while the provinces were the ones that knew what they needed in the area of health.

This Forum cost $12 million at the very least. They are shoving the unemployed onto welfare because of the cuts, but paying $12 million for a national forum which leaves no room for the provinces. They tabled a condescending report which was a total endorsement of federal interference in the health field. This report went beyond the Prime Minister's expectations, and here he is ready to spread his tentacles further out into this area of provincial jurisdiction.

They found new ways to interfere. Take tax credits for home-based care, for example. Not only are they interfering but they are adding to what has already been put into place.

In red book II, the Liberals promised to create a new credit for home-based care. In the Speech from the Throne, they say they want to follow up on this promise of interference. Having seen the Liberals make cuts in transfer payments for social programs that could reach a total of $42 billion between 1995 and 2003, what are we to think when we see them announcing a new annual program worth some one hundred million dollars? This is nothing more and nothing less than hypocrisy.

Rather than including that amount in the transfer payments to the provinces, the federal government is using its powers of taxation to interfere in the delivery of home care, an area that comes under provincial jurisdiction. The federal government wants to see its maple leaf logo on the cheques, rather than leaving the provinces alone to manage their own areas of jurisdiction.

And what about another attempt at interference, the integration of a federal drug plan? According to the throne speech, the federal government will establish a national plan, with national standards, a timetable and a fiscal framework to set up its new discovery in the area of meddling and duplication: drug insurance. This meddling and duplication is unacceptable.

It is out of the question for the federal government to come along and impose its own standards, when the whole thing is already set up. The Liberals must promise to provide a system whereby those provinces not interested in participating or already having such a program, like Quebec, can withdraw from the program, with full compensation.

Then there is the Canadian information system. The Canadian health information system is another example of the federal government's centralizing tendencies. Here come the Liberals again with the announcement they made in the latest budget on the Canadian health information system, a fund worth $50 million over three years.

Madam Speaker, you are telling me I have only a minute left, but I still have a lot to say. However, I will move to my conclusion.

What we in the Bloc Quebecois object to is that this is the Liberal government's tactic of smoke and mirrors, of doing anything to save face. We in the Bloc, however, have news for the Prime Minister. People are no longer being taken in by this sort of antic. Quebecers are increasingly aware of what goes on here and can count on the 44 members of the Bloc Quebecois, who will be here every day, in every debate, to reveal the pretence and go beyond appearances, to show people what really goes on here, even though that may not be to the liking of the other side of the House.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment.

I listened with great interest to the member from the Bloc Quebecois and there are a few things I would like to point out. We have to accept in this House the comments from the opposition party on how it feels about our programs and our achievements. However, I believe the best judge of that is the people of Canada. They reflected this in the last election by not only renewing our mandate but by sending the message to the Bloc Quebecois, because its numbers went from 54 to 44.

The member talked about the national forum on health. Consultation was done well before the election and when its recommendation came back one of its highlights was to restore funding to a base of $12.5 billion. Without hesitation the prime minister and the government took the initiative to restore the funding and accepted the recommendation of the committee. At the same time they went beyond and added $50 million over the next three years, which the member also pointed out.

I want to comment on the point the member made about the aspirations and the path to freedom. I am puzzled about the use of the word freedom. I feel I and the rest of Canada are being told we are hostages held in a ball and chain. As a Canadian, whether I live Quebec, Ontario or British Columbia, I like to believe I have freedom. I have the freedom to vote, I have the freedom to select, I have the freedom to travel, I have the freedom to choose. Maybe in Quebec I am restricted as to the schools I can send my children, but that is for the Quebec people to decide.

I do not know what the member means by the path of freedom. As Canadians we are all free citizens.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to the last comment made by the hon. member. I should remind him that what we have been saying for the past 30 and perhaps even 300 years is that we are one of the two founding peoples of this country and that we want to be recognized as such. That is what we call freedom.

