Debates of Sept. 25th, 1997

Speech From The Throne

[Joe Jordan, Liberal, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly the world has regions that are separating. However, I would like to remind the hon. member that if he looks at the very regions he is talking about that their desire to enter NATO and their desire to enter the European Union clearly points to the fact that together these groups have a much stronger presence and a much higher quality of life. The partisan feelings that would suggest that we could make it better on our own or that somehow life would be better if we split up certainly do exist.

But if we look at the world, that is clearly the minority opinion. In Canada we have not only two cultures but three. With the aboriginal community, the French community and the English community, Canada will be much stronger. I think the people of Canada are starting to realize that. That might very well explain some of the frustration that I am seeing across the way.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment.

First of all, I would like to thank my fellow citizens of the riding of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot who have put their trust in me again in the last election.

I was outraged by the speech from the throne that was delivered two days ago. It was riddled with misrepresentations, distorting reality with respect to the existence of a Quebec people, among other things.

On the subject of misrepresentation, I would like to focus on two elements of the throne speech: public finances and national unity.

As far as public finances are concerned, we must refer to page 4 of the throne speech, which reads, and I quote, “This 36th Parliament opens at a time when we have brought order to our public finances”. The speech goes on to say “The government will continue to be vigilant and responsible about keeping the financial affairs of the country in order”.

I almost fell backwards when I read that, because the Minister of Finance has been anything but responsible in his last three budgets. The Minister of Finance can boast about our public finances being in order. Credit must be given where credit is due, but the fact is that the credit should go not to the federal finance minister, but to his provincial counterparts, especially Mr. Landry, of course. Why? Because they are the ones who had to do his “dirty job”. He did not do a thing to bring about the conditions that will result in a zero deficit as early as next year.

Fifty four per cent of federal spending cuts were made in social programs. The Minister of Finance cut $4.5 billion from federal transfers to the provinces for education, health and social assistance. This represents a $1.3-billion shortfall for the Quebec government. Fifty-four per cent of the cuts were made in that area.

Yesterday, the finance minister replied to a question from a Reform Party member on taxes. The other major contribution made to bring order to our public finances is the taxes paid by Quebecers and Canadians. Since 1994, the Minister of Finance has let tax revenues increase by $23 billion. That money comes from taxpayers' pockets. The minister is now talking about $2 billion in targeted tax cuts. This is the least it can do after collecting an additional $23 billion since 1994. Taxpayers are getting a little treat from the finance minister after years of tightening their belts.

Third, it is easy to boast about bringing order to our public finances, considering that the finance minister literally robbed workers and employers by improperly dipping into the employment insurance fund. Last year, the minister pocketed $5 billion, even though it has been years since the federal government contributed to the employment insurance fund. This year, the minister will take $7 billion from that fund. So, it is easy to boast and to brag, but taxpayers will not forget that the Minister of Finance made himself look good at the expense of Quebecers and Canadians. What did the minister himself do in all this? What was his own contribution?

In the 1994 budget speech, the Minister of Finance told us that departmental spending would be cut by 19 per cent. The minister has not kept his promise. Departmental spending has been cut by only 9 per cent over the last four years. The minister has not made even half the effort demanded of those who are ill, of students, of the most vulnerable members of society, especially welfare recipients, or of those who would normally re-qualify for employment insurance, but, because of the new employment insurance policy introduced last January, find themselves back on welfare.

Here too, he can go on about how unemployment is down. Of course it is. The unemployment figures, meaning the number of people actively looking for work, have dropped, but entire families are now stuck on welfare because of the minister's new employment insurance policy, which also happens to be generating surpluses that he is using to reduce the deficit. These folks no longer show up in the official unemployment figures. This is not what being a responsible government means.

What is our charming Minister of Finance going to do with the surpluses he is generating? He will move right into areas of provincial jurisdiction. Do you know why? Because the throne speech, just like the first throne speech we heard in this House, tells us that the federal government will be barging into areas of provincial jurisdiction, including education. We are told in the throne speech that the federal government will measure the readiness of Canadian children to learn. Education comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and nobody is ever going to interfere in education, which comes under our jurisdiction.

All these investments being announced in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction, after what they did to Quebec's public finances in particular, have been in the works since March 1996.

If I may, I will quote the President of Treasury Board who, in the March 8, 1996 edition of Le Soleil , publicly admitted the federal government's strategy, a strategy which consisted of dumping its problems of public funding onto the provinces, getting the provinces to do the dirty work, so that it can come out looking good to all of the taxpayers.

To quote the President of Treasury Board in the March 8, 1996 edition of Le Soleil , “When Bouchard—he does not even have the decency to show a little respect for the Premier of Quebec—will have to make cuts, those of us in Ottawa will be able to demonstrate that we have the means to preserve the future of social programs”.

Such is the strategy of the federal government: to make Quebec look like the bad guy when it comes to social programs and to the health sector, when in fact they are the main ones responsible. They then come along with great fanfare to announce that they will be putting programs in place, that they will help our young people and improve the health system. Such behaviour is odious and absolutely hypocritical, particularly when it is at the expense of the least advantaged and the sick.

Our campaign platform was clear with respect to sound management of public finances, as well as the battle against poverty. Our program had six points, basically.

