Debates of Sept. 29th, 1997

Speech From The Throne

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am sorry, but this is questions and comments.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking as an Acadian from Nova Scotia and I wish to comment on the remarks made by the hon. member for Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford. In 1994, the then leader of the opposition said, in a speech to the Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario, that the Bloc Quebecois was the voice of francophones outside Quebec in the House of Commons.

More recently, in an interview with the daily Le Droit , the Bloc Quebecois critic on official languages said that the Bloc would always defend francophones outside Quebec. This is why I am very surprised by the events that took place in recent days. I am surprised that the Bloc Quebecois did not make mention of its support for francophone and Acadian communities in its action plan for the year 2000, which was tabled last week—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Would the hon. member put the question to the member on questions and comments.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since this is questions and comments, I will refer to the remarks made by the member for Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford. She spoke of Quebec's unique character. I am pleased to have this opportunity to ask her, as a member from Ontario, a question on this specific issue.

As we know, the Ontario premier, Mr. Harris, said shortly after the Calgary declaration that Quebec was just as unique as Pacific salmon is.

The hon. member claims to be in politics for the purpose, among others, of saving this great country. This is fine rhetoric, but nothing concrete is ever done. Still, Quebecers are patient as they approach the new millennium.

The hon. member, who is a government member, told us she shares our history. If, indeed, she knows Quebec's history—not the one told in Ontario schools, but Quebec's true history—if she knows about the traditional claims made by Quebec premiers since the fifties, will she tell this House whether or not her government does recognize the existence of the people of Quebec?

This is very short. Aboriginal peoples are recognized. So, as a government member, will the hon. member tell us whether Quebecers are a people, yes or no?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The Chair apologizes to the hon. member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford. I should have gone back to the hon. member after the comment made by the member for West Nova.

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my friend on the opposite side of the House. I listened carefully and found it a little meandering. I hope to conclude that I do not have to defend people, other than the government, in their views.

Although Mr. Harris may have made that comment I have not heard it. I believe that Mr. Harris has participated in Calgary with other premiers who have moved forward in their attempts to achieve the just resolution which I spoke of earlier in recognizing a uniqueness in the province of Quebec and a uniqueness in its society. They have been joined by our government in moving forward.

I have great optimism and I believe there has been a variety of versions of history frequently dependent on the author. We have to reach across those perhaps slanted views. It is difficult today to get across the media of each language and speak with one another, but we have this forum to come together and resolve perhaps what has not yet been resolved. In this Parliament over the next few years we will resolve it.

[John Finlay, Liberal, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate you on your appointment as one of our deputy speakers and I wish you well.

I would also like to thank my colleague from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford for sharing her time this morning and I would like to thank my constituents for re-electing me to serve another term in the 36th Parliament.

In 1929 I was born in the Dominican Republic to British parents. After a short return to England my parents emigrated with our small family to Canada. Like millions of other immigrants who have built our great country, my parents came to Canada in search of a better life for themselves and their children. They watched as my brother became a successful lawyer in Vancouver, while I spent my career in education in Oxford Country, retired and was first elected to the House in 1993.

It is difficult to put into words my feelings as I was recently sworn in, for the second time, as a member of this esteemed Chamber. In addition to constituents, present at the ceremony was my father, age 94, who resides in a retirement home here in Ottawa. No matter how old we get we each want to gain the approval of our parents. My presence here as the member of Parliament for Oxford is an incredible honour for me but it has made my father, who came to this country so many years before with a wife an two young sons in tow, a very proud man.

Family ties are precious things, whether it be in our families at home where parents and children work together for the common good or in our Canadian family.

The Speech from the Throne talks of building a stronger Canada for all Canadians. It states that the overriding goal of our government is to strengthen and unite this country by joining in the common purpose of keeping Canada one of the best places in the world in which to live. I think this is a goal of most of here in the House on both sides. While we may disagree on the process we all want to effect change that will improve the lives of all Canadians.

In my first term as the member of Parliament for Oxford I asked myself what I could do to assist in unifying our nation. To me one of our biggest problems is a lack of understanding between various regions of our country. In other words, it seems that the “two solitudes” of Hugh McLellen are still evident. Our young people, the next generation of Canadian leaders, need to increase their knowledge of the different regions of Canada. This is especially true of our linguistic and cultural differences.

I felt that we could make a difference if our young people were given an opportunity to spend some time in Quebec improving their French and getting to know the people of Quebec. I approached the member for Brome—Missisquoi about beginning a student exchange in which five students from my riding of Oxford would spend their summer in Magog, Quebec in his riding, and Oxford would host five students in return.