I would also like to comment on some of my hon. colleague's remarks regarding the National Forum on Health. This forum was established following the last throne speech. The government was committed to travelling across Canada to find out what works and what does not work in each province's health care system.

This was to be done in co-operation with provincial ministers and representatives. The ministers and their representatives said no, as they considered this to be outright interference in an area of provincial jurisdiction.

Under the Constitution—which you like to bring up when it suits your purpose—the federal government is only required to transfer tax revenues. These amounts are to be distributed among the provinces on the basis of population, and the federal government is required to transfer some of the money to help the provinces carry out their responsibilities in the area of health.

Need I remind the House that health care management is the responsibility of each province. Health is an exclusive provincial jurisdiction. I hope that is clear.

As for the Canada social transfer, we read on page 58 of red book II: “A new Liberal government will raise the CHST cash floor to $12.5 billion beginning in 1998-99”. The $6 billion increase in health spending announced by the Liberals is a sham. This is not new money; it comes from the cancellation of cuts the Liberals had planned to make. This money is spread over five years. It is definitely not extra money the federal government will be transferring to the provinces every year. So, don't tell us—

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Thibeault)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. Resuming debate with the hon. member for Louis-Hébert.

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is with a great deal of respect that I take part in the debate on the throne speech.

First, I wish to congratulate you on your appointment as assistant deputy chairman of committees of the whole House, and I also want to take a few moments to thank the voters of Louis-Hébert for putting their trust in me, and also the numerous volunteers without whose support I would not be here today.

Everybody agrees that research and development is a key component for any society wishing to be fully prepared for the 21st century. Economic prosperity is increasingly the result of research and technological development, rather than the development of natural resources. The government opposite may be full of good intentions in its speeches, but we are still waiting for concrete action. For instance, the throne speech is extremely vague on the government's approach regarding this strategic sector. The government only included a few paragraphs to affirm its supposedly crucial role in that area. It is so ironic.

Science and technology are at the core of a modern country's prosperity. The government claims to recognize the primary role of science and technology in preserving the public's health and well-being. It claims to recognize it has a contribution to make to job creation and economic growth. In their red book, before the 1993 election, the Liberals promised to double funding for research and development. However, as always, these commitments turned into cuts of 50 percent to research budgets.

If this government truly cared about research and development, it would at least restore research funding to its pre-1993 level, and as quickly as possible. Even then, Canada would still be trailing far behind other OECD countries. This is how serious this Liberal government is, in its throne speech.

As Mr. Tavanas, the Rector of Université Laval in Quebec City, recently pointed out, “because of the globalization of knowledge-based economies, particularly in the developed world, knowledge is finally recognized for what it is, namely a collective wealth, a tool for economic and social progress, and a competitive asset for nations. The role of universities is particularly important in Quebec, where research and industrial development still lag behind what is being done in other developed countries with which, unfortunately, we must compete”.

Last February, in full pre-election mode, the Liberals, with their sense of the dramatic, announced with much fanfare the creation of the Canadian Foundation for Innovation. One election and a few months later, the Bloc Quebecois is still waiting for more information on this tool to modernize research infrastructure.

Questions come to mind. Will there be funding with which to pay researchers? This is vital to ensure the quality of research and stop the brain drain. The question remains unanswered.

The whole scientific community is impatient to see this much heralded foundation become reality. It is not known when it will actually be up and running.

The Bloc Quebecois has already identified a number of weak points. The new foundation's mandate excludes social sciences, a key sector that is seen as secondary to research. The preferred emphasis was on “hard sciences”, leaving universities like the Université du Québec à Montréal, which does not have a medical or engineering faculty, out of luck.

Despite the $800 million investment, an annual contribution of $180 million announced by the Minister of Finance in the February 1997 budget, it is clear that it will not offset the deep cuts made by the Liberals in recent years in R&D.