The first was that we were calling upon the federal government, since public finances are getting in better shape, to give back what it has swiped from the provinces, that is to say return the $4.5 billion it has stolen yearly from social programs in order to fund social assistance, postsecondary education and health. These are no small amounts we are talking about.

Just looking at the health transfers the federal government was making to the provinces in past years, for every dollar cut by the Minister of Health since he has been responsible for this sector, 93 cents were used to reduce the federal deficit. And for all of the social programs, every time a dollar was cut from social programs in Quebec, 78 cents of it were used to reduce the Minister of Finance's deficit.

This is a lot of money, and if for the past year the federal government had done its job, if it had not slashed social transfers to the provinces, the Quebec government would no longer have a deficit. The problem would have been settled long ago, and our books would have balanced.

Next, considering that the country's financial situation has improved, we asked the government to reduce employment insurance premiums. Not a cosmetic 6 cent per $100 of insurable payroll. We suggested a reduction of about 30 cent per $100. Why? For the simple reason that the Bloc Quebecois is on the side of jobs and job creation.

If the government meant what it said when it talked about job creation, it would have consistently reduced employment insurance premiums, because they kill employment. Any direct payroll tax as substantial as employment insurance premiums is bound to kill employment.

So, since the government's finances are in better shape, instead of this nickelling and diming, instead of these intrusions in Quebec's jurisdictions, without so much as a by your leave, because it is so important to hand out cheques with a big Canadian flag, the Liberal government should consider what people need and put more money into the employment insurance fund and social programs.

My third point is that since the new employment insurance system came into effect last January, the benefits and usual protection for workers who lose their jobs were greatly reduced. We are therefore suggesting that the federal government, since they are in a better position financially, get back to a better approach that would genuinely help unemployed workers get back on their feet and remain on the labour market instead of being forced to go on welfare, which is no way to help families get back on their feet, especially if it keeps them out of the labour market.

The fourth suggestion we made in our campaign platform, and it is still valid, is to have a targeted tax reduction. Not the kind of generalized, useless tax reduction which does nothing to stimulate consumer buying and job creation, but targeted reductions based on a logical analysis of the tax system.

In this regard, I am particularly proud to remind people that the Bloc Quebecois conducted two major studies in the past year and a half. One was on reforming corporate taxation to make it fairer with fewer of those loopholes that allow hundreds of millions of dollars annually to avoid federal taxes.

We also put forward a document on improving personal taxation to make the system fairer and to ensure that families, especially low and medium income ones with children, get the benefit of such reform.

We repeat the suggestion to the Minister of Finance that this tax reform should take place in his second mandate. If he was too sluggish in his first mandate to implement our suggestions, which, I would point out, are currently being used by Canadian universities as a good example of tax reform, he should be delighted and accept the proposals of the Bloc Quebecois. In this mandate, however, I think that it would be a good idea for him to make the tax system fairer for lower income classes and not just for his millionaire and billionaire friends and those of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Our fifth proposal would increase tax benefits from $850 million to $2 billion, adding $1.15 billion in child tax benefits. This is a real battle against child poverty. I think that, with the developments in public finances, it is not too late for the Minister of Finance to do the right thing.

Every time I see him put his hand to his heart, I cannot help but wonder if he is feeling for his wallet. If he is really concerned about child poverty, he should be spending more in that area and make it a true national priority.

Sixth, it is not hard to understand, in fact it is quite simple: if the federal government minded its business and refrained from interfering in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, I am sure it would save money. Every time the federal government announces with fanfare plans to get involved in education, to put an education program in place, to meddle in health issues and every other area under Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction, that costs money. And, in spite of his financial position, the finance minister is not paying for all this, the taxpayers are.

Every instance of duplication and overlap in programs entails administration costs borne by taxpayers. Taxpayers are also paying twice for federal government employees to do the exact same job as Quebec government employees. The public must know that. That is what I mean by distorting the reality behind public finances.

Something else in this speech from the throne struck me; I was quite shaken by it. It contains, on page 7, third paragraph, a line as disgraceful as they come, in my view, and I quote, “Our future as a country is too precious for us to risk losing it through misunderstanding”.

A nation's aspiration to sovereignty is not based on any misunderstanding. It is based on this desire we share to build our own country, a country soon to be known as Quebec. There is no misunderstanding there, and it is disgraceful to suggest such a thing. This would mean that, in the referendum held in 1995, 61 percent of francophones voted yes but did so based on a misunderstanding. Seventy per cent of francophones on the island of Montreal voted yes, but did so based on a misunderstanding. Almost half of all Quebecers voted yes, but did so based on a misunderstanding.

This is probably the most preposterous statement I ever heard. If there were misunderstandings in the history of the relations between Quebec and Canada, they were on the federal side. There were of course a number of such misunderstandings, but I targeted four.

These misunderstandings go as far back as 1867. Here is the first one. In 1867, two founding nations signed a confederation agreement. At the time, it was believed that our French Canadian ancestors and the English Canadians had signed a historic accord between two sovereign nations, two founding peoples. However, over time, we came to realize that such was not the case. Over the decades, English Canada shrank the scope of this confederation agreement. English Canada will not admit at all that Quebec is different. In fact, if we look at the throne speech, we realize that it not only denies that there is any difference, but also that it denies the existence of a distinct society, a distinct culture and, more importantly, the existence of a distinct people. The throne speech reinforced this first historic misunderstanding. It is a true misunderstanding and it originates with the members across the way.