I am happy to say that after two summer exchanges with the assistance of the Canada employment centres in both ridings, VIA Rail and Heritage Canada, this project can be termed a success. In fact, the member for Brome—Missisquoi took the initiative to organize exchanges between ridings from across Canada and towns and villages in his riding. Students from all regions of the country were able to visit Quebec, while Quebec students were able to increase their awareness of Canada outside Quebec.

This past summer the Department of Canadian Heritage was more heavily involved and over 200 students were able to take part in similar exchanges between Quebec and the rest of the country. It is my hope that young Canadians will be able to benefit from this type of program for many years to come.

Will this program alone solve our unity problems? No, it will not, but it can increase the understanding Canadians have for each other and work together with other initiatives at local, provincial and national levels to keep our country united. As the throne speech stated, we would all be forever diminished, forever changed, should we fail to maintain the example Canada provides to the world. Our future as a country is too precious for us to risk losing it through misunderstanding.

I was relieved to hear that the provincial premiers have agreed on certain principles to recognize the uniqueness of Quebec. I point out to my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois that in English, unique and distinct are synonyms. It is a relief also to hear that the people of Quebec have shown in most recent polls they would rather accept the declaration worked out in Calgary than separate. It is now incumbent on us to work together as a Canadian family to build a better and stronger Canada for our children.

How else can the federal government bring Canadians together? It can ensure that future generations are not burdened by overzealous spending by our generation.

We have, of course, seen the Liberal government take firm action to ensure that the federal government spends within its means.

Sound economic management and the best federal finance minister in Canadian history are restoring balance to the nation's finances. In the very near future the government of Canada will not have to deal with a crushing deficit. With a common sense of purpose we as legislators can begin the process of paying off the national debt while making strategic investments in our children and our youth, our health, our communities and our knowledge and creativity. We must ensure that all Canadians can benefit from this economic success. We must not leave anyone behind.

This government must give all Canadians access to the tools of economic growth, as the Minister of Industry said earlier this morning in the House. We cannot allow rural regions of the country to suffer from a lack of technology while urban regions prosper.

As the member of Parliament for a rural country in southwestern Ontario, I have told my constituents that I will strive to ensure that the rural way of life is protected and that they will continue to have access to the tools they need to be competitive in this global economy.

The community access program, CAP, is connecting rural areas in this country to the information superhighway. By putting Internet access points in rural communities we are giving rural citizens the same opportunities to access information and resources that urban Canadians enjoy. We are also giving our students in places like Knowlton, Otterville or Cambridge Bay the same advantages provided by the computer age as students who may be studying in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver.

The people of Oxford are taking full advantage of the CAP program. When Industry Canada made its first round of approvals for this program, 15 of the 271 winning bids across Canada were in Oxford County. To understand the magnitude of this we must consider that the approvals within Oxford represented nearly 25 percent of the total approvals within the province of Ontario. This success is a testament to the commitment of Oxford's citizens to take advantage of the programs that can benefit them as we prepare to enter the new millennium.

I have also pledged to my constituents that I will fight for a strong, influential department of agriculture. Canadian farmers need to know that their interests are being considered when decisions are being made by the federal government. I am confident that our new minister of agriculture from Ontario will serve Canadian agriculture with the same level of distinction as did his predecessor.

Oxford County has been my home for over 40 years. It is where I worked as a teacher, principal and superintendent of education. It is where I helped raise a family and where my heart is. You cannot visit Oxford without being struck by the beauty of its farmland and the generous hospitality of its citizens.

When I was re-elected this past June 2, I was mindful of the responsibility that the people of Oxford had once again given me. Each day I serve on Parliament Hill and in this magnificent Chamber I seek to ensure that their voices are heard, that their views are known and that their values are represented. The people of Oxford have sent me here as their representative, a responsibility I do not take lightly. I will do my best to ensure their trust in me has been well placed.

Our work in this place over the next four years will be difficult. At times tempers will flare but we must always remember that together we are representatives of the Canadian family. Canadians, regardless of their political persuasion, want us to work constructively and co-operatively to solve the problems of our nation. Let us get on with the business at hand so that we can enter the 21st century confident and united.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to my colleague, the hon. member for Oxford.

Most of his speech was about the Calgary proposal and national unity. Members will recall that, when Canadians and Quebecers were asked to vote on the Charlottetown accord in 1992, Quebecers rejected the accord as clearly not enough, while the rest of Canada rejected it because, in their estimation, it was giving far too much to the people of Quebec.

