Debates of Oct. 2nd, 1997

Speech From The Throne

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, fundamental to the Speech from the Throne is the underpinning that we have to build strategies and programs that are reflective of our fiscal means and which accommodate our resources. We have not gone through four years of very difficult times to forget that everything we do must be affordable and reflective of the fiscal reality.

I also remind the hon. member that the role of government is not to balance the budget as an end in itself. The role of government is to respond to the needs of Canadians, to make life better for Canadians. I suggest to him that the approach and the strategy we have provided allow us to take very serious account of our fiscal reality, of the resources available to us to make sure we do not ever again spend too much, but to reflect the needs of Canadians and make choices that are reflective of Canadian priorities.

A hallmark of the government has been our capacity to understand and ensure ourselves of the priorities of Canadians and to show that we can respond to those in a fiscally responsible way.

All the aspects the hon. member reflects are part of the Speech from the Throne except for the understanding that the management of the deficit and the debt is not an end in itself. Managing those is instrumental and a requirement for us to continue to build a great country and respond to the needs of the people of a great country who want to continue to have the best country in the world in which to live.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the remarks by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The tone was excellent, the kind of tone that befits the issues she intends to defend. I had the opportunity to hear her speak on other occasions, outside this House, and she displayed on those occasions the same attitude she is displaying today.

I do not know if it comes from being a woman, but her image is completely different from that of the former Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who came across as very aggressive. This makes for a welcome change. I agree with everything she said, for instance, about poverty among aboriginal people in Canada, about health, suicide and so on.

It is true. I know because, when I was sitting on the human resources development committee in the early part of my former mandate, I saw the problems she is talking about. However, the royal commission, which tabled an extensive report, indicated huge amounts are involved. I think she had better say whether or not she is prepared to go as far as recommended by the royal commission on Indian affairs. Is she prepared to act on the commission's recommendations?

Speaking of understanding and this understanding attitude I welcome—we really need it in this House—is the minister prepared to recognize, in the same positive and open manner, that we are a people?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my comments, the work of the royal commission is a tremendous body of knowledge which is valuable not only to me as the minister responsible for Indian affairs but to other partners as well, the provinces, First Nations and Canadians.

When we look at the over 440 recommendations that are a part of that document, really only 89 are strictly under the purview of the federal government. They are much more far reaching and broad than saying that the federal government has this and this to do.

As I said, while many people have different definitions of the work of the royal commission, fundamental to that work is a clear indication that the structural relationship has to change. The way we have worked together in the past has not provided us with the benefits one might expect.

Their message is that we have to be much broader. We have to include more people in solving the difficulties which face our aboriginal Canadians.

The sense is that if we partner together effectively, if we build a relationship with First Nations and ask for their input and advice on taking the recommendations of the royal commission and building a plan of action together, engaging the provinces and the private sector, including Canadians in that process, we will find the solutions we need to ensure that aboriginal people are able to benefit from the wealth and prosperity of Canada.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had to stand in the House. It is a bit of an intimidating experience. I congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your appointment and the minister on her new responsibilities.

The appointment as Conservative critic for Indian affairs and northern development is an appointment I take very seriously. I think we should all take a moment to reflect on the responsibilities of a critic.

The responsibility of a critic is not just to jump to their feet every time the government stands, or rather sits; the responsibility of a critic, number one, is to be positive and, number two, to look for defects in what the government is saying. Certainly a critic has an innate responsibility to be responsible in their comments. I am not sure that is always recognized in the House. It is something we would all look forward to seeing a bit more of.

There were a few comments made by the hon. minister about the royal commission on aboriginal peoples. There were many good points brought up by that commission. There were also some negative points. The fact that we are individuals gives us the ability to disagree with certain points and to agree with certain points.

There are a few things the minister referred to which bear reflecting on again.

We have a number of statistics. When we hear the word statistics we quite often lose sight of the fact that those statistics involve people, men, women and children. They are not just numbers in somebody's book. We are dealing with human lives and futures.

When they understand that they are dealing with over 600 First Nations' communities, that there are a lot of pressing problems, that there is rampant child poverty, that 30 percent of the aboriginal community is under the age of 15 years, as politicians, if they do not understand anything else about that, they will understand that many of them will vote in the next election. There is a long journey.

There are a couple of points we should not forget. We have to proceed on this and we have to proceed together. We have to keep the principles of accountability and transparency, which were mentioned in the throne speech.

We can do three things. We can stagnate. We can continue to do what we have done. We can stand still and not move forward or we can move forward together.

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the comments of the critic of the Conservative Party and thank him for his intervention.

He reflects precisely my point of view, that indeed we, as members of Parliament, have a role to play in building with First Nations the strategies for the future. I look forward to working with him as we work together with First Nations to find that framework.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate you on your appointment to your new job. We actually did not think this was going to happen until we occupied the other side of the House. I am sure that you bring expertise and fairness to the position. I look forward to a long tenure with you.