The second historic misunderstanding was to have believed that, in 1982 when Pierre Elliott Trudeau patriated the Canadian Constitution without Quebec's agreement, we would get down on our knees and agree to this Constitution that we never wanted. Quebecers stood their ground and I am proud of that. We never agreed to this Constitution.

The third historic misunderstanding, and again it originates with the members across the way, is to have thought that, in order to make amends for the historic affront of the 1982 patriation, they could toss any little scrap our way after the failure of the Meech Lake accord and we would go for it, in order to put the problem behind us once and for all, with no regard for our pride or our wish to build a strong Quebec.

They gave us Beaudoin-Dobbie, Beaudoin-Edwards, the Spicer Commission report, and the Charlottetown accord, which was put to a referendum and defeated. They came to us with completely meaningless concepts, empty shells, such as the rather comical idea of principal homeland. Now, after the Calgary declaration, they have come up with unique character. Quebecers are not interested. Quebecers will do exactly what they did to every other meaningless offer they received concerning Quebec's future and reject it out of hand.

Mr. Bourassa had gone much further, and if Daniel Johnson agrees to bow and scrape for mere crumbs, he will go down in history as having bowed and scraped for just that, mere crumbs, putting his electioneering interests before Quebec's true interests.

There is a fourth misunderstanding and it has to do with plan B, to which the throne speech refers yet again. In Quebec, there was a time when fear was an effective tool. So was English Canada's paternalism. We will be hearing a great deal about this with four federalist parties represented in the House of Commons. But it does not work any more. Perhaps plan B could have worked at another time, but it will not now. The Supreme Court and its judges will not change the course of history. We will repel any attack on the territorial integrity of Quebec. And no minister of intergovernmental affairs or member for Saint-Maurice will be able to slow down or stop the people's march toward sovereignty.

There was no misunderstanding in nearly winning the last referendum on sovereignty. There a clear desire to build our own country in Quebec. I have a word of warning for those across the way who may be tempted to crow over the results of recent polls. These polls are no referendum, but let me tell you that, when one is called, Quebecers will speak. They will speak loud and clear and, this time, the will say yes for real and that will be the last referendum in the history of Canada.

I would now like to address my Canadian friends in their own language, if I may.

The only way for our common future is not the status quo but the independence of Quebec, a new relationship, a new partnership with Canadian citizens.

Whether or not you want this partnership does not change anything. Nothing will stop the determination of my people, the Quebec nation, to reach liberty, to become a sovereign country. The next referendum will be the right one.

Neither your political representatives, Liberal, Conservative, Reform or NDP, nor the judges of the Supreme Court will change anything. You could not force 7 billion Quebeckers to stay in Canada against their desire.

Our aspirations are legitimate and deeply democratic. They do not rely on justice to be planned. The respectable attitude of Tony Blair, Prime Minister of United Kingdom, with Scottish and Welsh people must be for you a source of inspiration.

In the meantime, I would encourage my fellow Quebecers to contemplate sovereignty and heed the advice of Félix Leclerc, who once said, and I will close on this: “The fruit is ripe in my country's orchards. This means that the time has come, if you get my drift”. I am convinced that Quebecers will heed Félix's advice in the next referendum.

[Paul Bonwick, Liberal, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke of tough cuts that were made and dealt with surpluses and what the government should do.

When the member insults the Minister of Finance and the government he is insulting Canadians right across this great country and in his province as well. Those are the people who sacrificed to get the budget back in order. Those steps were necessary.

I also challenge the hon. member to come forth and be positive rather than threatening Canadians across the country. I also remind the member that he does not represent the entire Quebec province but one riding.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, I would like to correct three things he has just said.

First, I never said anything to insult the Minister of Finance. I criticized his budget policy because I consider it savage. If anyone has been insulted in the past four years, it is the poor families in Canada, the sick and the students, who have suffered from the savage cuts of the Minister of Finance and his government.

Second, I would like him to know that, in this House, we are elected to represent all the people in our riding and all the people of Quebec, be they federalist or separatist.

Whatever my colleague may think, and I will close on this point, the Bloc Quebecois represents 60 per cent of Quebec ridings. It therefore represents a majority of Quebecers. Furthermore, we will be here in the coming years to remind him of the past and present realities of Quebec and of its aspirations. That may be distressing, but that's life.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the member's remarks. I think it is appropriate to remind the member that one of the greatest destabilizing factors to investment in the province of Quebec is the constant threat of separation especially when corporations think about expanding their plants.

Members will know that we are in an economy right now where things are very much on the rebound, people are being hired and plants are being expanded. Business looks for stability and business needs stability.

The member, a respected economist, knows full well that this constant irritant, constant threat of destroying this country is a disincentive to investment which is really hurting those constituents looking for jobs.

I think that when the member talks about the economy and caring and sharing, about those people who are most in need, as he did in his speech, those are the ones who are looking for work. And the best way for them to get work is to ensure that the businesses in Quebec that feel they want to expand feel they will be able to survive in a very healthy, stable marketplace and not one that is under a constant cloud of separation.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for the past two years, private and foreign investment in Quebec has reached record proportions, in spite of the constitutional debate. And I may remind the hon. member that Quebecers are not the only ones responsible for the fact this debate exists.

If we look at the history of relations between Quebec and Canada, part of the responsibility for this problem is yours as well.