Just this morning, it was reported in Le Journal de Montréal , Le Journal de Québec and The Globe and Mail that a poll by Léger & Léger indicated that 45 percent of Quebecers said the Calgary proposal was clearly not enough, while another 35 percent could live with it.

Also, this morning's press summary shows that there are already people in English Canada who are openly saying that too much is being offered in the Calgary proposal.

How can an agreement, which I feel is impossible, ever be reached? English Canada will say it is far too much. French Canada, Quebec will say it is clearly not enough.

Again this past weekend—and I will conclude on that—former Liberal Party leader Claude Ryan raised serious doubts. André Tremblay, who was former premier Bourassa's adviser for several years, said there was too little in there to say it was not enough. There is also Senator Rivest, who was also an adviser to Robert Bourassa, who said that the Quebec Liberal Party should distance itself from its friends in the Liberal Party of Canada.

Could the hon. member for Oxford tell us, as the representative of the views of the people of Oxford, whether his constituents feel that what was offered to Quebec in the Calgary declaration was enough or not?

[John Finlay, Liberal, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments and the question from my colleague from Frontenac—Mégantic whom I worked with for some years on the environment committee in the last Parliament.

Simplification and oversimplification are things we have to guard against. I am quite aware of the results of the Léger poll. I think it shows some way to the future that my hon. friend has ignored. It said that 44.4% of the people who responded said the two phrases are equivalent. He is quite right. About one-third of those who would vote yes for separation thought they were equivalent, whereas 55% of those who would vote no said they were equivalent.

We have to continue to work toward a solution, a compromise, something that will work in this country. I supported it as a member of the yes committee in the last attempt in Oxford county. It was not overwhelmingly defeated by everyone outside Quebec. It was a very narrow defeat. People can change. People learn. People develop.

Therefore I would encourage the hon. member not to take it as the final word. That is what we are here to do, to work toward a solution.

[Jim Jones, Progressive Conservative, Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to share my time. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Burin—St. George's.

I would first like to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your position as Acting Speaker.

It is a great pleasure that I join in the debate on the Speech from the Throne, representing my electorate of Markham.

I believe and I am sure many members of this House will agree that the government's plan is an attempt to move forward to the past. This government through the 29 spending proposals outlined last Tuesday is seeking to take Canada back 20 some years to the period of tax and spend Liberalism, a time of ballooning deficits, the Trudeau years, a time our current Prime Minister remembers with great fondness. Why then is this government willing to throw away all the sacrifices made to eliminate the deficit?

In a free market system like Canada, the private sector has always operated under budget constraints. It is a fact of life, a reality that forces companies to make tough choices, choices that are both efficient and effective.

Since 1984 the federal government accepted budget constraints and in turn made tough choices, choices that have led us to the other end of the deficit tunnel. Budget constraints force us as a nation to set priorities and find efficiencies. This is clearly difficult for Canadians.

The continued effort however has been that our nation is moving from intrusive big government to one that supports individual aspirations of our citizens. Today we see provinces like Ontario having to make similar tough choices in the face of intense budget constraints, choices affecting health care and education, tough but necessary choices.

The throne speech of last week says to Canadians that the future will mean new spending, new programs and by that, sabotaging what we have been doing for over a decade. By telling Canadians that the federal government no longer has to make tough decisions, we risk going back to the welfare state where entrepreneurs who brought about innovation will become lobbyists in search of government goodies.

We know that in a world of inflation, individuals find it profitable to enter financial professions that benefit from inflation rather than technological and scientific ones that promote growth. Why then would the government encourage the practice of making new promises of dispensing taxpayers' dollars which gives an incentive for individuals and companies to invest in seeking those dollars rather than in technological innovation?

For all intents and purposes we have achieved a national consensus on the need to rethink the role of government, to set priorities in support of economic growth in employment through innovation. The Speech from the Throne threatens this consensus and risks all that has been achieved. We cannot allow the government to go back to the tax and spend seventies.

The government talks a lot about the new economy but understands little of it. The new economy is about innovation which in turn is dependent on a stock of highly skilled workers, workers who are as mobile as the companies in which they operate.

How do we encourage these domestic and foreign workers to choose Canada? With attributes such as low taxes, quality education and health care and a safe and clean environment.

We do not have to research economic theory to know that broadly based rather than targeted government programs provide the bigger bang for the buck. This is common sense yet it escapes the thinking of the government.

