Debates of Sept. 29th, 1997

Speech From The Throne

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Charlesbourg.

I want congratulate you on your appointment as an officer of the House. I assure you of my complete co-operation in the proceedings of this parliamentary institution, in which I intend to behave with dignity and respect. And might I urge you, Mr. Speaker, and your colleagues to use your experience and your authority to make this House a place in which the debate will be as vigorous as it is courteous, but also a forum that the public will hold in esteem rather than contempt.

I would also like to take the opportunity of my maiden speech to pay tribute to the citizens of Beauharnois—Salaberry. This riding in the southwest corner of Quebec is graced by a majestic river, a seaway, vast lakes and fertile banks, and is proud home to the county town of Salaberry-de-Valleyfield and the cities and municipalities of Beauharnois, Huntingdon and Napierville.

Those who put their trust in me and voted for me last June I thank from the bottom of my heart. I give my word to those who elected me, and to all those I represent here in Parliament, that I will carry out my public duties with deep and sincere respect for my new office.

I take this opportunity to pay my respects to my Bloc Quebecois predecessor, Laurent Lavigne, to whom I wish a well deserved rest before another referendum on Quebec's political future is called and he is again called upon to help build a country, a plan that he must not have lost sight of in his retreat in Saint-Stanislas-de-Kostka.

The Speech from the Throne was disappointing. As I listened to it in the Senate, last Tuesday, I could not help but be disappointed by a government program with so little vision, by a speech lacking consistency, apparently designed to lead us into the next century. It is a collection of empty words, cautious commitments and artful dodges.

My colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois has already brought to light the weaknesses in this speech and they will continue to do so all week long. The proposed initiatives to promote Canada's economic, social and cultural development are far from innovative and unlikely to give hope and create the momentum required to get the men, women and children of this country excited about the 21th century.

The same goes for foreign affairs. Considering that our country paid tribute to the memory of Lester B. Pearson by mentioning the 100th anniversary of his birthday in the September 23 speech, the throne speech definitely did not put enough emphasis on foreign affairs.

The current foreign affairs minister, who may succeed Lester B. Pearson as a Nobel peace prize recipient, did not manage to convince his government to give foreign affairs the importance they deserve in its agenda. Merely listing a few measures will not provide a vision to our foreign policy.

Canada's initiatives to ban antipersonnel land mines, promote human rights and protect the environment are definitely good measures and will get the Bloc Quebecois' support when, as in the previous Parliament, we feel they are compatible with Quebec's interests and those of the international community as a whole.

However, the Bloc Quebecois will not hesitate to condemn the positions of a government that constantly reduces its official development assistance, or whose approach is inconsistent as regards the linkage of human rights and international trade.

The Bloc Quebecois will also condemn the fact that Canada is slow to ratify a treaty as important as the American convention on human rights and seems too reserved regarding the inclusion of cultural exemptions in international trade agreements.

You can also count on me, as the new Bloc Quebecois critic on foreign affairs, to expose a government that puts its foreign policy at the service of national unity. I will display unprecedented vigilance in this regard, and I will not miss any opportunity to respond to those who seek to jeopardize Quebec's autonomy at the international level, to take away the voice Quebec has gained, after an endless struggle, with various states and international institutions.

Those who would try to keep the Bloc Quebecois and its spokespersons from speaking to foreign officials in Ottawa and around the world about the political project of the Quebec government, a project shared by both the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois, will not succeed in preventing us from doing so.

You are probably not surprised to hear me say that the throne speech has very little to inspire those who seek to put an end to the constitutional deadlock. I respect those who promote Canadian unity, who find some degree of comfort in the Calgary declaration and who believe in its potential to produce a reform satisfactory to Quebecers.

Like the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords, in my opinion the Calgary declaration does not contain the elements which would allow Quebecers to live with a Canadian federalism based on the equality of provinces and individuals rather than on the recognition and freedom of peoples.

I have less respect, however, for those who support Plan B, those who are anticipating the failure of Plan A. To the ministers and members of this House who wish to insure unity through basically undemocratic pronouncements and measures and who are setting us all on a collision course, my response is that the people of Quebec is sovereign and will, when the time is ripe, reject any plan intended to restrict its freedom to be master of its own destiny.