The Bloc Quebecois has not forgotten that the federal research councils sustained cuts of close to $100 million, or 10 to 14 percent of their budget, and that funding for health and post-secondary education was slashed by $3.3 billion, with a direct negative impact on research in these two sectors.

These blithe cuts in transfers to the provinces, as well as departmental budgets, the latter having lost half a billion for R&D, have been detrimental to the activities of all the country's research laboratories, centres and agencies.

In this throne speech, the government is trying to look generous, but it is in fact interfering in three areas of provincial jurisdiction: health, universities and social programs. This is a sure way to irritate provincial governments, which in turn are forced to make corresponding cuts in these same areas, in response to dramatic cuts in federal transfer payments.

For those who are in any doubt, from 1994 to 1997 federal cash transfers for health, welfare and post-secondary education dropped from $19.3 billion to $14.9 billion. They will drop by another $2.4 billion this year.

The selection of R&D projects will be the responsibility of the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, which may, if necessary, resort to peer evaluation. Universities have already expressed their views on the matter by demanding this particular selection process, peer evaluation, without receiving any guarantees in that regard.

Moreover, for new programs, the foundation will require partners to contribute 50 percent or 60 percent of total funding. It is hard to imagine how universities and hospitals, already faced with considerable budget constraints resulting from cuts in transfers to the provinces, will manage to meet this major challenge. We do not know how this foundation will distribute the available funds among the provinces. Can we hope that Quebec's share will be proportionate to its population?

Considering what is at stake here, namely our ability to participate fully in the economy of the next millennium, the shortsighted vision favoured by the Liberal government is cause for concern. Yet there is a sense of urgency because of the fierce competition that exists at the international level in the area of research and development. Therefore, I call upon the government to stop talking and start acting before it is too late.

I should advise the government that, as my party's critic for science, research and development, I will monitor the establishment of this foundation and the funds that will be invested in these areas. I will act as a watchdog for that community, which has contributed more than its share to the government's struggle to put its fiscal house in order. I will be all the more vigilant since my own riding of Louis-Hébert includes universities, CEGEPs, research hospitals and a thriving high tech sector.

All this activity, of which I am very proud, will pave the way for the new economy in our region and in the national capital of a sovereign Quebec.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member on what I believe is her first speech in the House and I welcome her. I am particularly pleased when we have members opposite who are interested in the science and technology files. I welcome a lot of the remarks which she made today and I would like to ask her one question.

I represent a large university in my riding. Research and development, the development of new technologies and the building of research infrastructure which will be a part of the product of this new foundation is of great interest to me. We are constantly seeking out new partnerships and new forms of investment in order to build the kind of research strength which we would all like to see. As the member has recognized, it creates jobs and a secure future for us.

However in discussions with some of the larger firms, the political instability in Canada particularly in the province of Quebec is a significant disincentive to investment. I just wonder how as a new member in this House with experience and an interest in this very important area she answers that. Would we not be better off if we resolved the unity question, if we put that aside and got on with the work of investing in this country together and building a future for all of us?

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, fortunately, my hon. colleague's concerns are not shared by investors around the world. We are experiencing healthy growth in investment, and hence in the number of potential partners in research and development.

If I may refer to the terms recently used by the metropolitan Quebec chamber of commerce, concerning an investigation on the job losses in the public service resulting from early retirement policies, it said that the research and development sector was so vibrant in the Quebec City area that those jobs losses were gradually being offset by new jobs in research and development. This is what we call the new economy.

At this time, everything is fine and investors from around the world—I will not go through the list of the most recent investments, although I could if you were to ask me to—are much more concerned with the quality of researchers and the development sector than they are with any other problem. For the time being, they are very positive about Quebec.

To conclude, I would like to say that each dollar invested in research and development creates jobs.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate the new member for Louis-Hébert on her speech.

I have a question for her. I have often visited the great city of Montreal, and I remember Montreal used to be the most important city in Canada, and it was booming. In the last 20 years, Montreal has experienced high unemployment and a great deal of poverty. Over that period a Parti Quebecois government has been in office in Quebec City for a long time.