We know that taxes are too high in this country. While progress has been made in lowering the deficit, it has come at the expense of jobs through higher taxes. Since 1993 this government has increased taxes no less than 40 times: 12 hikes in the 1994 budget, 11 hikes in the 1995 budget, 10 in the 1996 budget and more in the budget of this year.

The widening tax gap between Canada and the U.S. continues to damage our standard of living. Taxes in Canada now account for almost 40 percent of GDP. The outlook is not encouraging given the CPP hikes proposed by the government without corresponding cuts in EI premiums.

To add insult to injury, the proposed CPP premiums will hit self-employed workers hardest, those workers of the new economy, yet will do nothing to address the unfounded liability facing younger generations. Together the CPP and EI premiums will reduce, not create jobs in the country.

The EI account is expected to reach $16 billion this fiscal year. This is far from the $3 billion to $5 billion EI surplus the Minister of Finance talked about in 1995. To put this in perspective, working Canadians will have contributed over $110,000 to the EI surplus during the short 10 minutes it takes me to debate the Speech from the Throne.

To justify the current surplus the Minister of Finance must be forecasting future unemployment in the 10 percent to 15 percent range, requiring a recession of immense proportion. The reality however is that the most pervasive tax, the tax on jobs, has less to do with being prudent and more to do with eliminating the deficit by taxing jobs directly.

Now as we approach the other end of the deficit tunnel, this government chooses to continue to forgo jobs and tax jobs at a rate of $2.80 per $100 of insurable earnings, nearly 30% higher than necessary. Members should ask how much more employment is this government willing to forgo.

This mandate holds little hope for tax relief. Furthermore only the party to which I belong is calling for immediate tax cuts. Now unshackled by deficit, the Liberals talk of new spending while other parties speak of debt reduction before tax relief.

We on the other hand choose to speak about priorities. By legislating balanced budgets, by holding the line on spending, by directing surplus to tax cuts, the debt will fall to 45 percent of GDP within 10 years as a result of the growth in the economy.

The other parties are wrong when they say that tax cuts can only come at the expense of the debt. This is why the PC party is calling on the government to reward Canadians for enduring years of high taxes by reducing income taxes immediately. Only then can we increase our competitive edge with our trading partners, notably the U.S., having economic growth and employment growth in this country.

The Speech from the Throne does little to promote growth in employment. The government pays lip service to promoting jobs for young people but its actions do not support its promises.

I see examples of this government's hypocrisy every day in my riding of Markham. As the government calls on small business to generate jobs for young people, small businesses will see their tax bill increase by about $7,000 under the proposed CPP plan for a company of 10. This represents about the same cost as one or two summer jobs for youth in my riding. This is typical of the hypocrisy of this government.

Innovation and the economic growth that it generates is not produced by any particular program but by fostering a society that encourages innovation and change. Government programs and government money do not do this. Putting computers in schools and hooking them up to the Internet does not do this. Creating economic incentives and opening up markets while eliminating regulations, monopolies and protected markets helps to foster a new economy.

Unlike the 29 proposals found in the throne speech, these are changes that do not cost the government money. In other words, growth-promoting economic policies can in many instances be implemented independently of the fiscal position of the government. The federal government however chooses to view everything in terms of revenue and expenditures.

As we move into the next millennium, profound changes will continue to take place in the economy. This government had the opportunity in last week's Speech from the Throne to choose one of two paths: move forward to the future using the tools of tomorrow, low taxes, a government that encourages innovation and economic growth; or move forward to the past using the tools of yesterday, high taxes, interventionist government. Unfortunately, the government chose the latter and missed the opportunity to offer Canadians real leadership.

I would just like to leave members with one thought. We must spend all our energies planning the future because that is where we are going to live the rest of our lives.

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a new member to this House, my colleague from Markham, my next door neighbour, offers me an example to clearly and loudly say in this House how different our views of the world are.

I listened very carefully as he talked about the tough choices the government had to make. He used as an example of his and his party's policy the Government of Ontario. I would say to him that the deep cuts to health, education and the important programs that people care about are directly a result of the commitment that the Government of Ontario made to cut personal income taxes by some 30% before the budget was balanced.

We know that is a similar policy to the Conservative Party as the member has just outlined. However, it is in stark contrast to the balanced and fiscally responsible approach of the previous Liberal government which made a commitment to first balance the budget, protect important social programs and then in a climate of fiscal prudence look at the balance between enhancement and maintenance of the programs that we value in our society and those which have made us number one in the world and a 50% approach to using surpluses for the purposes of debt and tax relief.