I can assure hon. members that if they were to accept our partnership offer, because we sovereignists are giving them that chance, an offer of partnership after a vote in favour of sovereignty, everything the hon. member said about economic growth and employment in Canada and Quebec would be settled.

Furthermore, I can assure the hon. member there is not a single economic indicator that will stop a people from fulfilling its destiny, and we on this side of the House are convinced the sovereignty of Quebec will in the end be a plus for economic growth and job creation. It cannot be otherwise.

Look at the throne speech. We just said that provincial jurisdictions will be interfered with, that it will cost as twice as much in civil servants' salaries, program administration, and so forth, that we would be better off without this perpetual quarrelling, that we could each determine what is best for ourselves and pool our resources when our interests coincide.

It seems to me this is perfectly clear. I think what is happening today in the United Kingdom is marvellous. If Canadians like you were to show the same understanding for the history and destiny of the people of Quebec, I think it would be easier for all concerned.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I share the same views as my friend from Broadview—Greenwood on this question.

The hon. member, in his thoughtful presentation, referred to the plight of Canada's children. I think we sometimes assume that it is just a matter of fact that we have to have poor children. We have to have people who do not have jobs and who are living in poverty.

I might want to remind my hon. friend, who probably does not need reminding, being the economist that he is, that there are many countries in the world where child poverty does not exist. I refer specifically to countries like Norway and Denmark where children do not live in poverty because their parents do not live in poverty. Poverty is not something that we have to accept as a reality.

It seems to me that in a country as rich as ours we should not have the number of children living in poverty and suffering today because their parents are living in poverty.

Considering the situation that exists in what has to be the wealthiest country in the world, would the hon. member not agree that this is actually, to quote the Catholic bishops, a form of child abuse for a government to allow this condition to continue?

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

I agree with the NDP member, Mr. Speaker.

It is rather despicable to see the Minister of Finance and government members place their hands on their hearts and talk about the plight of children, given that they themselves are responsible for a situation which has gotten worse over the last three years.

It is not normal to make cuts based on a budget plan tabled by the finance minister in 1996, to slash, year after year on a cumulative basis, the budget for social programs by some $42 billion, and to think this will have no impact on child poverty. The government should give us some credit.

There is no doubt that the decisions made by this government have had an impact on child poverty and made parents poorer. Parents got poorer as a result of, among other things, the employment insurance program implemented in January, which consistently reduces benefits and which also excludes many adult workers from the labour force. These people have to rely on welfare.

So, do not try to appeal to our emotions. We are not going to be fooled by the finance minister's crocodile tears. It is not right to present things in that light. The minister should admit he made a mistake in his plan and he should at least put aside the budget cutting scheme developed in 1996.

There is not even any mention of this in the throne speech. The government says it will give back some money. Do you know what the government is doing? The Minister of Finance originally wanted to cut $48 billion. Now the new figure is $42 billion. The federal government will cut $42 billion from transfers for social assistance, post-secondary education and health.

It is despicable to present things as if the government was handing out goodies when in fact it is merely cutting somewhat less than anticipated in 1996, but with the same slash-and-burn approach. The minister should have the decency to rise, to tell the truth and to announce that he is immediately putting an end to his planned cuts for the next three years. This would be an effective way to fight poverty, particularly child poverty.

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Simcoe—Grey. I would also like to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your recent appointment as our Deputy Speaker.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak in the House of Commons.

It it a great honour to be back in this Chamber. I say back because in 1975 I sat here in the House of Commons as a student participating in a model Parliament in seat 113. I did not think then that I would be representing Nunavut 22 years later.

I am proud to be the first female in the history of my riding to sit in the House of Commons and even more proud to be of Inuit descent.

I thank my constituents for the privilege of representing them at this crucial point in the future of Canada and Nunavut.

Nunavut covers 1.9 million square kilometres of our country. That is 20 per cent of Canada. It spans three different time zones and the population is roughly 25,000 people. The land covers fiords, mountains and tundra.

While I was travelling through the communities in my campaign I could not help thinking it was truly a lesson in geography. My constituency goes north to the North Pole, west to the Alberta-B.C. border, south to James Bay and east almost to Greenland. Nunavut has many international borders including Russia, Denmark and the United States.

This vast and untouched area has great potential for a natural resource based economy. Each year more exploration is going on in the north, in particular mineral exploration. Nunavut's high Arctic hosts two lead and zinc mines. This activity benefits northern communities by creating jobs for our population.

We need continued support for sustainable development and training in this sector. Alongside this is the challenge of protecting our environment. We have to make sure our land remains natural and beautiful.

We need to promote fisheries and the processing of country food. This along with tourism are areas that create employment in the north and must be explored as valid industries.

One of the mandates of the Government of Nunavut is to staff its public service with a 50 per cent Inuit workforce. This is a realistic goal considering that the Inuit population of Nunavut is over 80 per cent and the working language will be Inuktitut.

As we speak the Government of Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories are training Inuit to staff Nunavut's public service. Nunavut Arctic College has been instrumental in making education accessible and relevant to all Nunavut residents.

Last week in Iqaluit I witnessed the signing of a training agreement between the two governments that will ensure the employment targets are met.

Although governments are now training to staff the public service there have to be mechanisms in place to keep our youth in school and to pursue post-secondary education. There are many barriers that stand in the way of our youth attaining higher education. One avenue to keep youth in school is through athletics. There needs to be more focus on partnering schools and sport.

