House of Commons Hansard #7 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was debt.

Topics

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

An hon. member

We are here to oppose.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Ronald J. Duhamel Liberal Saint Boniface, MB

One colleagues has just said that they are here to oppose. They are here to say whatever it is that comes to mind whether it makes any sense or not. I suppose that is the basic assumption.

Another notion is that the government is there to protect no matter what. Let us deal with what is being said about some of the things we have done. I do not know if these people have any political affiliation. Let me put on my glasses because I would not want to misquote and thereby cause some real serious disruption on the opposition side.

On the Speech from the Throne Tim Reid, president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, said:

We applaud the achievement of getting to a balanced budget, but the risk is that we underplay the threat of the massive debt. The government really should be setting targets to reduce the debt to GDP ratio.

William Leggett, president of Queen's University, said the following on the scholarship fund:

It is an important initiative. I hope that this leadership will be followed by the provinces.

We have not heard a whole lot about that. It is a marvellous submission for the next millennium. They should have stood and applauded, not congratulated the government if that made them feel a little queasy. They could have congratulated one another for standing up unanimously in support of a program that will be good for young Canadians today, tomorrow and for a long time.

What were some of the headlines following the Speech from the Throne? “Federal Liberals to create scholarship fund, a good initiative” was one in the Globe and Mail . “A billion dollars for brains” was another in the Ottawa Sun on September 25, 1997.

In the Journal de Montréal of September 25, one could read this: “Chrétien on the front line” and “Ottawa to create large scholarship fund”. There are several such headlines because it is seen as quite a creative initiative.

“A $1 billion scholarship fund to help low income students” was in the Ottawa Citizen . Again it is mentioned. It has been mentioned time and time again, and there has not been one positive comment from members of the opposition. I say shame on the opposition.

That is not all that has been said. I go on to quote Tom Brzustowksi, president of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council:

We should be doing all that we can to attract the best and the brightest of graduate studies in science and engineering, because the future prosperity and well-being of Canadians will depend to a very large extent on their efforts.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

An hon. member

Bingo.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Ronald J. Duhamel Liberal Saint Boniface, MB

I heard somebody say “bingo”. I hope that person will jump up and include that as part of his speech. Finally somebody over there is agreeing with a government initiative.

I go on very briefly. I want to share another quote. It is from Toronto Star columnist David Crane and reads:

It will take more than government programs to build an innovation culture in Canada. But government can provide strong leadership and encouragement by providing funding—and incentives—to stimulate and encourage the innovation process.

These people who are not in opposition or in government are able to say positive things about the government and what it has done.

What does the opposition do? The first opportunity it gets to show that it could be comprehensive, sensitive and respond as a totally responsible opposition it tries to pretend that the government has been irresponsible. It tries to pretend that the spending is not appropriate.

I would love to send this over to my opposition colleagues. It is a compilation of selected quotes on Liberal fiscal policy which I have collected: “Martin has accomplished several important things. He showed that the Liberals are able to balance a chequebook”. They go on to discuss the budget. This is so good and I am terribly sorry I do not have the time to read it.

The other is a compilation of selected quotes on Reform's fiscal policies and this is even better. “The package, fresh start, is infuriatingly vague on identifying specific spending cuts and their timing. Like Bob Dole, Manning runs the risk of a credibility gap on the deficit”. I have several others and I am terribly sorry that I have to stop my remarks now.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Reform

Werner Schmidt Reform Kelowna, BC

Madam Speaker, congratulations to you on your appointment as Acting Speaker.

I would like to congratulate my hon. opponent from across the way. He is a great speaker. He creates beautiful word pictures.

There is in this country a program called technology partnerships Canada. Its predecessor was called DIPP. This son of DIP took about $150 million of the money that had been allocated under DIPP, so the original purpose of TPC could not be met on those grounds alone.

I wonder whether the hon. member could tell us how much of the moneys that were handed out under DIPP have been repaid, at what rate and what is the interest that has been repaid to the government. One of the conditions under that program was that some of the money was to be returned. That is fiscal responsibility. Could he tell us?

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

Ronald J. Duhamel Liberal Saint Boniface, MB

Madam Speaker, if my colleague had given me notice of the question ahead of time, I could have been very specific. I will get the information for him.

I know that a substantial portion has been repaid. I know that there have been in some instances rather interesting interest rates. However, I will get the specific details for him. I hope that my colleague is not saying that if it was not all repaid that it was a total failure. What is my colleague saying? That is what I am trying to get at.