The member should note a study which was just done for the Bank of Nova Scotia, certainly not a partisan institution in this country. The study was done by the Boston Consulting Group. The study states that quality of life issues are extremely important in the greater Toronto area and metropolitan Toronto in particular to attracting jobs and growth.

I would ask the member for the reason that his party is the fifth party in this House. Perhaps it is because the voters of this country have recognized the result of having an irresponsible tax cut before the books are balanced and before the country is in a state where we can then see tax cuts implemented in a way which will still protect those valued programs and the quality of life that we have come to expect in Canada.

As the member sticks to the rhetoric of the campaign, and as my neighbour we share such different views, would he acknowledge that perhaps the reason his party is in fifth position is because Canadians have seen the dramatic results of irresponsible tax cuts that have taken place in Ontario and have resulted in dramatic and drastic cuts to programs which impact on the quality of life.

[Jim Jones, Progressive Conservative, Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague.

I think we all realise we are in a very competitive world today. We are in the global economy and in order for us to create jobs and be competitive against the rest of the world we cannot afford to continue with high costs.

Everybody knows in this House that some of the reasons why the provinces had to make very drastic cuts in the last three or four years to health care and education are the reductions in transfer payments the federal Liberals gave to the provinces.

Also, I am not here to defend the Ontario government but the Ontario government, with its tax cuts, is creating 30,000 to 40,000 jobs a month in the last four to six months. It goes to prove that low taxes create jobs and high taxes cost jobs.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Markham on his maiden speech here in the House, and I would also like to congratulate him on his victory at Markham.

I have spoken in his riding several times, supporting the Reform candidate there. Unfortunately the Reform candidate did not make it this time around, but the next time is going to be another story.

I find interesting some of the statements the member for Markham made. I also find very interesting the comments of the member for Thornhill on the first question. The member for Markham indicates that sacrifices have been made to eliminate the deficit. He is referring to the government side.

I sat in this House for four years listening to the rhetoric of the other side of the House, the government side, and really when it comes down to it I never noticed too many sacrifices being made at all.

In fact, the sacrifices made were by those that the load of debt or spending was dumped on through the different provinces, transfer payments and the like. The member for Markham made reference to that.

In other words, the government has failed to transfer money to the provinces and again the provinces have to pick up the slack.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The time for questions and comments has expired. I wonder if the hon. member could put his question very briefly, and we will allow the hon. member to reply.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if he would like to reflect on what his party views as sacrifice. I know the leader of his party does not really accept the general premise that their membership may want at an assembly. It is open for debate and discussion. What does the member for Markham really consider to be a sacrifice?

[Jim Jones, Progressive Conservative, Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what I was alluding to here is that the public has made a lot of sacrifices as we have balanced the budget, or we are close to balancing the budget. There has been a benefit of $17 billion in taxes from free trade.

Many people have had to cut costs. Corporations have had to cut costs. If I said the government has made sacrifices, I am really saying that the public has made sacrifices within the last four to five years to help the government balance its budget. I am not so sure that the government has made the same type of sacrifices that private enterprises made. There are two things that we can do.

We can try to grow revenue, and that is what this government is relying on, growing revenue. The other side of the coin is that we have to continue to reduce costs and find better ways of doing the job. I am not so sure that the government has done that.

I am saying that the public has made the sacrifices, that the public will continue to make the sacrifices and it is the government that has to make the sacrifices on its spending habits.

[Bill Matthews, Progressive Conservative, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment and all other members who have been appointed to similar positions. I also congratulate the Speaker on his re-election as Speaker of the House of Commons for the 36th Parliament. I would also like to congratulate all members of the House of Commons who have been elected for the first time and those who have been re-elected and are back for the second or consecutive times to this Chamber.

Having served in a provincial legislature for a number of years, I can say that coming to the House of Commons in this 36th Parliament is certainly a very special feeling. I thank the people of Burin—St. George's for electing me and shouldering me with the enormous responsibility of representing them here.

It is the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne so I will try to make my remarks pertinent to the throne speech itself. Over the last few days I have listened intently to the various speakers and to the questions and comments that have been put in the House of Commons.

I refer to the comment in the throne speech on the child tax benefit increase that the government is proposing to bring into effect on July 1, 1998. It is good to see that there will be an increase in the child tax benefit allowance. However, I take exception to what I have found out during that past couple of days. The federal government has entered into agreements with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and other provincial governments that families that are receiving social assistance will not see any of the child tax benefit increase at all. Their incomes will not be increased by one cent. A clawback agreement has been entered into by the federal government and certain provincial governments that will keep the poor in essence poorer in this country.