Twenty-seven out of twenty-eight Nunavut communities are coastal communities but all are serviced only by air. There are no roads. Air freight is the only reliable way to ship goods and perishable food. Communities receive non-perishables like fuel and construction material by sea lift, many of them only once a year.

Freight is the primary reason for the high cost of living in Nunavut. In many communities a four litre jug of milk costs $10, a loaf of white bread $2.69, a five pound bag of potatoes goes for $6.95 and a case of Coca-Cola will cost $41. With gas costing 71 cents a litre it is very expensive for northern residents to buy gas so they may go hunting for country food, which is still very much the main diet.

The constituency that I represent cannot be compared to any other part of the country. When I was in Iqaluit, the future capital of Nunavut, it was mentioned that Canadians are as ill-informed about their north as Americans are about Canada.

When I was going to high school in Ottawa I was asked before Christmas break by a classmate to bring back a stamp from my home so she could have one for her collection. This is one example of how true it is that Canadians forget that their country goes much further beyond 60° north. We are part of Canada and proud to be Canadians.

When people outside the north think of the Arctic, they think of igloos, polar bears, and arts and crafts. Carvings and crafts are a legitimate source of income to many families in the north and are relied upon to put food on the table. We have tremendously talented artists who need to have their work marketed. Therefore it is very disturbing for me to see imitation art displayed in stores. No one can replace the beauty of an original carving of the north. Means to promote economic development of art must be explored.

If any culture is truly unique and different within Canada, it is the Inuit culture. Our ancestors came here thousands of years ago, lived off the land and adapted to dramatic changes. In the span of roughly 35 years, Inuit went from igloos to houses, from dog teams to airplanes, and still kept their culture alive because we still use igloos and dog teams.

During my parents' time, Inuit used fox tags and wooden sticks to trade for supplies. Today my father has a Visa card and my mother can use her Interac card to do her banking, even though they do not speak any English.

The Inuit are a very adaptable people and I am very proud of the progress we have made in such a short time. These examples show that Nunavut residents are ready for the challenges that await them. The implementation of our long awaited territory is rapidly approaching and co-operation between parties involved is necessary.

I look forward to working with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Interim Commissioner of Nunavut, the president of Nunavut Tunngavik, and the government of the Northwest Territories to make sure that Nunavut residents see a smooth transition on April 1, 1999 which is less than 580 days away. All of these parties, along with regional Inuit organizations, Qikiktani Inuit Association, Kitikmeot Inuit Association and Kivalliq Inuit Association, will be essential in providing me with real input as we face tough decisions.

The division of the Northwest Territories is the most significant and exciting event taking place before the turn of the century. It has not been since 1949 when Newfoundland joined Confederation that something of this magnitude has occurred in Canada.

Establishing the Nunavut territory is my priority as Nunavut's member of Parliament, but it must also be a priority of this House. This is monumental. I urge my colleagues in this House to take this chance to participate in making history in Canada.

It will be by working together and helping each other that we will accomplish the task. This is the way the Inuit culture survived thousands of years in a harsh and unforgiving climate. I was pleased to see this type of co-operation during the unfortunate crises of the floods in Quebec and Manitoba.

I want to close this speech by extending an invitation to those members of this House and those Canadians from across the country who have not yet had the privilege to see Nunavut to come and visit us. I guarantee that their experience will be unforgettable.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, firstly I would like to congratulate you on your new role as Acting Speaker. We look forward to seeing your smile up there every day.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Nunavut. I want to say to her that I had an opportunity during the last sitting of the House to work with her people with respect to their needs. I look forward to working with them once again. She is absolutely right. She has a unique culture and she understands, like we understand over here, that there are regions of Canada with different needs. We are there to help them.

I look forward to meeting with the hon. member to discuss how we can assist her in creating the Nunavut territory and making it a better place for her people to live.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I too want to pay tribute to the member for Nunavut. In my riding, they would tell her in Inuit:

That means “Thank you very much. You are a superstar for having been elected to the House of Commons”.

Abitibi covers 802,000 square kilometres, and has 92,000 inhabitants, 68 communities and 68 mayors. There are 14 Inuit villages in Abitibi. So I am very familiar with the Inuit culture. I would like to mention to the hon. member that it is true that, while in the south bread sells for between $1 and $1.06, in Nunavut, New Quebec, bread can cost between $2.50 and $3.

We have many problems right now. Housing is one of them. I realize that much needs to be done. There are many who say that people in the north are receiving subsidies, but there is one thing that needs to be pointed out to the citizens of Canada and of Quebec and that is that, for every dollar we give our Inuit friends, 97 cents always comes back to the south. They are participating in the economy.

Much remains to be done, particularly in Nunavut and in Nunavik, Abitibi, such as working together and visiting New Quebec. That is the Canadian economy. We will play our part. I wish to congratulate the hon. member on her election.

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

Mr. Speaker, I took great pleasure in listening to the hon. government member talk about the beauty and the uniqueness of the part of the country she is from. Certainly I agree with her.

What is really interesting is that she basically confirmed everything the Reform Party has been saying for so many years, that every part of this great country of ours is unique and distinct and has its own unique and distinct character. It is very refreshing to hear a Liberal member agree with the Reform Party and take a route other than saying how unique and distinct the province of Quebec is. I thank the hon. member for bringing that up.