How is it that, with a Parti Quebecois government, in Montreal there is high unemployment, poverty is on the rise and prosperity is a thing of the past? Does the hon. member have an explanation for this? This is really sad, because Montreal used to be the most important city in Canada.

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, my answer will be very brief indeed. If it were not for all these cuts to transfer payments, maybe poverty would not be so acute in the Montreal area.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate you again on your apppointment. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Scarborough-Centre.

I must confess that it is with some pride that I rise today in this House as the new Liberal member for Bourassa. You undoubtedly know that I lost three previous elections before winning on June 2. All those years of relentless efforts have earned me the nickname of Mr. Tenacity. My colleagues opposite will surely have the opportunity to find out why real soon, if they have not done so already.

Since June 2, the voters in Bourassa have, for the first time in four years, a real member of Parliament, a true federalist voice in the House of Commons, a good representative who will fight to protect their interests and express their viewpoints in Parliament.

So, my first words in this House will be for the voters of Bourassa. I want to thank them from the bottom of my heart for letting me live my dream, which is to represent them in the Parliament of Canada.

The taxpayers of the wonderful riding of Bourassa, in Quebec, have elected me to take part in the building of a strong Canada for the year 2000, a strong Canada for our children, a strong and united Canada proudly looking to the future. That is what I will be trying to achieve in the next four or five years.

Let me assure you that the mandate the people of Bourassa have given me is something near and dear to my heart and that I take it very seriously, because I am very much aware of my responsibilities and the trust these people have put in me.

It is in that spirit that I intend to contribute, in my limited capacity, to the reflection on the trust which must exist between the citizens and their elected representatives in a healthy democracy.

If I asked for the floor in this venerable House today, it is to talk about the priorities of our government. By the way, some of my colleagues on the other side of the House would do well to listen. They could learn how to go about taking this country beyond the year 2000.

The hon. members across the floor have frequently accused us of not going to the people with a book full of promises and undertakings to cure all the ills of Canada. Had we done so, nobody would have believed us and we would not have been re-elected with a majority, as we were on June 2.

Had we said that the federal government could solve all the problems, we would have been lying through our teeth. We chose to concentrate on a few clear, essential priorities we can deal with vigorously.

You probably recall the sorry state of the country's finances a mere four years ago. Need I remind you that within a single mandate, the Minister of Finance, the Hon. Paul Martin, did a tremendous job of turning things around? So much so that we will reach a balanced budget, a zero deficit, earlier than forecasted.

It is now possible to think about reinvesting in social programs. As a matter of fact, the government will increase its financial assistance to provinces beyond the budgeted level. We will introduce a bill that will bring up to $12.5 billion the guaranteed annual cash payments to provinces and territories within the framework of the Canada health and social transfer.

This is certainly good news for all Canadians. Interest rates are the lowest in 30 years, inflation is under control, the dollar is stable and investment is constantly increasing. Even consumers are starting to believe again in the strength of our economy, and this is a very good sign.

The good news as we are pulling out a difficult period of downsizing is that while putting our house in order to reduce our costs, we have also changed our methods and approaches in order to get better results. The reforms that we have initiated and that we are pursuing will allow us not only to save money, but also to get our money's worth, to pay for services that Canadians really need, in a flexible and efficient manner.

In short, we made all the changes needed to develop a less costly model, but also a more modern and efficient model. Now that the health of our public finances is progressively improving, we have to put forward an action plan for the future.

The Liberal government's action plan is based on our highest priority, employment, that is to make sure that this good health is also reflected in the quality of life of all our citizens. This is why we intend to intensify our efforts in the development of job opportunities, for young Canadians especially.