It is now time to acknowledge the diverging views of the peoples of Quebec and Canada on the nature and structure of the federation. It is time to reconcile Canada and Quebec in a new kind of partnership, a novel form of union between genuine sovereign states.

Why not consider calling it a Canadian union, just like René Lévesque did in 1967, an entity that could foster the possibility of going beyond the unsuitable and inappropriate federal structure that has bound the peoples of Canada and Quebec for the past 130 years. The challenges of Quebeckers and Canadians will then be nation building, affirming the unique personalities of their two countries, and union building that is defining their common destiny within a novel body politic.

These new challenges will replace the old divisions, allowing both Canada and Quebec to understand and appreciate each other. This avenue might be chosen with great reluctance, but I cite the words of a poet, Robert Frost:

Ah when to the heart of man Was it ever less than treason To go with the drift of things To yield with grace and reason, And bow to accept the end Of a love or season?

My answer, my answer to my Canadian friends, lies in a poem of Gilles Vigneault who in his Balises wrote, and so I conclude in French:

I came to you, bearing my country, To sow it in your garden. You need not be surprised To see it growing in your neighbour's as well.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am greatly interested in my colleague's words.

Could the hon. member tell me if we must cut ties with the monarchy to renew Canada?

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for us Quebecers, for those who share the idea that Quebec ought to become a sovereign country, it is the people who will be sovereign. The people will determine the head of State. Discussions will be held on who this should be.

What I can tell you is that there are many sovereignists who wish to see Quebec remain in the Commonwealth, like other nations which have remained in the Commonwealth but do not necessarily have the Queen as their head of State. Quebec's anglophones will no doubt do a fine job of representing a sovereign Quebec within the Commonwealth's institutions, and we will be proud to have them representing all Quebecers there.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, may I say to the hon. member that his brilliant reputation as student and teacher has followed him here.

He quoted a poem by Robert Frost. I can quote another poem called The Road Not Taken . The poet indicated of the two options that life always offers. Dare I hope that, during his parliamentary career here, the member may consider the other path, that of renewed federalism, adapted to the needs of the modern world?

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary and I hope my behaviour in this House may be as dignified as his own.

As you know, Quebecers have long debated the two roads, and continue to do so. With the Bélanger-Campeau commission, they once again agreed to debate renewed federalism. Since 1990, this road of renewed federalism has seemed to be a dead end.

When we hear, as we did again this weekend, major political personages from the rest of Canada saying that the Calgary declaration is unacceptable to the rest of Canada, the implication is that, yet again, the road of renewed federalism is a dead end.

In this context, the road to sovereignty and partnership is the most credible alternative. It the most valid one for Quebecers and the one that will make Quebec a country that is open to the realities of the world and a player in the international community, desirous, to a large extent, of maintaining the economic and monetary union that the people and sovereign states of Europe, for example, have maintained while retaining their sovereignty.

To quote an internationalist you know very well, Emmerich De Vattel:

“Of all the rights that can belong to a nation sovereignty is doubtless the most precious”.

If sovereignty is precious to Canada, admit it—it is important to—so it is for Quebec.

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

Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member of the Bloc understand that when the country was founded the aboriginal people were here and that when the francophone people arrived the aboriginal people said to them “come on to the land and we will continue to build Canada?” Then the anglophone people arrived and the francophone people and the aboriginal people shook hands and said “come, we will build Canada”.

We are all the same. We are all one and we form Canada. I say to you, sir, that we have to realize that. I ask you and your party to look at that. We formed Canada, we built it, and I am asking you to be part of it.

[The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

I must remind all hon. members that it is necessary to address the Chair in questions or comments.

If the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry wishes to say something, he has the floor.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the hon. member. I appreciate her concern and her will to make Quebec part of Canada. However there are differences. There are things that have not functioned well. There are solutions other than federalism to bind the futures of people together.

I believe we have exhausted constitutional remedies in Quebec. There will be evidence shortly that the Calgary declaration shows once again that the views of other Canadians and Quebeckers are irreconcilable. We will see once again that those constitutional remedies have been exhausted. Then we will have to find a solution. We will have to find a solution to bind the future of people living on the same land together.

For me and for many Quebeckers of all generations that solution is sovereignty accompanied by an offer of partnership which will be made and will continue to be made in good faith by Quebeckers like myself.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with some emotion, and understandably so, that I address this House for the very first time. After ten years of militant action in favour of sovereignty, I finally have a chance to pursue my action as an elected representative.