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, I know that Canada is a country known for respecting all the different nationalities that come to it. We are very proud to be one of the original nationalities, but I believe that Canada has room for all the different people who come to this country. I am proud to be a part of it.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to congratulate the new member for Nunavut on her maiden speech in the House of Commons.

I had the opportunity to travel to that part of the world a year and a half ago with Canada's foreign affairs committee, which was studying the Arctic Council in that area. I was greatly impressed.

It is one of the few ridings in Canada that is bigger than my own. I come from Peace River in northwestern Alberta and I can understand the difficulties in representing a riding of that size.

I was also struck by the impact of pollutants in Canada's Arctic and how they can affect people living in the area.

I have worked long and hard as the trade critic for our party to try to resolve the European ban on leg-hold traps and products from those traps from entering Europe. My understanding is that an agreement has been reached. I am wondering if the hon. member for Nunavut can tell the House whether she knows if it is satisfactory in addressing the concerns of the people who live off the industry of fur-bearing animals and whether the agreement will satisfy them.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The member's time for questions and comments has expired. If the member could have a very very brief response, please do so.

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, as far as I know that is being put into place. We have had a bit of resistance to the changing of the traps. As I said in my speech, Inuit are very adaptable people. We are trying to go with the change. I have to research this a little more because as I said I am very new at this and it is such a large territory with so many topics. I hope I can answer it more satisfactorily with a bit of research.

[Paul Bonwick, Liberal, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too want to congratulate the hon. member for Nunavut. I am sure she will represent her riding with a passion unparalleled. An area of 1.9 million square kilometres certainly brings a new meaning to door to door at election time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate you on your recent appointment. I take this opportunity to publicly congratulate the hon. member for Niagara Centre on his re-election as Speaker of the House. His remarks at orientation for the new members of Parliament were both inspiring and motivating. I certainly thank him for those words of encouragement. I am sure I speak on behalf of all of my new colleagues when I say that his words and actions have instilled a confidence in all of us based on the characters of those who are chairing this House.

I want to thank the constituents of Simcoe—Grey. I am both honoured and humbled that they chose me as their elected representative. I fully intend to represent them to the very best of my ability in this House. It is a responsibility that I do not take lightly. I want to assure all my constituents that I have ample access and little restrictions with regard to my input in voicing their comments or concerns to our government. I commit to them that I will take full advantage of this opportunity to voice their feelings.

I would be remiss and somewhat in trouble if I did not take time to thank my wife Sandi and our three children for the love and support they gave me throughout the election. It is something I know I can draw on throughout this term of office.

I have made a special commitment to my riding, one that I hope all residents will join me in no matter what their party affiliation. That commitment is to work hard to maintain and enhance what we believe to be the best place in Canada, and that means the world. I ask my constituents to join in that challenge.

My riding is a diverse and precious place just like the people within it. The agriculture industry in Simcoe—Grey represents the largest geographical make-up and is the largest single employer in our riding. We are a rural riding that has made and will make an enormous contribution to Canada as a whole.

To touch on a few of those contributions, I remind the House of Sir Frederick Banting, as was mentioned earlier, the co-founder of insulin and a World War II hero. Recent contributions have been made by Sue Palmer and Paul Shaw, two of Canada's Olympic athletes. I could spend the rest of the day talking about our many contributions and how proud I am to be a part of Simcoe—Grey riding but time does not permit it.

From our dairy, poultry, cattle and swine producers in Alliston, Elmvale, Markdale and Stayner to the best apple growers in the world in and around Thornbury and Collingwood, these farms are an integral part of Canada's food producing industry and deserve the support and confidence of the federal government. I am very pleased to see that happening.

Simcoe—Grey is a riding that leads in agricultural excellence. For this reason I am extremely pleased that the Liberal government has continued to support the agricultural community in the form of marketing boards and quotas.

I am especially pleased to see the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food leading this industry into the next century. As a result of his extensive background the minister understands that agriculture is the very foundation of this country and must be maintained no matter what countries or trade agreements try to threaten that foundation. The farming community can be assured that I will continue to support and endorse this agenda very aggressively.

As I mentioned earlier, my riding is very diverse. Our industrial components had their very foundations shaken, some even destroyed, throughout the mid to late eighties and early nineties. Now, thanks to a strong and fiscally responsible government, we have provided a stable and strong economic environment to allow these industries to rebuild and strengthen their positions in Canadian and world markets. At long last there is a glow of optimism within industry.

I also want to take this time to thank the Prime Minister and his previous government for having the fortitude to take us from what was near certain economic ruin to a healthy deficit free economy in four short years.

I am very grateful for the vision and direction of my colleague, the Minister of Finance. His fiscal formula has been a remedy for success.

I ask my colleagues, when dealing with what looks like a small surplus—it has certainly been talked about today and previously—to remember one thing. The only reason they are in this place talking about a surplus is because of the Liberal platform over the last three and a half years. The formula worked.

Like all ridings across Canada, jobs are at the forefront of the constituents' minds in Simcoe—Grey. I commend the Prime Minister for partnering with the private sector and leading trade missions abroad. I encourage the federal government, as I will encourage my riding, to take these types of proactive steps.

I am also pleased that we have a small surplus coming this year to invest back into social programs that are not just important to Liberals but important to all Canadians. With regard to this forecasted surplus, I strongly encourage the finance minister to stay his course in dealing with the debt. For our children it is a legacy in which I would like to put a serious dent, of course always keeping in mind Liberal values and social responsibilities.