I know, Madam Speaker, that you and my other colleagues are very much interested in what is behind the question. If the hon. member really wanted to know those interest rates and if he really wanted to know the exact portion—and he is a very clever colleague—he would have given that question to me in writing and he would have known that I would have had the answer for him.

My suspicion is that there is something behind it. I think he is trying to say that the Reform Party does not agree that the government ought to have such a program; that the Reform Party does not believe we ought to be assisting high tech companies, small and medium size companies to go forth and produce products which can be sold in Canada and throughout the world. That is what I think is happening.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Reform

Myron Thompson Reform Wild Rose, AB

Madam Speaker, congratulations on your appointment to the Chair.

I was interested in the comments which the member made regarding aboriginal people. I wonder if the member is aware of the situation which is taking place on the Stony reserve in my riding and the headlines that are being made regarding various bands throughout Alberta taking over administrative buildings and making a plea for help.

I have watched the people on this reserve for 30 years. They have gone from a lucrative, active bunch of people to living in conditions today which are absolutely deplorable. Yet we hear the member going on and on about the wonderful things his government has done for aboriginal people.

I wonder if he is aware of the deplorable conditions on this reserve in my riding. I wonder if he is aware of the fact that the average level of education for these people is about grade six. I wonder if he is aware of the 70 percent to 90 percent unemployment. Is he aware of the high alcohol and drug addiction problems? Is he aware of any of these things as he continually stands in his place and brags about the wonderful things they have accomplished for the aboriginals as things steadily get worse? These people are asking for help through demonstrations and other measures and they are getting no answers.

Is the member aware of the fact that unless we make it possible for the aboriginal people to sustain themselves, we cannot talk about them being independent? How can we talk about them being independent when we do not give them any opportunities? When is this government going to explain to me how it can possibly spend $116,000 for a committee on seniors and sexuality and do nothing for these people? What is he talking about?

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Liberal

Ronald J. Duhamel Liberal Saint Boniface, MB

Mr. Speaker, I will not make comment about seniors and sexuality because that could be particularly sensitive, but I will talk about what I said.

I said that one of the initiatives we mentioned in the Speech from the Throne is the expansion of opportunities in aboriginal communities. The point I was making and which I found surprising, in spite of a number of comments from journalists in television, radio and print, not one of those things was mentioned by one of my colleagues in the opposition. That is the point I was making.

Of course we recognize there are problems but unlike the Reform Party, we are not into magic or simple solutions that will go forth and resolve complex problems. That is why I said that we want to see aboriginal communities become stronger and healthier. We are working to further their progress toward achieving self-government, well-being and economic independence. We are ready and willing to work with all interested parties to develop a long term comprehensive plan of action in partnership with aboriginal leaders and people.

That member must not for one moment suggest that his party has even close to the amount of support and credibility that we have with the aboriginal people. It is not perfect but we have gone a long way. I would hope that my colleague would join us in trying to help as opposed to trying to solely embarrass the government.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

York North Ontario

Liberal

Karen Kraft Sloan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Saint Boniface for exposing to this House the confusion that reigns on the other side. I also want to thank him very much for coming to visit the school children in my riding in his capacity as secretary of state.

I want to ask the member to share with this House in his capacity as secretary of state what he feels are the major priorities for himself in that capacity and what he wants to do for the people of Canada.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Liberal

Ronald J. Duhamel Liberal Saint Boniface, MB

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question. I mentioned before and I will stress again that it is generally recognized that unless Canadians invest substantially in science, innovation and technology, we cannot continue to be leaders. We will automatically become followers. It is also accepted that while there are a number of Canadians who are sympathetic, appreciative and understanding of what science, innovation and technology can do, there are many many others who do not. I will try to explain.

Science, innovation and technology can help improve the quality of life of Canadians everywhere in Canada.

If we look at—

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

An hon. member

Not everywhere in Canada.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Liberal

Ronald J. Duhamel Liberal Saint Boniface, MB

Yes, including Quebec. We have a different vision. For me, Canada is also Quebec, dear colleague.

In addition, what I would like to do, with help, I hope, from a few colleagues, even from my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, is to talk frankly about what we can do together to ensure that science, innovation and technology can help us meet the great challenges facing our society.

If, for example, we look at the challenges facing Canada today, we see no magic answers coming from science and technology, but we see some answers, whether with respect to poverty or improving the health care system. I would like us to be able to debate serious issues such as that one, and there are others.