Our young people are enterprising, well educated and ready to take over from us and contribute to the development of Canada. We must ensure that conditions are such that they can find their place in the sun. It was to that end that, last week, the Prime Minister announced in this House the establishment of the millennium scholarship fund to provide financial assistance to young people.

In the years to come, our government will be spending $800 million to stimulate youth employment. That is positive, concrete action, not empty promises. With the economic indicators forecasting continued recovery in consumer spending, the basic conditions for the private sector to increase its hiring level are in place. But to get a job when jobs are increasingly specialized, one must first get appropriate training. Our government plans to focus its energies on that.

We are confident that we can work toward ensuring that as many Canadians as possible have the necessary skills to get the jobs opening up in high tech areas. The changes to employment insurance were designed with that in mind. It is also with that in mind and to demonstrate flexibility that we signed with the Government of Quebec an agreement ensuring that the management of training assistance is brought closer to the people concerned. This is proof that the federal system does work.

Finally, the changes we are thinking about making to the financial support to families are along the same lines. We intend to increase the federal government's contribution to the child tax credit by at least $850 million over the course of this mandate.

Let me conclude by summing up our priorities for the next four years. We are committed to building a prosperous country, through careful and responsible policies aimed at reducing underemployment and child poverty, and a healthy country that will remain healthy thanks to better organized health care services.

To these two main priorities I must add a third one, without which implementation of the other would be impossible.

Our third priority, therefore, is to promote national unity and it is also why we have picked the right way to go about it: deliver good, flexible, honest and effective government to all Canadians, government that stays the course during hard times, government that manages the public purse wisely and works to eliminate the deficit and the debt.

I am convinced that our government will approach the whole issue of national unity in a spirit of co-operation and partnership with the provinces. We will do everything it takes to make Canada a strong and united country.

The people of Bourassa, like all Quebeckers and all Canadians, want a federal system that works better and that meets their needs. During this term of office, I will personally and with pride promote Quebec's interests within the Liberal Party of Canada and campaign tirelessly for the French fact in this country.

Finally, and more particularly, our determination to serve our fellow Quebeckers well can be seen in our desire to take action to help the greater Montreal area make the transition to the new economy. Behind the statistics on unemployment and poverty, there is still lots of good news for the area's economy.

Throughout greater Montreal, there are business that are innovating, discovering new markets, and expanding; in a word, hiring. Better news yet: these businesses are not all in high tech sectors. Whether it be textiles, tourism, retail sales or home care, there are businesses doing well and hiring people.

Our government thinks that the best way to offset job losses in slower growth areas is to encourage the creation of more new jobs in emerging sectors.

We have already invested heavily in research support and infrastructure renewal, and we intend to continue our role of supporting and jump starting the Montreal economy in the years to come.

Change, prosperity, responsibility, flexibility and honesty; this is the best guarantee of a united Canada where Quebeckers like myself can be proud to be what they are: full-fledged Canadians.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Madam Speaker, the new member for Bourassa, who until recently was the assistant director general of his party, the Liberal Party of Canada, in Quebec said it would be effective and desirable to forge bonds of trust between him and his voters, between the Liberal Party of Canada and Canadian voters.

It would be extremely difficult to build up trust, given that, as a whole, members of this Parliament do not enjoy a great degree of credibility among the public. According to a poll conducted last year, barely 4 percent of voters have some confidence in members of Parliament.

The member for Bourassa spoke about promises, promises which, need I remind him, were not kept. During the 1993 election campaign, his government promised to abolish the GST. That promise was broken. His government also pledged to set up a $5-a-day child care program from coast to coast. Another broken promise.

How can the member believe he can promote trust when, yesterday, the headlines of every newspaper in the country revealed that fundraisers from the Liberal Party had twisted the arms of businesspeople throughout Quebec to collect funds for the last election campaign, not to the tune of $5, $10 or $50 but, rather, $10,000, $50,000 or $100,000. As we all know, when Bombardier, for example, or the CIBC gives $100,000 to the Liberal Party, it is because it will make five times that amount. Theirs is not an investment that will bring in a mere 3 percent in interest; it is a lot more profitable than that.