While I am congratulating and thanking people, I would certainly like to thank the people of the grand old constituency of Wetaskiwin for returning me to the House of Commons for the second time. This is a real endorsement of our party's policies, our leader and our platform. If I may be so bold, it is probably an endorsement of myself as the candidate.

That did not come about strictly by accident. It came about as a result of a lot of hard work. I would like to thank those people who spent so much time, effort and shoe leather getting me elected. They did an exemplary job and I would like to recognize them here in the House.

When I was going around in my constituency during the election campaign, I talked to a lot of people in the coffee shops, on the doorsteps and on the farms throughout the constituency. Their concern was that they felt they had more government than they could afford, that the debt was certainly a huge problem, that it was a millstone around Canadians' necks. They told me that they would like a fresh start. Coincidentally, that is exactly on what we campaigned.

Therefore, it is incumbent on us to do our utmost to give Canadians a fresh start and to ease the tax burden. As the labour critic for the Reform Party, I noticed that the throne speech was sadly lacking in the area of labour.

Being a farmer, labour as it relates to me most directly is in the shipment of grain to port. Of course, a lot of other products have to go to port. We discover that these shipments can be interrupted either through work stoppage, that is a strike or a lockout.

I was most disappointed that the government did not take an opportunity to put into the throne speech some sort of final offer selection dispute settlement mechanism. I think this is of utmost importance. The loss of markets that we suffer each time there is a work disruption is an immeasurable commodity. Although we can measure certain amounts of lost markets, we cannot measure the entire impact on the economy.

Mr. Speaker, if it is not too late I wish to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary West.

What about the amendments to the Canada Labour Code? We expect them to be tabled in the House very soon. Those amendments would be an excellent opportunity to see a final offer selection arbitration settlement mechanism take place.

This mechanism would affect about 700,000 federal workers, people who do not necessarily work for the federal government but who come under the jurisdiction of the federal labour code. That represents about 10 percent of the Canadian workforce. These people are mostly involved in the movement of goods, services or capital. They are people who work in the airline industry, the banking industry, the railroads and the post office.

We think it is of utmost importance that we have a mechanism to settle these disputes and yet we are not getting any kind of co-operation from the federal government. The federal government will use final offer selection arbitration once they have legislated either a locked out group or a struck group back to work. If it is good enough to use after these people are legislated back to work, then why not make it available to the parties before the work stoppage starts?

How would that work? The parties involved would agree on who their arbitrator was. They would present to the arbitrator the matters that were agreed on, the matters that are outstanding and their final position on those outstanding items. The arbitrator then would choose all of one position or all of the other position, no compromise position.

To me, this is a tool that can be equally used by labour or by management. If it is used to its ultimate, as I have said in this House many times before, it will not to be used at all. Both parties know that they have to bargain in a most earnest situation. They have to arrive at the best possible bottom line. There would be no fudging, no hedging, just the bottom line. If they do not, then an arbitrator can be imposed on them.

Some people have said this takes away the right to strike and disrupts and interferes with the bargaining process. Quite the contrary. Groups that are either locked out or on strike will have their bargaining process far more compromised through back to work legislation than they ever would with final offer selection arbitration.

I was most disappointed that we did not hear any mention of this during the Speech from the Throne. It is high time we adopted this. As I mentioned, Bill C-66 as it was known in the last Parliament, died in the Senate. Therefore I expect that the minister will reintroduce it in the House in the coming weeks. I am going to push very strongly to see that there are some changes made along the lines of final offer selection arbitration.

Canada is in a global marketplace. We have to establish our reputation as a reliable supplier of goods. Not only do we have to supply the best possible commodities, which we do, there is no problem with that, but we have to supply them on a regular, consistent and reliable basis. If we do not, our customers are certainly going to be looking elsewhere. It is like being in the supermarket business, if it is not on the shelf, it is pretty difficult to sell.

I am looking forward to seeing the bill come back to the House for debate, which I am sure will be any day now, at which time we will be addressing it and making all sorts of improvements to it, not the least of which is final offer selection arbitration.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was quite intrigued by the comments of the member opposite on the approach of final offer selection arbitration.

I wonder if the member opposite has any data on the results of final offer arbitration or arbitration awards generally. Do they generally tilt in favour of the union or do they generally tilt in favour of management?

The data that I have seen most recently indicated that arbitration tends to tilt in favour of labour. That may be a very good thing, but if one is looking at cost, if one is concerned about the fiscal ramifications, I wonder if the hon. member has any information which would indicate that arbitration tends to tilt one way or the other.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that certainly opens up a great debate. We could probably talk about that for some time. I agree that I have seen some information which tends to indicate that final offer selection arbitration tends to favour labour slightly.