First of all, I would like to thank the voters in the great and beautiful riding of Charlesbourg who have chosen me to represent them. I was born and raised in Charlesbourg and I still live there. It is a privilege for me to work for the people of Charlesbourg.

Great people have spoken in this House. One who comes to mind is a man who was first elected to this place and, later in his political career, went on to become the premier of Quebec. I am referring to Honoré Mercier.

Honoré Mercier went down in Quebec history as a man who asked Quebecers to set their partisan divisions aside. People rallied around him and his national party with the deepest conviction.

At the unveiling of the Cartier-Brébeuf monument in Quebec City, in 1889, he made a famous utterance: “Let us stop fighting among brothers and unite”.

A century later, the Bloc Quebecois has answered his call. While advocating a sovereign Quebec, the Bloc Quebecois is asking all Quebecers, whether they are federalists or sovereignists, Socialists, Liberals, Conservatives, ADQ or PQ supporters, to rally around and join forces to fight for the democratic rights of Quebeckers as well as for their institutions and their freedom to decide their future.

In the early 19th century, Louis-Joseph Papineau and the Patriot movement fought for democracy and for the rights of those who were called Canadians at the time and are now known as Quebeckers. Papineau fought to ensure that his people, and not some unelected individuals, decide the future.

It is sad, a shame really, to see this struggle we thought was over resurface today. Once again, attempts are being made to take away from Quebeckers the right to democratically decide their future and ask an unelected body, namely the Supreme Court of Canada in this instance, to decide for them.

The point of view that the future of a nation should be decided by the people and not by elected officials was shared by Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson said “I can think of no safer depository for the ultimate powers of society than in the people themselves”.

I expect my colleagues from the Reform Party to agree with this statement as it is written in the conference room at their party's headquarters in Calgary.

We the sovereignists are the defenders of democracy in Quebec. Our goal is to ensure that Quebeckers have the right to decide their own future. That future is one that we are confident will be as a sovereign and proud country, dealing as an equal with its friend and neighbour, Canada.

The Bloc is back.

Now, let ask ourselves if it is possible to reconcile justice and escalation. Let me use a practical example.

Imagine you have a dispute with a neighbour and that neighbour wants to have a third party settle the issue. It goes without saying that you would never accept that third party to be someone appointed and paid by your neighbour. Moreover, should the decision be based on a contract which you have always refused to sign, you would have another reason to object.

Yet, this is precisely what this government is attempting to do. Supreme Court judges are appointed by the federal government. They are paid by the federal government and, moreover, they will interpret a document that every Quebec government has refused to sign.

Is this what they call justice, Mr. Speaker? Not I. Justice will be done when Quebeckers are free to decide, and they will.

The carelessness of the current federal government is obvious in the throne speech. There is nothing good in it for Quebec. The unemployment level for my generation is tragic. Some even refer to us as generation x . Still, there is absolutely nothing in the throne speech to solve this most urgent problem.

The fight against the deficit was conducted at the expense of the poor, including young people, and they will not forget, believe me.

As for the part of the speech entitled “Building Safer Communities”, it hides another attempt by the federal government to encroach on areas of provincial jurisdiction. Once again, the federal government is acting like a bull in a china shop. But there is more.

The $30 million program to fight crime is a rehash. It was already public news on December 12, 1996, when the Globe and Mail published an article on it, on page A16 for those who want to go back and read it. There is nothing new. This is further evidence of this government's total lack of imagination.

Still in that same part of the speech, I am pleased to see that the government decided to develop alternatives to imprisonment for non-violent, low-risk offenders. The government has finally listened to the Bloc Quebecois, which has always stressed the importance of rehabilitation. The Liberal government is once again proving the Bloc Quebecois right.

Let me conclude by saying it is an honour for me to be here. I am convinced that this 36th Parliament will go down in history. Indeed, I will be able to tell my children that I was part of the last group of Quebec MPs elected to the House of Commons.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member.

Is it true that the term “Canadian” is inclusive and the term “Quebecer” exclusive, and that, accordingly, Canadians are a people and Quebecers a society?

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, had I rewritten the question to please myself, I would not have written it differently.