We are known worldwide as a compassionate society with very liberal values. Now that our house is back in order, it will be necessary for us to focus more strongly on these issues.

Simcoe—Grey is likely one of the most well-known tourist destinations in Canada. If it is not, I will certainly make sure it is by the end of this term. For this reason I was extremely pleased that the federal government, along with the Business Development Bank of Canada, initiated a $500 million lending pool to help accelerate development in private sector, four season type resort areas.

We have a scenic geography that is second to none. We have, and will continue to develop biking, hiking and cross country trails that go on for hundreds of kilometres. We have the largest downhill ski area in Ontario, the friendliest and best run in North America.

I encourage all my colleagues, both sides, and extend an invitation to visit and see our great riding. I extend that same invitation to industry. We want them too, and we need them.

My riding, like many other rural ridings, has been continually losing its most cherished asset to larger urban centres. That most precious asset is our youth.

Initiatives, like partnering with the YMCA, is a large step in the right direction. It offers our youth opportunities within the riding, not only to be employed but equally or more important to upgrade their skills. It provides opportunities to which they may not otherwise have access. This is a program of which I am proud to be a part.

In closing, I say to all my colleagues, irrespective of party, I look forward to working with all of you in order that we may build a country and a future for our children that is second to none.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin with my congratulations to you for having accepted the appointment to your position. I hardly need remind you that this is only the third time in the history of this Parliament that a party in power has designated a deputy speaker from outside its ranks. This is a great honour, therefore, and your friends and family, the members of your party and certainly those who elected you will be very proud of you.

I would also like to thank the new member for Simcoe—Grey. I listened closely to his speech and I feel he will make a good MP—or at least I hope so. He strikes me as being full of good will. He gave particular attention in his speech to agriculture and to unemployment. My riding seems rather like Simcoe—Grey, with a number of farmers and many unemployed people.

I would like to ask the valiant new member for Simcoe—Grey, who states his readiness to work with all members of this House, what concrete proposals he wishes to make to his Liberal caucus that will be of any help whatsoever to the agricultural sector, which has seen its net earning power weaken year after year, particularly since 1993 when his party came to power, and to our young people in particular, with their abnormally high rate of unemployment?

And what has his government done to sustain employment since 1993? It has toughened up eligibility for unemployment insurance, particularly for young people, counting not the number of weeks but the number of hours. New workers have to accumulate 910 hours before they qualify. And worse still—my final point—the duration of employment insurance benefits has been shortened.

Since the hon. member for Simcoe—Grey gives me the impression of being very very positive in these, his first days in the House of Commons, what are the concrete proposals he will make to his party caucus, to the Liberal party?

[Paul Bonwick, Liberal, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I question how well the hon. member listened. I did touch on some of the initiatives of this government. Certainly the YMCA partnering initiative is a major step in the right direction. That is not just offering employment opportunities, it is also offering training opportunities to provide youth with a better lifestyle down the road.

In so far as the agriculture community is concerned, one of the things that I have done in my riding, and I have certainly been vocal in caucus as well, is to open up lines of communication. The member seems to have his facts in error. There has been an increase in the last two years in farming income, certainly in our area.

With respect to opening lines of communication, I have over the summer had the opportunity to have the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food travel to our riding and meet with the farmers, the brokers, the average people out there; not just their OFA representatives, but the actual farmers.

I have taken the time this summer to travel throughout the riding and sit in on the Grey County Federation of Agriculture and the Simcoe County Federation of Agriculture meetings. I bring that communication back to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and I tell him how it has impacted.

We have a very unusual situation which is going to be a great reward for the farming and agricultural communities and that is the minister who is leading us into the next millennium. He is a farmer, very well educated in the field and he is being met with an excellent response. I am certainly a pipeline to this caucus and to this government on behalf of the farming community in my riding.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate that I will be sharing our speaking slot with my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North Centre.

I join with my parliamentary colleagues to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your ascension to the Chair. I look forward to seeing not only your smiling face but also your good judgment exercised during the next number of months.

We all listened carefully and attentively to the throne speech as was read by the Governor General. I would like to quote from this throne speech before I make some remarks in my response.

It states:

This is the inauguration of a new Parliament. Let it be also the beginning of a new era of national reconciliation, economic renewal and social justice—.

While there are no easy solutions to the great problems facing our great country, there is a new will among Canadians to make a fresh start in the search for answers.

There is that phrase “fresh start”. It goes on to state:

—a priority goal of my Ministers will be to breathe a new spirit into federalism and restore the faith and trust of all Canadians in the effectiveness of our system of government.

A constant process of consultation and co-operation must be restored. My Ministers are regularly meeting their provincial colleagues to eliminate irritants and to improve services to people where the federal and provincial governments have joint responsibilities.

This throne speech goes on to state:

The process of consensus-building will engage the private sector partners in an era of co-operation on economic goals. In such a context, government would act as a guide, a mediator, a catalyst, becoming less intrusive in the private sector but vigilant over the integrity of the national economy and of national standards—.The three-part strategies of my Ministers is to restore fiscal responsibility, remove obstacles to growth and encourage new investment—This three-part strategy is aimed at renewing economic growth in order to provide jobs our people need and to address the continuing tragedy of youth unemployment—

My government will enter into discussion with the provinces aimed at a comprehensive overhaul of our pension system—

Consultations will also begin with the provinces to consider the most effective means of providing increased federal support for the improvement of—health care—

Canadians are deeply troubled by the incidence of crime, especially crimes of violence—

It goes on and on.