However, every work disruption and every strike results in labour getting some improvements in its situation, either in working conditions, benefits or wages. I think that while some of the information does seem to tend to favour the unions, it would at least settle a strike.

Having to take the drastic step of passing back to work legislation, which, by the way, some government members have already decided, and have said so in the newspapers, is the way to handle the postal strike which has not happened yet, will have a tremendous detrimental effect on the bargaining process.

We should have some apparatus in place that is an item that either labour or management can put in its tool box and require them to bargain this situation right down to the nitty-gritty.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I must commend the member. The president of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union president, local 832, would be pleased. He was instrumental in bringing into law in Manitoba that settlement process. It was immediately repealed by the Conservative government because he was right. It kept parties honest and the Conservative government and employers had a problem with that. Without question, it was a process that did keep people honest and it did favour labour because government and employers were being dishonest in their negotiations.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a question there but in reply to my colleague's comments, I can only underscore the need to have some sort of process in place to encourage the parties to come to an agreement on their own. A negotiated settlement is probably the best settlement. There is no probably about it, it is the best settlement. Any time that two parties can negotiate and settle their differences without any interference from outside is the best way to go.

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise to address the Speech from the Throne, this being my first speech in the House. I wish to thank the voters of Calgary West for choosing me to be their voice in Ottawa.

When one drives east along Bow Trail toward city centre one cannot help but admire the concrete and steel of Calgary's new downtown rising up toward the blue sky of Alberta. One has to marvel at Calgary's energy, her productivity, and take note of how the city has grown and prospered. No matter how many tax dollars, government jobs or military bases Ottawa has deprived Calgary of, we still have a low unemployment rate, low taxes and a hunger for Canada's lowest income tax rate.

The meaner Ottawa gets, the leaner Calgary becomes. We now have a city that thrives upon private industry, not the fat of the federal government. I am proud to represent a city that still exemplifies the pioneer spirit from the roughnecks who drill for oil to the settlers who moved west in horse drawn carts made of wood. Indeed my own family moved west around the turn of the century to plough its section of land.

Speaking of my family, I would like to thank mom and dad along with all the others who helped in my election. I have my father to thank for my start in politics. He would let me stay up past my scheduled bedtime, but only if I watched the evening news with him and answered questions about what I had observed, to which he often offered the right political spin.

Let me tell the House a story about when I was in diapers. A mess began to develop. It got worse over time. Nearly $700 billion later we call it the accumulated national debt. The man who started the mess was Pierre Elliott Trudeau. When I look across to the Liberal benches I see some of his accomplices. The current prime minister was Trudeau's minister of finance and under Trudeau he learned to spend, indeed he liked to spend. He taxed and he spent until his heart's content, so much so that he still cannot wean himself from the nasty habits he developed under the man who started the wave in Salmon Arm.

Then came the mandarin from Manitoba, the whiner from Winnipeg who now lavishes upon himself as the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He has begged for political pork, dined diplomats and grovelled for government goodies. Who could forget the hyena from Hamilton who shrieked and shrilled her way under the public's skin and who is now eligible for her $2.8 million gold plated MP pension plan?

I would like to talk about the department that just grew and grew. His bureaucrat parents named him manpower and immigration, but their own rules made his first name politically incorrect so they changed it to citizenship and immigration. The bureaucrats kept on feeding him and tending to his every gurgle, burp and expansion. They proudly watched as their pet department grew into a strapping example of government largesse.

As a right of passage they named him employment and immigration, a title that made the bureaucrats burst with pride, but even the bureaucrats noticed that their fully grown program had developed a nasty streak. Instead of solving the problems he was created to solve he actually made them worse. Unemployment was permanently doubling that of our neighbours to the south. Multiple generations of families were beginning to get hooked on the spiralling dependency that he was pushing. The bureaucrats changed his name to human resources development, but they could not hide what had happened. Their little pet had grown into a $57 billion monster.

Members are probably asking what went wrong when the monster roamed unchecked across the land. The government renamed unemployment insurance, employment insurance, but that did not change the want for work or make good on its 1993 election promises. The government tossed out band-aids, candies and bromides, but it got a bad case of inaction when it came to repairing the structural problems.

For example, UI charges repeat claimants the same premiums as someone who works but has never collected. No actuarially sound insurance plan would have high risk users pay the same or even less than low risk users. Even more UI is distributed disproportionately according to region. Nova Scotia alone has five different regions of eligibility. People living and working within an hour of one another have different eligibility requirements. This begs a question. Does the government have credibility on the jobs issue?

The Liberals have presided over the highest level of unemployment in recent history. They are now into their 82nd month of unemployment above 9 percent. UI has become a payroll tax with overpayments now over $7 billion per year. For the average Canadian worker that amounts to $400 a year in overpayments.

A total of close to $14 billion has been hoarded by the Minister of Finance so that he can gloat about deficit reduction. He even brags about his 43 tax increases and how he has taken $26 billion more from us.