I believe that there are some things that must be made very clear. We are now speaking about the people of Quebec, a very inclusive concept that includes francophones, anglophones, allophones and the first nations. The advocates of partition are the ones who are using exclusive terms and who are dangerous.

We have long accepted that all Quebec's anglophones and allophones form part of the people of Quebec. Partitioners are the ones who have decided to equate national or ethnic boundaries with political boundaries. The Quebec we dream of and want to build will be inclusive and will include the people of all nations and all the immigrants who come here in search of freedom.

You may rely on the Bloc Quebecois to make of Quebec a people who are open-minded, tolerant and generous, and not an ethnic group, as certain people would have us believe.

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

Mr. Speaker, I begin by congratulating the hon. member for Charlesbourg on his first speech in the House of Commons. I listened carefully to what he had to say. I also listened carefully to some of the questions his colleagues asked of colleagues of mine earlier today with respect to the understanding of the existence or non-existence of the Quebecois people.

I acknowledge the history of that notion. It is fair for the member to notice the NDP, going back to its formation in 1961, has always been ready to acknowledge that dimension of the collective existence of the Quebec people. We continue to argue that can be achieved, recognized and enhanced within the context of a continuing Canadian federalism.

One of the reasons we invite members of the Bloc and other Quebeckers to do that is that the minute we begin to give up on this notion and entertain notions of separation, we come up against the hard political and philosophical reality that it is not just the Quebecois and the Quebecoises who consider themselves a people but, for instance, the aboriginal people of Quebec are also a people. It seems to me that we invite an infinite reductionism of self-determination the minute we get into the question of separation.

Has the member not considered the difficulty that would be posed for Canada and for Quebec in the event of a separation and in the event the Cree people of Quebec decided that they, in their own democratic self-determining way, did not want to continue to be a member of Quebec as it is now understood but rather a member of what would be left of Canada after such a separation? How does he regard their democratic rights understood in that context?

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. The Government of Quebec was the first government in Canada to recognize the existence of the aboriginal nations. We are proud to have done so. We continue to extend our friendship to the aboriginal people.

My dream of a sovereign Quebec is a Quebec nation working in partnership with the Canadian nation and in a partnership with the aboriginal nations of Quebec. Dealing with the Canadian people, Quebec people and the aboriginal peoples equally in that triangle is the key to the future of Quebec, Canada and the aboriginal people.

[Inky Mark, Reform, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Edmonton—Strathcona.

I, like other members, congratulate you on your appointment to the Chair. On behalf of the constituents of Dauphin—Swan River I wish you a very successful term.

I am honoured and privileged to be in the House of Commons representing the people of Dauphin—Swan River. I thank the people of Dauphin—Swan River for the honour. I pledge to them that as I take my seat on their behalf it is my responsibility to be accountable to them first and foremost.

I would like to describe to the House the make-up of Dauphin—Swan River. It is as unique as the country itself. Dauphin—Swan River is located in west central Manitoba, the second largest settled area riding. It is a land of lakes, mountains and prairies. It is multilingual and multicultural. The people speak English, French, Ukrainian and Saulteaux. Culturally it is predominantly English, Ukrainian, French and aboriginal. The people of Dauphin—Swan River celebrate this diversity with enthusiasm throughout the year. We are all proud of our ethnic heritage but we are prouder to be Canadians first.

On a more personal note, I am a third generation Canadian. My Chinese grandfather came to Canada to help build the railway in the late 1800s. My wife Lynda, nee Burelle, is ninth generation. Her roots go back to 1660, to the arrival in Quebec of Étienne Burelle and Marie Tellier from the parish of Saint-Séverin in Paris. They settled near Varennes, in Quebec. The Quebec Burelles moved west to Manitoba only in the 1900s. We both still have relatives in Quebec.

I am sure that many Canadians are in the same position. Quebec is as important to us as any other province in which we have family members.

The people of Dauphin—Swan River sent me to the House to make sure their concerns are heard. They are not happy about the lack of jobs, the rising cost of post-secondary education, the dismantling of the health care system, the price of grain as announced recently by the Canadian Wheat Board, the cost of transporting farm products to market, the political manipulation of the grain transportation system over the last 40 years, an ineffective Young Offenders Act, and the lack of justice in that criminals appear to have more rights than law-abiding citizens.