It is very difficult to build up trust between voters and MPs when some Liberal members behave in this fashion.

In the past, the Conservative Party experienced problems of its own. Today, unfortunately, it is the Liberal Party. The former director general of its Quebec wing certainly did not provide a good example if his goal is to promote trust. It is just empty rhetoric.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

This is laughable, Madam Speaker, because regarding credibility, if you look at the facts, I won the election by 9,000 votes. The Bloc Quebecois lost more than 500,000 votes altogether. We have increased the number of our members in Quebec. We are everywhere or almost in the Quebec area. Federalists won a majority of votes compared to 38 percent for the other side.

If the hon. member wants to make allegations, if he has new facts to disclose—because that concerns me as much as it concerns all of us as members of Parliament—he should tell the RCMP, which, according to the news release, is conducting an investigation at the request of the human resources minister. They should stop reading newspapers and making allegations. If the hon. member has some new facts to reveal, he should do so outside the House so he will not be protected by parliamentary immunity. If he knows of anyone engaging in such practices, he should disclose their names. I have been in the Liberal Party of Canada for 15 years and I know everyone. But if he is in a position to name names, he should do so. I myself have never witnessed anything like that and I find this kind of thing appalling—

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Are you ready to put your seat on the line?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, if the member for Frontenac has new facts to reveal, he should do so. We in this party have forged a link of trust. The hon. member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies won the election by almost 8,000 votes. I won by 9,000 votes. In the riding of Ahuntsic, we won by more than 10,000 votes. We chose job creation, investment and financial credibility instead of playing the same old record.

They have played that old record so much that, as the Cyniques, an old comedy group of the 70s, used to say, you can hear the other side of it. This is terrible.

For the sake of all of us in this House, I hope that if the hon. member knows names, because he seems to know some things, he should leave the House and say what he has to say during a scrum. I too would like to know who is collecting money. This would be helpful to all of us.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me today to have the opportunity in the 36th Parliament to join in the debate on the Speech from the Throne.

I begin by thanking the residents of Scarborough Centre for once again entrusting me with their vote and their confidence. It was a privilege and an honour for me to have represented them during the 35th Parliament. That I find myself today in the 36th Parliament I owe it to them and I thank them. I pledge to them that I will once again do my utmost to bring their concerns to this honourable House. I also thank my volunteers, for had it not been for their support and commitment the excellent result we achieved would not have happened.

I also take this opportunity to thank my staff: Costas, Effy, Sandra and Kathy for keeping our office in an excellent working mode and serving our constituents during the election period. I thank my entire family, especially my two sisters, Nomike and Kathy, for their love and support. Also a very special thanks goes out to our riding president, Ernie Chaplin, for his dedication and continued support.

Last but not least I thank my children, Irene, Paul and Daniel, and my partner and loving wife, Mary. I say “Thank you, Kohani, for your love and support. You are my Rock of Gibraltar”.

Since the debate began last week many members have spoken on the throne speech. They brought forth many issues and many statistics. They dissected, analysed and commented on the throne speech in a way they chose to interpret it. I am sure every member in this honourable House respects each other's views whether we agree or disagree.

This is the arena where we all come to debate, to state our position, to bring forth the concerns of our constituency and our region. Because time does not permit I do not want to go into an in depth analysis and talk about how, when the Liberal government took office in 1993, the unemployment rate was at 11.5 percent and today as we all know it is 9 percent and dropping; how we inherited a $42 billion deficit from a Conservative government that had never met its budget targets; or how we inherited a country so weakened from all aspects that we were being described as a third world economy. Our social safety net was also falling apart, not being able to address our needs today let alone the needs of the future.