How about an insurance program that is actuarially sound and free from political interference? How about at least lowering the payroll tax that kills jobs? Alas, there is more program mismanagement.

Can we trust the Liberals with our pensions? Canadians under 35 years old do not believe we will have a pension. Why? Because the government has dug an unfunded pension liability of over half a trillion dollars. That is why the government is so gung ho about RRSPs.

Even if the Canada pension plan survives Liberal mismanagement, people my age will receive less than a 50 cents return on every dollar they throw into it. The government is ripping off young people. They want to take 10 percent of our wages for a program that will not be around when we need it. If CPP did survive under Liberal mismanagement it would only pay out $8,800 per year, even with maximum contributions.

In contrast the same contributions invested at a 6 percent rate of return, the numbers the government claims for the CPP, would create their own pension yielding $26,000 per year. Please do not ask us to trust the government. Let us opt out of its pyramid scheme and wrest our money from its corrupting grasp.

Yet I fear there is even more. The Liberals pride themselves on the political machine vote buying tactics. Why they even preened about increasing the size of the bureaucracy by 3,000 temporary bureaucrats with $90 million of taxpayer money.

Then there was the billion dollar student handout. For every single student this handout is intended to help, the program hurts nine more. Increasing debt or the size of government and taxes only deprives young people of work. Young people want structural repairs that will create real jobs, not promises that result in less work and higher taxes.

Cut taxes to stimulate investment, growth and jobs. Stop the pyramid scheme to burden young people with pension debt. Link student loans to social insurance numbers. This would reduce default problems and therefore increase the likelihood and dollar value ceilings on private sector student loans.

This story of the department that grew and grew reminds me of three questions that all politicians should ask before they start feeding a program.

First, how much should it cost? Second, does it benefit all Canadians or cater to a special interest? In other words, is it just a narrowly focused vote buying tactic? Third, would fellow Canadians vote for the program if the question was put to them?

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate the hon. member for Calgary West on his maiden speech. Let me also disagree with the content of much of his speech.

On the issue of reforming the Canada pension plan, there was an accrued liability and we could not afford to continue on a pay as you go basis. Reform of the Canada pension plan was put in place by the federal government with agreement from the provincial governments. It is important to note that.

I recognize that the Reform Party, in its policies, would get rid of the Canada pension plan. It was to turn it into a super RRSP. If the people happened to have Bre-X in their super RRSPs they would retire with no pension.

It is very clear that Canadians on the whole want the Canada pension plan. It was the subject of the election campaign. The plan will be there for younger Canadians.

Earlier today I talked about spending some money, and I am proud of it. One of the things I talked about spending money on was students, universities, research and development. I think the member, when talking about spending money, should focus on the program. The University of Waterloo and Sir Wilfrid Laurier University are in my riding, as well as Conestoga College.

Sure, that is spending money, but it is also investing in the future of our young people and in the future of our country. Hopefully the member can make the distinction. Most members of the House were not here prior to 1993. I think he should also acknowledge that.

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member opposite admits that the CPP needs reform.

He also talked about how the plan was improperly set up in the first place, in a sense, and admitted basically that it was a pyramid scheme. At least with that I say he is beginning to address the problem.

When he talks about investment does he really mean squandering? With the money that has been put into the plan, he and his party have run up a half trillion dollar debt. The Fraser Institute puts the number at $1 trillion. His own government puts it at over $500 billion.

Who am I to trust? Am I to trust the members across the way who have done such a poor job with the money they have been entrusted with, or am I to trust the people themselves to look after a plan? I would trust myself and other Canadians far more than I would trust the government with the money.

Once again I quote the statistic for those young people who are watching and listening today. If they put full maximum contributions into the CPP they will get only $8,800 a year. If they collect from 65 until 75, should they live to 75, they will only get $88,000 out of that plan. If they had their own plan they would get $26,000 a year or $260,000 by the time they turn 75.

That is far different from what the Minister of Canadian Heritage will get with the $2.8 million pension she will collect by the time she turns 75, or the $3.4 million that Brian Tobin, who is now collecting money as the Premier of Newfoundland, will get. It is a travesty. They should be ashamed.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate you on your appointment as Acting Speaker. I look forward to working within the rules of this House and supporting you in your role.

It is an honour and a pleasure for me to be able to comment on the recent throne speech. For the second time in fourteen months, the people of Etobicoke North have given me the opportunity to represent them in the House of Commons. I thank them for their strong vote of confidence and I promise to do everything I can to perform my duties with honesty during this 36th Parliament of Canada.

The throne speech sets the government's directional course and lays out the priorities for this Parliament. I believe it has done this very well. It has responded to the needs of Canadians and to the needs of the constituents in Etobicoke North.