In Dauphin—Swan River the issue of gun control implemented by the former justice minister is unacceptable to the people. This bill has been very divisive for Canada. It has put Canadians in two camps, those living in large urban centres and those living in rural settings. The gun control of the government will no doubt make criminals out of millions of otherwise law-abiding Canadians across the land.

As the deputy critic for national unity my role is to ensure that the grassroots at the municipal level are listened to and that they have a pivotal role to play in the future of Canada. I believe that we have failed over the last 40 years in the unity debate because we have used the wrong process.

Canada's vision was seen through the eyes of the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau in the 1970s. In the 1980s the vision was through the eyes of the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney. In the 1990s there has been a struggle between the old school and the new school. The old school wants to stick with a closed door, top down approach to solving Canada's challenges and problems on unity and on most other issues as well. The new school wants to throw open the windows and let in the fresh air, open the doors and let the people bring their ideas to the table and have a real part in making the decisions. Sadly the old school is so far barely letting the windows and doors crack open.

I believe that the next millennium belongs to the people of Canada, without a doubt. During the last forty years, the politicians have failed miserably with their top-down approach to unifying the country. Now is it the citizens' turn to address the issues of the day.

In my opinion, Canadians are interested in their day to day needs—jobs, health care, housing—and not in constitutional disputes between parties and governments. My constituents have indicated to me that we must start by solving problems, and must treat all citizens of this marvellous country on an equal footing.

In past weeks I wrote to the provincial premiers suggesting the process of consultation be open and transcend political loyalties and partisan politics. I also asked the premiers to encourage the municipal leaders to participate in holding town hall style meetings in each community open to the residents. The community meetings would be assisted by facilitators, information provided by provincial governments, input from experts and include the participation of local MLAs and MPPs. In short it would put the town back in the unity town halls.

In closing, the key to this process is open discussion. Only then would the people of Canada have an opportunity to discuss and debate the issues on the future of their country. The House belongs to the people as so does the future of the country.

[Rahim Jaffer, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be making my maiden speech before the House today. I was fortunate to be given the opportunity to make my debut appearance earlier last week during question period. I am a little overwhelmed at the idea of participating so directly in one of Canada's most important institution.

The transition from the old Strathcona coffee guru to parliamentarian is no small adjustment. I only hope that I am part of a parliament that will begin to reshape Canada and that I may in some modest capacity be a part on that process.

Before I become too involved in my speech I would like to congratulate you on your election to the Speaker's Chair. I am confident that you will uphold the integrity and the proud tradition of this position.

I would also like to take the opportunity to thank my constituents of Edmonton—Strathcona. It is a great honour to be entrusted with the responsibility of representing a constituency that includes the prestigious University of Alberta, an academic institution poised to become one of the finest in the world.

I am proud also to represent the area of Old Strathcona, a wonderfully unique Bohemian community of small business, artists and students. I represent a large number of senior citizens and am proud that now I may serve these people who have spent a lifetime building this great nation.

I want to thank all my constituents for having the courage to place their trust in a man of only 25 years of age who belongs to a party only 10 years old. I will take my election mandate to mean that it is a change that the people of Strathcona desire and I will work tirelessly to ensure that change occurs in this House.

I would like to thank my parents for their unconditional love and support. It has not been easy for them to take the sole responsibility of running our family owned business in my absence. While their eldest son is engrossed in the adventure of his life, they are carrying the burden of running the daily operations of our family owned coffee shop.

I think my parents were a little skeptical when I first threw my hat into the political arena, but despite their skepticism they supported and encouraged me over many long months of campaigning and are truly the unsung heroes of my political success. I would like to thank my parents also for teaching me the values I now bring to political life.

My family arrived in Canada in 1972. They were penniless refugees who fled Uganda and the brutal regime of Idi Amin. They came to Canada to rebuild their lives. They came to escape tyranny and embrace Liberty. They came to find a haven from racial prejudice in a country renowned for its tolerance and equality. With a belief in hard work and with a commitment to meritocracy, they began to rebuild their lives.

Like all children do, I learned from their words and their deeds. I saw that with hard work comes success. That was the opportunity Canada offered.

I saw that my parents were allowed to pursue business opportunities and were allowed to keep the fruits of their labour. There was no dictator who could confiscate our property because he did not like the colour of our skin. That was the freedom Canada offered.