Within just a few short years and as a result of prudent initiatives, we have restored our economic sovereignty and have put our country on a solid footing. We are once again a nation and all of us as Canadians, whether we live in Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, Manitoba or wherever, can realistically see the light at the end of the tunnel. These initiatives are well known and the results are well documented.

I personally do not want to gloat about them. I choose to leave it up to the economists, the statisticians, the pundits and, yes, even the international community. Mostly I leave it up to the people of Canada to be the judge.

When I was canvassing during the election the households I visited in my riding often confronted me with various issues such as our pension system, our health system, our deficit, our job initiatives, crime issues, moral issues and issues such as the fiasco of topless women, which I might add I do not support and find unacceptable. I hope the government will do something to right that wrong. As members can see there are a variety of concerns.

However there was a common issue in each and every household, the issue of Canadian unity and how our country today is being torn apart. I was constantly asked what was happening to our country and why, when we have the privilege of living in the best country in the world, we would want to destroy it.

I was told a small group of separatists wanted to break up a country which on more than one occasion has been recognized as the best country in the world to live in. It is beyond me and the constituents of Scarborough Centre.

A strong message given to me in the last election, to do whatever I can to make sure the country stays united. I pledge to my constituents and to everybody else that I will do everything within my power to make sure not only us and our children but generations to come will inherit a country that is strong financially and indeed united.

It takes more than the member for Scarborough Centre and the constituents of Scarborough Centre. It takes more than just rhetoric. It takes goodwill and understanding from all Canadians. It will take political will and not the political rhetoric often used to exploit the weak and the vulnerable.

My constituents—and I know I speak for a vast number of Canadians—have recently been greatly disturbed by the comments of an unelected member of the Senate, Pat Carney. She suggested that separation be left on the negotiating table and that there was a bias shown by the federal government toward B.C.

Let me remind the senator that six Liberal members were elected from British Columbia and four of them are ministers of the crown and one is a parliamentary secretary. That is a hell of a lot better than what her and her boss, Brian Mulroney, did during their mandate.

That is not all. Even the Reform member from South Surrey, B.C., in an article I read just the other day agrees with Ms. Carney that separation will be on the table when B.C. attempts to negotiate a new deal with Canada. The article goes on to state:

While she agreed that Ms. Carney's comments were irresponsible, she said the senator was only expressing the concerns of British Columbia.

What a flip-flop. This is what they call their new style of politics, saying one thing one day and another the next, tailoring the message for one region and changing it for another region.

The leader of the Conservative Party used that tactic during the last election and we all know how it backfired. Therefore I suggest members of the Reform Party take note.

Now we have the NDP. One of its senior members, the member for Burnaby—Kingsway, is ready to tie himself to a fishing vessel and at the same time advocate the same type of tactics. The Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois are simply saying their way or the highway. That is not the approach to recommend.

I am appalled at the tactics being used here. Why is it that before we sit down to negotiate we first threaten separation? For example, when a family problem comes up, does the husband and wife first talk about separating or do they for the love of their family and children sit down and rationally work things out? They comprise if they have to because we all know there is no perfect solution.

Why must we always start our negotiations with a knife to the throat? Is that what we are all about? Is that the Canadian way? I do not think it is.

When we find ourselves abroad we have no hesitation in talking about our wonderful country. Proudly we talk about our systems, our lifestyle and everything we have in this great country. When we return home we also say how great it is to be home, even though we have visited some exotic places.

I spoke earlier about the family. Let me tell members about a special family. This past year we had two unfortunate and tragic incidents in Canada, the Saguenay and the Manitoba floods. It was that special Canadian family that lived in Scarborough, Saskatoon, Vancouver, Trois Rivieres and Charlottetown. Together they came, cared, reached out and helped.

I recall one interview in which a gentleman from the Saguenay region, with tears in his eyes, said how moved he was by the response from the rest of Canada. He went on to say how he voted yes in the last referendum. But he said that in the next referendum, and he hoped there would never be another referendum, he would vote for Canada because he now saw the light.