People in my riding frequently refer to three major concerns and priorities: first, the need for the economy to generate more jobs so that more Canadians, in particular young Canadians, can re-enter the workforce; second, the need to resolve our national unity problem so that we can move forward and remove the last major impediment to economic growth in Ontario, Quebec and the rest of Canada; and third, the need to restore confidence in our health care system.

The throne speech addresses these key issues very completely but before I expand on that, I would like to comment on the overall context of the throne speech. That is where we are today and where we have come from. When charting a course for the future, we really need to know where we are today and where we have been.

Our journey to fiscal responsibility and economic renewal has been a very difficult one. The road was rough and winding. We had to make difficult choices about which way to go but I am proud to say that our destination is in sight. If we stay on this road, our children's future and Canada's future will be secure.

We are seeing the very positive results today. Canadian interest rates are at their lowest in decades. Inflation has been beaten down and is firmly under control. We are more competitive as a nation. Consumer spending is up and so is business investment. Make no mistake, good jobs are here and more are coming. In summary, the hard work of all Canadians is beginning to pay off, but our job is not yet complete.

In my riding and in other regions of Canada, there are business representatives that tell me they are unable to recruit people with the necessary skills for new positions. The tragic irony of all this is that this is happening at a time when many Canadians, and particularly young Canadians, are unable to find quality jobs.

I was delighted therefore to note that our throne speech committed our government “to work with the provinces, universities and colleges, the high tech industry and other rapidly growing sectors of the economy to better forecast the number and types of jobs that will be available and to develop a plan for ensuring that young people are appropriately educated to fill them”.

I was particularly pleased to see the reference to colleges. I believe that there are many opportunities available for technicians and people with trades in a number of our industrial sectors.

That is why I am supporting the establishment of a telecommunications learning institute in Etobicoke in association with Humber College. Such an institute will focus on research and training so that our workforce skills are leading edge and we are prepared for the latest advancements in communications technology.

While our colleges have a major role to play, clearly our universities do as well. The jobs of the future will increasingly be knowledge based jobs and our ability as a nation to foster a culture of innovation through research, development and entrepreneurship will determine our future economic growth.

That is why the formation of the $800 million Canada Foundation for Innovation that our government established in the last budget is so important. So too is the recent announcement in our government's throne speech to establish a Canada millennium scholarship endowment fund. These scholarships will make post-secondary education more accessible and affordable and will help young Canadians prepare for the knowledge based society of the next century.

There is another serious issue that in my view is still a threat when it comes to job creation and unemployment. I refer to it as structural unemployment.

Gone are the days when the Canadian economy was expanding and thousands of jobs were created automatically. Sure, our economy is currently vibrant and it creates many jobs. However, the country and the government are facing the challenge of bringing unemployment back to the lowest possible level.

Perhaps we can never achieve an unemployment rate of 5 percent but perhaps we can. We should look very carefully at those countries that have achieved very low rates of unemployment without triggering unwanted inflation, countries like the United States, Holland, Great Britain and others. To be sure, because of our unique Canadian society we cannot transplant these solutions here but surely we can learn something from their experiences.

Changes in the global economy and changes in the workplace are at the root of structural unemployment. Countries that understand these developments are best positioned to create the public policy environment to deal with them. There are certainly many changes occurring.

Automation is replacing people with technology. We see it every day of our lives whether it is at the supermarket, or when we do computerized banking or whether it is robotics in the manufacturing sector. Organizations throughout the western world are making their organizations flatter by eliminating levels of management and by redesigning, re-engineering and rightsizing, as the term is used, their structure. There are changes occurring in the workplace such as the use of overtime hours, the use of part time versus full time workers, more contract employees and there are many other trends.

Many of these changes are characterized as necessary because of the increasingly competitive global economy. At the same time however it is interesting to note that stock markets in Canada and the United States and industry analysts are discounting the positive impacts of downsizing initiatives. In fact the evidence seems to point to the fact that companies that are focused more on growing their business and not so much on cost cutting have experienced better profitability performance over the last few years.

I applaud Canadian business leaders like Courtney Pratt, the president of Noranda, when they speak about business' multi-stakeholder responsibilities and the need for business to invest in people.

We know that in Europe, the exceptionally high unemployment rates in countries such as Germany and France are due to what economists call, and this is an understatement, the labour market's lack of flexibility. The expression refers to social benefits, manpower mobility, the ability to cope with flexible work patterns, etc.

We should learn something from these experiences.

There are a number of other initiatives that I believe would spur employment in this country. For example in Canada we could introduce tax incentives at minimal cost to the federal treasury to encourage employees to own shares in their own company. In the United States and elsewhere these schemes are referred to as employee share ownership plans or ESOPs. There is a very aggressive and well developed tax incentive program for ESOPs in the United States and in the United Kingdom. In Canada at this point in time we have no similar regime.