I saw that my parents, even though they were small business owners, were treated with the same respect as other Canadians. That was the equality Canada offered.

Opportunity, freedom and equality. These are the values I have come to cherish and these are the values I bring to this House. Canada is the best place in the world to live. We do not need the United Nations to tell us that, but we risk being complacent if we continue to pat ourselves on the back.

Canada does have problems. Canadian families and small business suffer under a heavy tax burden. Young people, normally full of hope, fear the future holds nothing but disappointment, chronic unemployment and debt.

Canadians every day face the uncertainty of whether or not their country will remain united. This uncertainty weighs heavy on all Canadians and is the cause of so many political problems. It is this issue that I would like to address today.

Mr. Speaker, I have a message I would like to send through you to the very proud people of Quebec. Quebecers are justifiably proud of their history and culture. It is my belief that this culture will continue so long as there are people—sovereignists or federalists—wanting to keep it flowering.

I fear, however, that Quebecers will once again in the near future be asked to decide whether they wish to remain in Canada. Separatist leaders will ask them if they want to retain their cultural identity or be swallowed up by an all encompassing federal government. Given this choice, I too would vote sovereignist.

These, however, are not the only choices available to Quebecers. There is a third choice, that of a renewed Canadian federation. This choice will change totally and utterly the relationship between the federal and provincial governments. It will give the provinces the latitude they need to develop the cultural and economic institutions that best reflect their particular values.

The third choice is embodied in the political movement calling for renewed federalism. While it is a movement that began in the west with the Reform Party it is fueled by frustration shared by people all across this country.

Our first ministers are among those who share this frustration. They have given us the framework from which to begin a nationwide discussion on Canada's constitutional future. This should be an exciting time for the people of Quebec and all across Canada who are looking for fundamental changes to our federation. We should all look with hope at the possibilities that lie within the Calgary declaration. Our premiers have learned a lesson from both Meech Lake and Charlottetown and are going to the people of Canada to hear what they have to say about their country.

I would ask that the people of Quebec insist that their voices be joined with the millions of other Canadians who will soon be discussing Canada's constitutional future.

I would also ask Quebecers, who are so proud of their culture, to look at this way of remaining within a renewed Canada, which will respect the cultural and economic diversity of its provincial partners.

Although the idea of a renewed federalism holds out promise and a future for Quebec, there are those who will oppose it because they do not believe that Quebec can or should be an equal partner in the Canadian federation. Some believe that, without inequalities enshrined in the Constitution, Quebec will never be an important component of Canada.

There are people who told me that I would never make it in the Reform Party, a party without official racial preferences for its candidates. There are people who told me that a young minority would never make it on his own in a political world dominated by the old boys club, and yet I stand here today, the proud representative of Edmonton—Strathcona.

I think that what my personal experience helps to illustrate is that in a truly free country merit is the only requirement for success. Equality is no threat to individuals of merit. Equality is no threat to the rich and unique culture of Quebec.

I hope the province of Quebec will demand to be an equal and vital member of the Canadian confederacy and will reject the false promises of separation.

It is said that Canada finds strength in diversity. If this is true, a renewed federalist system may bring this country together as a strong unified country as never before seen, a nation ready to face the challenges of the 21st century.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to congratulate the new member from the Reform Party on his maiden speech in this House.

I understand where the hon. member is coming from. He is a member of a federalist party, the Reform Party, and the Calgary meeting took place in his province. Fine, but the history of Quebec's plans for sovereignty goes back much further.

First, as we mentioned, the proposed Constitution was never signed by any Quebec government, whether federalist or sovereignist.

Robert Bourassa, a Liberal, was not a sovereignist but a federalist, yet he never agreed to sign the Constitution. Claude Ryan never agreed to sign it either. More recently, a former Liberal provincial minister, Claude Ryan, recognized Quebec's special rights.

I represent a riding that once had a former Prime Minister as a member of Parliament. I am referring to Brian Mulroney, who was the member for Charlevoix and Prime Minister of Canada. He too made an attempt with the Meech Lake accord, the Charlottetown accord and other formulas. In the referendum on the Charlottetown accord, English Canada voted no because they felt it gave too much to Quebec, while Quebec voted no because we felt it was not enough.