I have stood in provincial legislatures and now in this federal Parliament where I have heard people talk about child poverty, the need to address this very important issue and the impact of hunger on education and learning levels. Yet I now find out that this very federal government and provincial governments have entered into agreements which in essence will see hungry children remain hungry. I take exception to that.

I was pleased to see a reference to home care in the throne speech. The government is taking measures to support Canadians in responding to the expanding needs for home care. I am sure all hon. members on a daily basis receive representation from families that have aging parents or grandparents, that have a legitimate need for home care. There are aging people who want to be looked after in their homes. With the cutbacks to health care budgets from the federal government to the provinces, more and more aging people are receiving inadequate home care. They are just not getting enough hours of home care. In today's society where most families have both spouses out working, it is more and more difficult for families to contribute to the home care of their loved ones. I was glad to see a reference to that in the throne speech and I look forward very much to seeing the specifics of the anticipated support mechanism for improved home care.

Too often over the last fours years we saw this government make reference to initiatives it was considering. Too often it has only been that, empty rhetoric. It has been something written on paper, but government has not shown us the meat after the promise. I look forward to that. I am encouraged that at least there is a reference in the throne speech to the issue of home care.

The throne speech states that government will continue to address the serious problem of international foreign overfishing. I come from Atlantic Canada. Atlantic Canadians sent this government a very strong message on June 2, that the Liberal federal policies are not working for Atlantic Canadians. They wanted to show the prime minister and the government how poorly they are working on behalf of Atlantic Canadians.

I am really not sure that the prime minister received the message. If he did, he is ignoring the message. We need quick action in Atlantic Canada. We need job creation initiatives, we need lower taxes, we need to get people back to work. The people of Atlantic Canada are suffering from a crisis which for the most part was imposed by mismanagement by successive federal governments. Successive federal governments have mismanaged our most important resource in Atlantic Canada, our fishery.

This government said it would continue to address the problem of foreign overfishing. Let me say that as we sit here today there are still foreigners who are flagrantly overfishing on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. The government in the last couple of weeks has entered into agreements with those who have violated our fishing treaties and contracts to give those violators more fishing inside of the 200-mile limit. It says it will continue to deal with foreign overfishing when those very people are again abusing the situation and the government obviously is rewarding them for taking our fish inside of 200.

Another fishery situation in the country which is very volatile surrounds the Pacific salmon treaty. I have been monitoring the situation over the last couple of months and what really jumps out at me in this situation is that in essence the government is treating the people of British Columbia and Premier Glen Clark and his government as the villains in this situation. The government has decided to stay friendly with the Americans and in essence take it out on British Columbia. From everything I have heard from the debates and in following the situation over the last few weeks, it seems to me that it is the Alaskans particularly who are at fault in the salmon dispute in the province with this treaty.

Another thing worth pointing out in the debate today is that each year there is supposed to be a fishing plan agreed to by the U.S. and Canada. In the last four years there has not been a fish plan, the only four years when there has not been a fish plan agreed to by Canada and the United States. Guess who has been the government for the last four years—the Liberals.

I say to the prime minister and to the minister of fisheries that they should really get involved in this B.C. situation and try to resolve it. There are many fishers in British Columbia on the brink of bankruptcy, many who need some flexibility in the area licensing plan they were promised but have not been given, flexibility that would give them viability and sustainability in their fishery.

While the prime minister and the minister of fisheries seem to be so caught up in remaining very friendly with the Americans, our own people are entering financial crisis. Many of them will go out of business if something is not done very soon. Therefore I ask the minister of fisheries, the prime minister and the parliamentary secretary to the minister of fisheries to please move quickly on this very volatile situation which needs their immediate attention.

While the the prime minister was calling on President Clinton to get involved in the problem, President Clinton wrote to the Alaskans saying that he would not tolerate any more actions such as the blockade of the ferry we saw in B.C. It shows how seriously President Clinton takes the prime minister.

It is a pleasure and an honour to be here in the House of Commons. There are some very serious problems that need to be addressed. I am pleased to take part in the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne and I look forward to spending another few years representing the people of Burin—St. George's.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member for Burin—St. George's, a Newfoundland riding.

We know very well the important role that Newfoundland played in the aborted Meech Lake accord, which mentioned that Quebec was a distinct society.