I am glad my Liberal colleagues here are applauding because this is the throne speech of Brian Mulroney. It sounds exactly the same.

[Some hon. members]

Liberal, Tory, same old story.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

This is the same throne speech. They did not even bother to re-write it. It was a new governor general, that is all. This throne speech is worth nothing. This is absolute pap. Yap, yap, who cares? I looked through here to find out where the helicopters were mentioned because the government announced today that a major priority is to purchase billions of dollars worth of helicopters. There is not a mention of helicopters in here. This is pap.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. member for Kamloops is a very experienced member and he knows that he is not to use props in the course of his debate. While his point may have been one that he feels he should make in this way, I am sure he knows it is wrong to perhaps over-dramatize things by tearing up books and so on in the course of his speech. I would ask him to restrain himself.

He may recall that in the last Parliament we had incidents of this kind and the Speaker intervened. I am reluctant to do so with such an experienced member, but I feel in the circumstances I should draw the rules to his attention.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I got so worked up that I just could not help it. However, I do have another whole version of it here. Pap is pretty cheap.

When I listened to the throne speech in the other place, I reflected back on the last number of years here. I go back to the Tories because it is basically the same group, only different faces.

I remember as a kid having my mother read me a story by Robert Louis Stevenson, called The Wreckers where unscrupulous people on a desert island would light fires on the rocks at night to lure ships into thinking it was a harbour. The ships would smash on the rocks, people would loot the ships and the people on the wrecked ships would die.

This reminds of the government. This reminds me of my Liberal friends. I wonder if they really know what they are doing to the people of Canada.

There is a reference in the throne speech to the deficit war being won. I suspect that if we listen carefully we would hear the Liberals cheering, saying “We won the deficit war. Yes, we were successful”.

If we were to acknowledge the heroes of the deficit war over the last number of years it would not be the Minister of Finance and our Liberal colleagues across the way or our previous Conservative friends in the House of Commons. It would be the long line-ups of people waiting to get into hospital. It would be the thousands and thousands of young people with huge debt loads on their shoulders as a result of having to fund so much of their education. It would be the 1.4 million people who do not have a decent job or perhaps do not even have a job at all. It would be the millions who have part-time jobs and are barely scraping through to make ends meet for their families.

We could talk about others like the 10,000 people every month, month after month, who declare personal or business bankruptcy, who are walking away from their businesses and their homes. In many cases they walk away from devastated families as a result of the economic policies of the government.

They are the true heroes of this deficit war. They should be the ones who are first rewarded when there is a dividend. The minute there is a surplus we should go back and start mending the safety net that has been ripped and torn apart by the Liberals and by the Conservatives before them. This should be a top priority if we are a caring and decent country.

I look across at these people. They look like nice people but I do not think they care about people. If they cared about people, would they permit having over a million children—they are laughing, Mr. Speaker. I do not think this is funny. They are laughing at over a million children waking up this morning and living in poverty in the richest country in the world. The Conference of Catholic Bishops calls it a form of child abuse, that this is allowed to happen. The government has to accept responsibility for that.

These people sit quietly in their places and give little speeches in the House of Commons about how nice the country is, how great they are and how hardworking we are all going to be. This country is in a mess for a growing number of people.

I acknowledge that luxury car sales are up. I acknowledge that the Toronto Stock Exchange is at historic levels. I admit that corporate profits have never been higher and the banks are happier than they ever have been in our banking history. At the same time increasing numbers of Canadians are living in poverty, increasing numbers of people are losing their jobs, their businesses and their homes.

What will the government do about this? Let us look in the throne speech. We are positive, happy people trying to find some goodness left in this world. There must be some goodness left in this government. There must be something in here about what it will do about the 1.4 million people who do not have jobs today. Is it mentioned?

I am being asked to talk about something new. The Liberals would love me to shut up about this topic. They would love me to stop talking about the 1.4 million people who are out of jobs? They would love me to stop talking about the people in Atlantic Canada who met our caucus and said they have not worked in four years because of this government's policies on free trade, NAFTA and now the multilateral agreement on investment.

There is a slow erosion in our country of what our parents and grandparents before them struggled to build for generation after generation into one of the best countries in the world. We have people by the hundreds of thousands lining up to come here because of what they built and what the government is tearing down systematically budget after budget after budget.

This has to stop. We cannot sit here passively, talking about minor shifts in trade and changes to trade policy or tinkering and so on with various social programs. At the same time as we sit here today, the Minister of Finance has tabled legislation in the House to radically change the way seniors receive their pensions.

When we cut through all the red tape and all those provisions, what does it say? It says that hundreds of thousands of seniors in the future will receive fewer benefits.

Is that the kind of country we are? Is that what we have come to? Is there anything in this throne speech about a national child care system? I heard minister after minister promise to introduce it. I heard Tory ministers promising to introduce it. Now it has reached a point where they were too embarrassed to mention it in the throne speech because they know nothing will happen in the budget.

Things must change. I am pleased to be here with a group of very progressive New Democrats who on a daily base in the House will remind the government how it has been cruel and continues to be cruel to many Canadians. That has to change and change soon.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.