I believe, as the hon. member will find out, that therein lies the constitutional problem and that, no matter what you offer, it will be too little, too late. Quebec sends $28 billion to Ottawa and is not getting its money's worth in return. Quebec wants to manage its own services, eliminate overlap and duplication, take control of its destiny and become a country by the year 2000.

[Rahim Jaffer, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I too share the frustration of the hon. member who just commented. That is the whole point of what has been happening in this federation to date.

The premiers of the various provinces have said it is time to consult the rest of Canada in order to have real change in the federation. We have seen that frustration in every region of this country.

With the premiers making the effort to make the change, now is the time for us to come together and build for the future. We have come a long way as a united country. I hope there is still a long way to go. The only way we can do it is to come together as one people of one nation, through equality in order to make the changes required for the 21st century.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by telling the member for Edmonton—Strathcona how much I, and I am sure, my colleagues appreciate his speaking French in this House and speaking it very well.

I would like to ask him whether the citizens of Edmonton—Strathcona, whom he represents, feel that Quebecers are a people and whether they feel that this people has the freedom to determine its future and to have its own country.

[Rahim Jaffer, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things the people of Edmonton—Strathcona sent me here to try to accomplish is to recognize the view that, regardless of where people come from, regardless of their background, whether they are Quebecois or an Ismaili Muslim like myself, we are all equal. The way to build a strong country is not to recognize that each individual group makes a people, but to recognize that through our diversity we are equal. That will give us the base on which to build a strong country.

It does not matter what the people of Edmonton—Strathcona think in the sense of their recognizing any specific group as a people. They put equality first and that is what they have sent me here to do on their behalf. That is what they believe will build this country and lead us into the 21st century.

[Carmen Provenzano, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Erie—Lincoln.

It is with great pleasure that I take part in the debate on the Speech from the Throne, a speech which confidently outlines our government's ongoing commitment to fiscal responsibility and social fairness.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer my congratulations to you on your appointment as acting speaker. I would also like to thank the residents of Sault Ste. Marie for giving me the honour of representing them in the House of Commons.

It is with a great deal of humility that I stand here as their member of Parliament. I sincerely hope that through hard work, honest conduct and devotion to constituency matters that I can repay Saultites for the confidence they have shown in me.

I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to the previous member of Parliament for Sault Ste. Marie, Ron Irwin, who is now a special advisor to the prime minister. I have known Ron Irwin for a long time. He is a fair and honest man who, as an MP, served Sault Ste. Marie extremely well and as minister of Indian affairs also served Canadians extremely well.

Ron left some mighty big shoes for me to fill, workboots in fact. I thank him for his counsel, past and present, as I try to grow into those boots.

Returning to the matter at hand, I would like to focus my remarks on a few key issues raised in the throne speech, namely youth unemployment, the importance of exports to the Canadian economy and the need for a forward thinking approach to national unity.

Youth unemployment has become a serious problem in Canada and particularly in my riding of Sault Ste. Marie. Too many well educated young people are having a tough time finding that all-important first job. Still others are finding post-secondary education to be prohibitively expensive. It is for these reasons that the government is taking decisive action to help young people.

The Speech from the Throne reaffirms and in many cases expands the government's commitment to improved job creation, training and education for young people. The strengthening of federal internship programs will provide participants with real job experience, the lack of which too often prevents young people from finding meaningful work.

The establishment of the Millennium Scholarship Endowment Fund will help thousands of young Canadians access the education necessary to succeed in the knowledge-based society of the 21st century. I was especially pleased to hear that the millennium fund will be directed primarily at low and modest income students. This is welcome news indeed to a predominantly working class city like Sault Ste. Marie.

I have always believed that by investing in the future of our young people we invest in the future of Canada. Simply put, the Speech from the Throne is an example of this belief in action. Of course we will be in a position to do more in terms of social spending as our commitment to sound fiscal management yields larger and larger dividends. One particular area of interest to me is the creation of greater opportunities for physically and mentally challenged Canadians through wage subsidies and job creation initiatives.

The federal government now operates a $30 million a year opportunities fund to this end, but it is my sincere hope that in the years to come more attention and more money will be directed at this often overlooked group of Canadians.