That is what we are about, a caring and loving country. This is the country that is admired worldwide. That is what makes us all proud and different Canadians.

I close with a statement made almost 130 years ago by Sir John A. Macdonald, one of the founders of this country.

If I had influence over the minds of the people of Canada, any power over their intellect, I would leave them with this legacy. Whatever you do, adhere to the Union. We are a great nation and shall become one of the greatest in the Universe if we preserve it. We shall sink into insignificance and adversity if we suffer it to be broken. Let no factious men put it asunder.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to comment on some of the remarks by the hon. member, some of which were regrettably partisan, to the Speech from the Throne.

There were some very eloquent remarks from the member from Scarborough Centre on Canadian patriotism and the importance of national unity. I would like to strongly second some of the sentiments he expressed. I and my colleagues have always believed that patriotism, a genuine love for one's country, is better expressed through actions than through mere words.

How does the hon. member believe his government can express that love and passion for Canadian unity through actions of fundamentally reforming the federation so that we do not hear the kind of remarks from Senator Carney and so we no longer have the presence of the secessionists in this great Chamber?

Is this hon. member willing to look at reforming the upper chamber of the House so Canada will no longer be the only major federal government in the developed world which does not have proper regional representation in its halls of power? Is the hon. member willing to look at concrete reforms of federal institutions so that all Canadians feel included and can share in the kind of magnificent patriotism expressed by this member?

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for an excellent question.

I talked the other day in an S.O. 31 of an accountable senator. The key work was unaccountable.

The member knows that he and I and every individual sitting in this House have to go to the people every four or five years. The people judge us based on our performance, results, programs, etc. I bring back that word today in response to the question, unaccountable.

Senator Pat Carney is unaccountable because she does not have to go to the people every four years. Maybe the time has come to look at the other house and make those senators accountable, whether it be for their attendance or what they say, for the sake of this country. follows They should be held accountable for what they say. They should have to go to the people every four or five years and present themselves as candidates so that when they speak in every region of this country they will have to answer to the people, as we have to answer to the people.

Yes, I agree that the time has come that maybe we should have an elected Senate.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not question our colleague's sincere desire to represent his constituents properly. I think, however, that he should not question our sincerity, as we are democratically elected members from Quebec.

I would like to point out to the hon. member that the government, in the throne speech, far from giving up its power to spend, the spending power of the federal government, has just shown that it intends to do the opposite. My hon. colleague said that, as with married couples, when things are not going very well, always threatening to leave does not solve any problem, and that we should not always be made to react because a gun is being held to our head.

I would like to remind the hon. member opposite that several members on this side have risen to point out to the government what the priorities of Quebec are in the area of occupational or manpower training.

Again, we have to remind this government that, in the throne speech, far from giving up their power to spend, they are at it again, overlapping and duplicating, in the section dealing with young people. I will read him a brief passage from a letter I received from the Quebec minister, Louise Harel, as a result of a meeting with a youth advisory committee within the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre, the SQDM:

In an opinion submitted to the SQDM, some representatives of youth groups question the federal youth employment strategy, pointing out that if the federal-provincial agreement of April 21, 1997 is a first step towards respecting the consensus in Quebec, the youth employment strategy put forward by the federal government goes in the opposite direction.

That is why we, as a group in the Bloc Quebecois, condemn this strategy of overlap and duplication in areas under provincial jurisdiction.

[The Acting Speaker (Thibeault)]

The hon. member for Scarborough Centre for a very short answer.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is what I refer to when I say exploitation. The cacophony of condemnation is so swift from the Bloc Quebecois it is unbelievable.

She talked about manpower. This is where they confuse the issue. I remind the member that when the Quebec government asked for manpower training this government was more than willing to give it the responsibility for manpower training. That has been done.

Maybe what they should do in the Quebec legislature is look at how to refine and use the tools which we have given them, as opposed to exploiting them for their own agenda.