Given that the Speech from the Throne mentions the unique character alluded to in the Calgary declaration, I would like the hon. member from Newfoundland—and I am sure he knows what happened, he knows the role played by Clyde Wells in the failure of Meech Lake—to tell us whether, in his opinion and the opinion of his party, the expression unique character of Quebec society as used in the meaningless Calgary declaration has the same meaning as the expression distinct society had in the Meech Lake accord.

This is a simple question to which I would appreciate a simple and clear answer from the Conservative member.

[Bill Matthews, Progressive Conservative, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

I remember Meech Lake very well. I remember Clyde Wells very well, sometimes with pride and sometimes with not so much pride. I sat in the provincial legislature with the former premier for a number of years.

My thoughts on Meech Lake are well known. We took opposing positions in the Meech Lake debate. We had a very thorough debate in the Newfoundland legislature at the time, as did most if not all legislatures across the country. To me the result was devastating. We are still reeling from the effects of the demise of Meech Lake throughout the country. I really believe that.

The hon. member asks a question about unique character and distinct society. I have listened to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs a number of times through the media. My belief is if distinct society is the same as unique character, then why are we changing the wording? That is the question I ask myself. If both are the same, then why are we changing the wording? That is my own personal thoughts on it. I thank the hon. member for his question and that is my answer.

As I reflected and watched the hon. minister on the news a number of times that was my first question. Why are we changing it to unique character from distinct society if both mean the same thing?

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for Burin—St. Georges this. I know that in the Conservative platform on which he ran in the last election two promises were made on agriculture that disturbed me a lot.

The first was that they promised to destroy the marketing boards for the farmers. The second promise was to do away with the department of agriculture.

I wonder if the hon. member would talk a bit more about those Conservative promises.

[Bill Matthews, Progressive Conservative, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.

If she is disturbed with a couple of the promises that we made in our election platform, can she imagine how disturbed we are with most that they made in theirs? If she can only take exception with a couple of ours, I can assure her we can take exception with dozens of hers.

I know her question is a serious one on agriculture. She has the same concern with agriculture as I have about fish. I can only go on record and say in this Chamber what I have said publicly, that I personally did not support a proposal in the policy platform for a department of sustainable development. I supported it at the time and said publicly during the election campaign that my preference was for a separate truly Department of Fisheries and Oceans and I still stand by that. I am sure she probably feels the same about agriculture.

I can only answer here what I said in the campaign. I will not say one thing in the campaign and then come here and say something different, as many on the other side cannot stand in their place and say.

[Yvon Charbonneau, Liberal, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to begin with I would like to advise you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Guelph—Wellington.

Mr. Speaker, like a number of my colleagues I would like to congratulate you on your appointment as deputy chairman of the committees of the whole House.

I also want to congratulate our Speaker. As a career educator and seasoned parliamentarian he earned our trust through an election process I particularly appreciated not only as a newcomer in this House, but also as a former member of the Quebec National Assembly. I will always remember that the first thing I was asked to do when I arrived in Ottawa was to vote rather than having a decision imposed on me from above, which had been my experience in the past. This augurs well.

I would also like to salute voters in Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies and thank them for the mandate they gave me last June when they sent me here to represent them and serve them in co-operation with my team of assistants.

My riding of Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies is located in the northeastern part of Montreal island. It comprises the city of Anjou and several areas of Montreal, including the fast growing district of Rivière-des-Prairies. It is a riding where the business community is very vibrant, where businesses are increasing in number, creating more jobs, upgrading their facilities and exporting more and more. My riding is home to dozens of volunteer organizations serving our young people, the elderly, our families, and providing recreational activities, as well as various cultural communities, which by the way are increasingly diverse and numerous since 32 percent of my constituents are not of francophone origin.

It is therefore an honour and a great privilege to be able to represent and to serve that population, one with a rather exceptional voter turnout of 78 percent, 47 percent of whom voted for me as the candidate for the Liberal Party of Canada.

If I may, I would also like to thank the active Liberal party members in my riding, and the party executive, for their warm support of my nomination as a candidate. I wish to send particular greetings to the more than 3,000 members in good standing of our riding association who supported my progress to this seat right from the beginning.

I have listened attentively to the throne speech, the Prime Minister's address and those by the four leaders of the opposition parties. I must say that I am very pleased to be sitting on this side of the House at this time, and I am very proud to have heard the message from the government and the Prime Minister, for a number of reasons.