Studies in the United States and Canada comparing ESOP versus non-ESOP companies have consistently shown ESOP companies to be superior performers in profitability and job growth. ESOPs if properly implemented across Canada would make good public policy and would inspire and encourage Canadians to build a better and more compassionate Canada for all Canadians. The results would be both immediate and long term.

To conclude I must say that at the same time that we move aggressively on the economic front we must work very hard on the political front to ensure that we remain a united country from sea to sea. Constituents in my riding are tired of this continuing debate and they want to put the national unity issue to rest. They see how the uncertainty about Quebec's future in Canada is having a negative impact on the economic prospects in Ontario, in Quebec and in the rest of Canada.

At a public meeting I called in my riding a number of months ago to coincide with the release of the health forum report, I was made very aware of the concerns many Canadians have about the responsiveness and the accessibility of our health care system. Medicare is uniquely Canadian and very worthy of our support and attention. We must initiate public policies to restore the confidence of Canadians in our health care system and I pledge to do my utmost to achieve that end.

Mr. Speaker, I have exhausted my time and I thank you and this House for this opportunity.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned in his remarks the need to resolve the national unity problem. I submit that the national unity problem will never be resolved until we deal adequately and fairly with our aboriginal people.

I was pleased to hear earlier that the government is committed to working in partnership with our aboriginal people. I would submit that there is a very practical opportunity for the government to do this in a very real fashion.

The Pic River First Nation submitted a land claim and this claim was rejected after a legal review by the Department of Justice. The Pic River First Nation feels that this legal review was seriously flawed and they are seeking an independent legal review of their land claim. They have launched a court action but they are quite willing to forgo court action if the government will agree to work together with them in partnership to have an independent legal review of their land claim.

I would submit that this is an opportunity for the government to show and put meaning to the words in the throne speech, to work realistically in partnership with the First Nations, to resolve this outstanding land claim rather than force this First Nations group to go through a lengthy court action. The deadline date for this would be October 9. I would urge the government to move in the direction of resolving this issue before that time.

I further feel that for Canada to resolve the national unity issue we have to deal fairly with all peoples and that means looking at the aboriginal situation in a fair and reasonable way. A first step to admit that we want to obtain national unity would be for Canada to issue an apology to the aboriginal people for the manner in which we have historically treated aboriginal people over the years.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the good fortune in my experience in life to have visited and worked in the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and other parts of Canada. I have developed a great respect for our native peoples and the contribution they make to the overall culture of our country.

While I am not familiar with the specifics of the case in his riding, I think he probably heard the comments earlier by our Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. If it was like the reaction of my own, I was moved by the compassion and willingness to develop models and solutions that will be workable into the next millennium. I know that will involve working very closely and getting the co-operation of the provinces and territories and other stakeholder groups to make that happen.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Etobicoke North mentioned that he is in favour of tax incentives. It is a marvellous idea. It is one that the Liberal government tried in the 1970s to generate economic growth. Instead what it did was it helped to create a $600 billion debt and stagnant unemployment today.

Instead of tax incentives, why does the member not encourage his government to give Canadians tax relief? Instead of picking winners and losers in the economy, why does the member not encourage his government to let Canadians decide what to do with their own money?

Does this minister believe that Canadian taxpayers, small business people and homemakers know better how to spend an extra dollar than do the Liberal politicians and bureaucrats?

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to the member for Calgary Southeast, I thank him for the promotion which I have taken note of.

In terms of tax relief, let us look at the United States. I was down there recently at a conference on employee share ownership. The United States is probably the market economy of the world and employee share ownership plans are absolutely taking off. It is a huge movement. What it is saying is that the workers and people in all levels of management have a piece of the action. The result is there is better productivity and greater profits. More profits mean more growth and more growth means more jobs. Therefore with a tiny tweak in terms of a tax incentive which would have very minimal cost to the treasury, we could actually accomplish some great things and get a lot more Canadians back to work.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, like others I want to congratulate you and welcome you to the Chair.

I want to thank the constituents of Malpeque for having the confidence to re-elect me to this 36th Parliament.

As my constituents know very well, the last four years were not easy in our thrust to put the country in a secure financial position for the future. The reality is that in Atlantic Canada, where there has been a greater dependency on government programs, we have felt the pain of cuts and program changes more vividly than in other areas of the country.

My constituents have shown their willingness to accept what had to be done. However, they are also telling me that they are at their limit in terms of program elimination and cost recovery. Constituents of Malpeque want us in this term to ensure a balance between our economic and social agenda. They maintain we need a strong central government to carry out such initiatives. They welcome and support the latest initiatives of the government on the unity file.

Our plan during the election set out our values and priorities, a growing economy, a modernized health care system and investing in knowledge to equip Canadians to compete in a changing world. We also offered during the election a workable plan for enhancing the unity of our country and securing our future.

The throne speech begins the task of implementing those commitments in quality care, increasing the cash floor which is of particular importance in Prince Edward Island, education, knowledge, innovation, the commitment of $2 billion for the youth employment strategy and in trade where agriculture, fisheries, tourism and aerospace production are of particular importance to my riding and to Prince Edward Island.