There are aspects of the speech that provide hope for unemployed Saultites. The emphasis on exports as a source of one in three Canadian jobs bodes well for residents in my riding. Sault Ste. Marie is a vibrant border city with a significant export economy. Sault Ste. Marie is a leading exporter of steel, wood and paper products. The city's exporting capabilities are second to none thanks in large part to its proximity to the United States and its strategic location along the St. Mary's River.

Tourism is another precious commodity in Sault Ste. Marie. Thousands of visitors come every year to enjoy the natural beauty of northern Ontario. They come to fish, hunt, ski and snowmobile. In Sault Ste. Marie they ride the Algoma Central Railway to the Agawa Canyon, tour the Sault locks and visit the magnificent displays at the Canadian Bushplane Heritage Centre.

It is for those reasons that Saultites should be pleased with the throne speech's recognition of tourism and exports as key economic generators. This recognition is not simply based on rhetoric. The government was quick to condemn a new American entry law which would seriously inconvenience Canadians crossing into the United States. The government will continue to fight this insulting legislation and it is my belief that it will soon win Canadians a well deserved exemption.

I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the sacrifices Canadians have made the past few years. Like government they have learned to do more with less. However, now that there is light at the end of the deficit tunnel, we are, as the Speech from the Throne explained, in a position to make strategic investments. We will not, as some opposition members have charged, abandon the attitude of fiscal responsibility that got this nation's finances back on track.

On the other hand, we will not neglect to make the necessary social investments such as the ones outlined in the speech. We will stay the course of balancing the nation's financial and social priorities. This is what Canadians elected us to do in 1993 and it is what they re-elected us to do this spring.

Finally, I would like to offer my colleagues in the House these thoughts on national unity. There is an old expression that says “Don't look back unless that is where you want to go”.

Are there many Canadians who wish to go back to where we have been on the whole question of national unity? I do not think so. I believe my fellow Canadians are prepared to look straight ahead. I believe they are prepared to be flexible and open-minded in finding a lasting solution to the national unity problem.

I exhort all of my colleagues in the House to fix not on the past but on the future, to be fully receptive to new ideas and proposals regardless of the source so that we may bring lasting closure to this issue.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's entire speech, but even more carefully to the latter part of it. Our colleague speaks to us about national unity. He tells us not to look back to the past, but ahead to the future.

I would point out to him, and it is to this comment that I would like his reaction, that the Canada of today is operating under rules from the last century, when we are now on the eve of the next century.

There is not an enterprise in this country, or in the rest of the world, that is operating according to rules from the last century. Such an undertaking would be doomed to failure.

When will Canada finally understand that the Constitution, which was drawn up in the last century, no longer meets, if it ever did, the needs we now have and will continue to have in the next century? Sovereignty, with a proposal for partnership, is a forward looking plan that assures Quebecers and Canadians of prosperity in the century to come.

I ask him whether he is looking to the future or to the past.

[Carmen Provenzano, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, indeed I look forward to a solution to national unity issues which have had a very checkered history. It is my hope that Canadians will be forward-looking. I pledge to do what I indicated in my speech. I am prepared to be very flexible and to take the lead from wherever it may come in order to find some kind of a solution to this problem.

I do not think that the federation is so broken that it cannot be fixed.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's comments with interest.

Although there is great hope for our country and for this global trade that is moving toward us, we have social problems in this country that parallel third world countries. We have aboriginal people living on reserves. The minister of Indian affairs has a fiduciary responsibility which encompasses the whole of the cabinet and the government to ensure that the funds that are directed to the chiefs and councils of those reserves reach the grassroots people.

We are hearing directly more and more from a growing number of grassroots people on a number of reserves across the country that they are living in poverty conditions which are leading to an enormous degree of violence, alcohol and drug abuse. On the Stoney Reserve we heard that an aboriginal woman is living in a van because she protested against the chief and council and mysteriously her house burned down. These kinds of stories are shocking and alarming. Yet the government is saying that all is well and has resisted for the longest time any examination of what was happening on the Stoney reserve. Finally Judge Reilly demanded that something be done to look into the societal conditions that were bringing so many people into his court room.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

We are out of time. I would ask the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie for a brief reply.

[Carmen Provenzano, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I share the concerns of the member opposite. I have a confident belief that we have the resources, human and material, to bring to bear on these problems and I am hoping that we can find a solution. Those conditions should not prevail in any civilized society. We must direct our attention to them and find solutions.