First of all, the Prime Minister has clearly explained the direction he plans to set for our team now and during the next mandate. In setting a path toward a more humane and more just society, he is adhering to the most profound and the most permanent Liberal values. This I find fitting, because it corresponds to the expectations of the people of Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, whom I represent.

In recent years, tough decisions have had to be made, ones that have been both hard to make and hard to accept in some ways. I am thinking of our unemployed, our seniors, our disadvantaged families. I am thinking of the volunteer organizations which have had to do more, often with less.

While maintaining its commitment to improve public finances, the government can now say it can once again respond to Canadians' priorities without exceeding our means. It has indicated that it is now again able to invest not only in economic growth, which it will continue to do, but increasingly in the development of Canadian society and of its human resources—men, women, and young people—the primary capital of Canadian society.

Investing in our children, investing in health, building safer communities, offering young Canadians greater opportunities, investing in knowledge and creativity, these are some of our government's priorities. I think these commitments, once translated into laws, budgets and programs and put into effect, will take Canadian societies to new horizons of development and growth and will enable Canada to remain at the forefront of the international community.

The throne speech also warrants praise because it basically reflects the commitments made by the Liberal Party during the last election campaign in red book II, Securing Our Future Together.

From time to time I hear the criticism that this speech contains nothing new, nothing dramatic, that it is a rehash. Had the throne speech contained anything other than the red book commitments, the same detractors would be accusing the government of losing sight of and turning its back on the commitments it made during the election campaign.

What counts most for this country's future, for its unity and prosperity, for its men, women, young people and families, for its businesses? A government committed to fulfilling its promises or a government that is easily distracted and borrows buzzwords from the opposition parties?

Over the summer, like many of my hon. colleagues, I consulted people in my riding, business people, representatives of voluntary organizations, and union organizers from the private sector. They told me they wanted the government: first, to continue to support job creation and economic growth; second, to reinvest in social programs; and third, to settle the issue of national unity by taking into account Quebec's distinct and unique reality, but in co-operation with the rest of the country.

These three main concerns expressed by my constituents are high priority items in the throne speech. I look forward to helping implement measures in response to these needs and concerns shared by my community and many other communities in Quebec and across Canada.

In conclusion, I must say that I became involved in federal politics under the banner of the Liberal Party of Canada because I believe that this country can not only survive but prosper provided that the central, regional and provincial powers find a way to join forces instead of squabbling or even trying to split this country up, as the PQ government in Quebec and its prophets of doom and division, the Bloc Quebecois members, are currently doing.

I got involved in federal politics because I believe that the federal government has a unique responsibility to bring together and mobilize every part of this country, that is to say every generation, every region and every citizen of this country, to respond to the question the Bloc Quebecois is obsessively asking with ambitious plans, mainly by ensuring that each and every one of us can achieve our full potential within the Canadian democracy while making an important contribution to the international community.

During the course of my years of professional activity in teaching, the union movement, the environment, in consulting and in international co-operation, I learned that as Canadians we have many more similarities than differences, whether we are teachers, or engineers or unemployed, young and old. I learned that among Canadians there is an important desire to work together in a shared political framework. I learned that by working together as Canadians from Quebec and elsewhere in this country we can ensure a better future for ourselves and our children and make a most significant contribution to the well-being of the international community.

I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to all my friends in the teaching profession across the country, and their representatives, and to the union organizers. I would like to pay tribute to the sustainable development promoters and supporters of the country, to the people concerned with international co-operation, and to the business people who I rubbed shoulders with in my career lives. I do not only wish to pay tribute to them, I also want to thank them for showing me that we have everything to gain by getting to know one another and by working together, with respect to our differences certainly, but also with the profound conviction that our membership in the Canadian family is a guarantee of security, fairness and prosperity for everyone in this country.

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me. It cannot have been an easy decision.

I would like to begin by congratulating my hon. colleague on his speech. In it, he spoke about the Bloc Quebecois's obsession with national unity.

Does he mean by this that it is not by asking our fellow citizens on a daily basis whether we are unique, whether we are distinct, that we will succeed in improving national unity? Or does he mean, as they have always said, that the issue will be sorted out within Quebec, following formal resolutions from the rest of Canada?

I look forward with great pleasure to my colleague's reply to this question.

[Yvon Charbonneau, Liberal, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Chicoutimi for raising this question.

My remarks were in reference to the Bloc Quebecois' unwavering question as to whether the members on this side of the House recognize the people of Quebec.

It is the only question they have asked since the beginning—

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

You still haven't replied.