The commitment of the Government of Canada to adopt its programs to reflect the social economic realities of rural Canada is of particular importance. Given these facts, I am still both anxious and optimistic about the future. I am anxious because I have seen the amount of pressure that those with economic power can place on government. We saw that here the other day in the debate on supply as the right-wingers from across the floor argued for tax breaks for the wealthy when we should be investing in programs that meet the needs of ordinary Canadians.

Before long we will have the ability to make decisions based on our people's needs rather than those of the international bankers and bond holders. That gives me optimism for the future. We have regained the ability to address the priorities of Canadians. We did it with a fair bit of pain. We regained that ability, but how will the ultimate decisions be made?

I believe we must recognize as parliamentarians what we are up against in making such decisions. That is the pressure from the economic right and the strategies it employs to undermine our ability as parliamentarians to represent fairly the needs of people. They some how manage to portray the needs of the economy above the needs of people. We need a strong economy but it cannot and should not be the absolute in and of itself.

In one sense I am speaking on the broader issue of democracy, of politics and of the needs of people in society to support and participate in our parliamentary democracy, not just those who have economic power and sway.

In the last decade our various political institutions have come under considerable attack, often very subtly, by those who have much to gain if the political institutions of the land can be undermined. Politicians are attacked as well and not just on their ideas; sometimes the person and the business itself.

As move toward the next millennium both within Canada and globally we are really in a battle of democracy versus the market.

Let me put this as concisely as I can. With all the trade agreements, the linking of the markets in the financial sense, it has caused power to shift. Let me put it this way and compare it to space. The economic space has grown and the political space has narrowed.

I believe if that space is out of balance between economics and politics we are all in trouble in terms of meeting the needs of the people in our nations. In other words, if the market has all the power then all we can really be is a consumer.

This is summed up best by Arthur Shafer in Peter Newman's The Canadian Revolution :

The values of the marketplace have infiltrated every institution in Canada, the family, the church, the legal system. Anti-human, commercial values are dominating every sphere of life. Now that we're coming into economic hard times, the sense of each man for himself, save your own skin, get whatever advantage you can is going to sink public spiritedness and make it much more difficult to preserve our sense of obligation to the community.

This pressure on the essence of government is also explained appropriately by John Ralson Saul in his book The Unconscious Civilization :

People become so obsessed by hating government that they forget it is meant to be their government and is the only powerful public force they have purchase on.

That is what makes the neo-conservative and market force argument so disingenuous. Their remarkably successful demonization of the public sector has turned much of the citizenry against their own mechanism. They have been enrolled in the cause of interests that have no particular concern for citizen's welfare. Instead, the citizen is reduced to the status of a subject at the foot of the throne of the marketplace.

My point is that the individual and the government are linked together by an artery. If we act to sever that artery by replacing or opposing a central role for government, we cease to be individuals and revert to the status of subject.

I have outlined the foregoing to put into context the kind of environment in which we will work in the House and this Parliament. We have to recognize from where and why that pressure comes. I certainly believe in a strong role for government. I believe that the public sector actually creates value in our society through its institutions, its programs, its public services and its workforce.

Part of the reason we see this subtle attack on this institution and government itself is that some in the private sector know that if they can shift that responsibility then they can profit by doing so.

It is the desire of some in the corporate sector to move back to a time when individual problems, regardless of circumstances, were an individual responsibility. We cannot allow that to happen.

As Thomas Jefferson stated, the care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government.

The corporate sector recognizes that if government can be moved out of the way there is a profit to be made in the offering of what is now a public service. One of the best ways to achieve its goal is to substitute markets for those public programs now authorized through democratic institutions.

I put these points on the table to show what I believe is one of the greatest pressures on this institution. To protect ourselves from being subverted by that pressure I refer members to page 140 of Hansard and the remarks of my colleague from Hillsborough when he talked about more power being put to members of this assembly. That would certainly lessen the power of the bureaucracies within Ottawa and would also lessen the ability of those with economic clout to pressure cabinet ministers to make decisions. What we really need is real debate in this House and for the decisions to be made here.

I believe we can better achieve our objectives as stated in the throne speech by assuring, as the hon. member for Hillsborough had argued in his remarks, that greater power is put in the hands of the members of House of Commons. I think it is one of the most fundamental things we must do.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it was a pleasure to listen to the speech by the hon. member who is a dairy farmer. You get some good home farm advice. But I wonder whether the Liberal members are redundant. Except for their trained seal capacity to vote as told they have all been spewing the same bland stuff that was in that throne speech, and there is nothing there.

I especially take great exception to the fact that almost every one of them has said, as we heard during the election campaign, “we have our fiscal house in order”. We keep hearing that. I do not know how to say this diplomatically or in a parliamentary way but it ain't true. We do not have our fiscal house in order.

The debt has been increasing. I am a teacher and I would love to have an overhead projector here. If we look at the size of the debt, instead of going up one way on a graph as it did from the previous government, it has now gone another way. The Liberals take credit for this wee little turn in the graph.

The fact is under this government the debt still went up from $500 billion to $600 billion. Instead of paying $40 billion a year in interest we are now paying $47 billion a year in interest. They keep on repeating this and it has worked. A lot of people in Canada think it is true that our fiscal house is in order.

I want to give them a mild applause for at least making that little turn, but it is not good enough. I would like to ask this member to respond specifically to my question. How can he keep saying we are all okay when in fact they have been responsible for adding yet another 20 percent, another $100 billion, to the debt during their previous term?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. Maybe he needs some down home farm examples so he can understand how annual deficit and accumulated debt really work.

Let me compare it to a farm. In terms of my farm or the farm of any member over there, we have had capital investment in terms of our mortgages, equipment and so on. We pay our interest payments as the year goes by. But what is very important is the operating capital in terms of being able to use that capital to operate so we can pay the interest on our mortgages and remain in business in a very productive and progressive way.

What we have achieved in comparison to that is that we have paid off our operating debt. We have the accumulated debt to pay in the future. On an operating basis we have surpluses of moneys with which we can gradually pay down that debt. As we said in the election campaign we can split it 50:50, put some of it toward debt reduction and tax reductions and with the other 50 percent we will make investments in terms of social and economic programs. That is major progress.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech and agreed with a great deal of it except for the first bumpy part at the beginning when he was doing the hail the government's throne speech business about modernizing the health care system and all that sort of stuff. Why on earth is he still a Liberal? Why on earth did he ever become a Liberal?

Why on earth did someone who was once the president of the National Farmers Union ever become a Liberal when the fact is everything he said with the exception of the bumps at the beginning is something that New Democrats have been saying day in and day out in this Parliament for years? We are the only market critical party in this Chamber. The government of which he is a part has signed free trade agreement after free trade agreement enshrining the very ethic that he just spoke against.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has 30 seconds to respond.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I could not answer that charge fully in 30 seconds.

I recognize we cannot do as the NDP always wants to do, which is to write cheques and never find any way of paying the bills. I come from Prince Edward Island and trade is extremely important. We have established some rules whereby we can trade and ensure that our people are treated fairly.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will just pick up from where I left off.

I happen to be rising pursuant to a question I asked the Minister for International Trade about the multilateral agreement on investment, which has everything to do with what the hon. member for Malpeque was just talking about, that is, restricting the power of government even further than the power of national governments have already been restricted by the various free trade agreements which the government has already entered into.

The other day I asked the Minister for International Trade a question about when and how and if the government was going to permit the public to have some say in what the government's stance would be in the negotiations with respect to the multilateral agreement on investment. These negotiations have been ongoing for two years in Paris, in the context of the OECD. They started in April 1995. They were actually scheduled to end in April 1997.

If the Liberals had had their way we would have had a negotiated agreement—done, finished, fait accompli—by April 1997 and they would never have even let us know it was happening.

We could not have relied on the official opposition or even the third party in the last Parliament to have raised such matters because they all bow down to the same altar of the multinational corporations and the global economic order that was created for the benefit of investors, and to hell with the workers and everybody else.

We finally have a Parliament in which these kinds of issues can and will be raised.

I want to hear from the government how it intends to involve the Canadian public. What will the government's stance be at the multilateral agreement on investment negotiations?

We know from the draft, as it stands, that the MAI intends to drastically reduce the power of governments to intervene in the economy on behalf of the common good, the public interest, regional development, research and development and all the other ways in which governments have sought to act in the interests of the Canadian people.

The government has the ability to seek certain exemptions in respect of social, educational, health, cultural and other areas of concern, such as government procurement, et cetera.

We need to know what the government is going to do very quickly because the negotiations are scheduled to end in April of 1998. If the Canadian public is to be meaningfully involved, there needs to be a process now. We do not want to be looking at an agreement which has already been negotiated, where the government has put the Canadian public in a take-it-or-leave-it position. We want to be able to say now to the government, in various public ways, what it is it should be insisting on in those negotiations.

If the government continues to insist on being at those negotiations, at the very least it should be doing what the Canadian people insist it be doing, and that is making sure that our ability as a people and our ability as a government to act in our own interests is protected by the various exemptions which the government should be seeking in the MAI negotiations.

I look forward to hearing from the parliamentary secretary exactly what the government's position on this will be. What exemptions is the government seeking?

What are the deal breakers? What are the things that they absolutely have to have or there will be no deal in Paris?

I see you rising, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I have already exceeded my time. I hope not because I have the greatest respect for the time limits put on me. I will sit down and look forward to what the government member has to say.