Another thing I would like to do, and this is in reply to my colleague, is to ensure that we get our fair share of budget spending.

I want to make sure that research, science and innovation get their fair share of the budget. This is one of the soundest investments that we can make for job creation and for our young people who are graduating. We have any number of programs that are there to ensure that young Canadians who graduate from any number of disciplines can have internships that will permit them to hold and refine the skills they have polished over the years.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Reform

Eric C. Lowther Reform Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to address you in this House for the first time. I have listened closely to the throne speech and the various statements from the members of this House. My most recent experience was that of an average Canadian rather than that of a lifelong politician. I am encouraged by the process, the skill and the passion of members of this House in exercising their duties to their constituents and our fellow Canadians.

I was pleased to see in the throne speech that there was some recognition given to the impact which the technological revolution and the information age is having on our society and the world. These pressures are pervasive in all walks of life. The impact of these new technologies is changing the way we relate to one another.

Time and distance restrictions to communication have been almost eliminated. Information and entertainment choices are exploding. Ideas and opportunities fill the information highway and they are constantly increasing. This creativity is pushing the highway to new limits in a demand driven expansion.

Canadians understand that this is a global phenomenon. It is a pervasive backdrop constantly present as we enter the 21st century. No effective barrier can be erected to separate oneself from its impact, not on a personal level, not provincially and most certainly not nationally.

The information and communication explosion can only be embraced and allowed to shape itself in a manner which meets the needs of Canadians in order to realize the great potential that it offers. The shaping and application of these information technologies will best serve Canadians if we each have input into the process through an open, and to use an oft repeated word from the throne speech, and innovative marketplace.

A government attempting to package and overmanage how Canadians participate in a global information explosion will at best deliver very costly, mediocre results. In the throne speech there seemed to be some recognition of the need to allow Canadians to participate more fully in a global information age. As the Leader of the Official Opposition might say, there seemed to be some bone there.

Unfortunately when I look at the actions of this government there appears to be a cancer in this particular bone. It is the cancer of the heavily bureaucratic and excessive control tactics of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC. Here is another government body whose actions have the exact opposite effect to the fine sounding words of the throne speech. Say one thing, do another, that is what it looks like to me.

The throne speech calls for innovation and stimulation of the entrepreneurial spirit in Canada. Meanwhile that commission, the CRTC, has an implied stated agenda to create large players and protect these large players from competition. Those entrepreneurial innovators who have the intestinal fortitude to apply for a licence or approval will be forced to play in a game where the rules are frequently changed. But you only find that out after you have lost.

The entrepreneurs the government says it wants to help have been required to spend up to $1 million to complete this regulatory marathon and submit literally thousands of pages demanded by the application process. Then they are told “We do not think your ideas will work, so you will not get a chance to try them”. After being kicked in the stomach a few times like this, the smart players say “No more, thanks”.

The CRTC does this in pursuit of what it calls sustainable competition. The innovators dragged through this process have come to recognize that sustainable competition really means market control through government selection and restriction.

I wonder what is meant by the new term creative partnerships. Those chosen as partners will be the blessed ones and the entrepreneurial interests of others will be left at a competitive disadvantage. This does not serve the best interests of Canadian consumers.

The approach of the CRTC scares away quality entrepreneurs and risk takers which this government states it wants to attract. The result of this approach is that government selected information networks and broadcasters appear to be chosen more because of lobby efforts and who you know instead of the energy and innovation they bring to the marketplace.

The throne speech makes reference to the government's intention to promote trade in Canadian culture and support Canadian culture at home. Again, it is difficult to believe this when due to the inaction of regulatory delays over the past years, 300,000 Canadians who wanted direct to home satellite service chose to access the only service available at the time via the grey market. Now it seems that the CRTC culture police want to treat them as criminals even before the courts have made a final ruling.

This government says it wants to support Canadian culture. Its commission approves a Playboy channel and disallows a faith channel which was clearly desired by a number of Canadians. All of this while publicly demanding Canadian content and diversity in programming. It seems like more of the say one thing, do another approach of this government.

I do not think Canadians want the CRTC making these decisions for us based on the CRTC's own political and ideological biases. The cultural engineering approach of the CRTC selects winners and losers rather than allowing Canadian consumers to have the benefit of a truly competitive marketplace. Such a marketplace would provide the information products Canadians want with the best service for the least cost.

Just as leisure suits and lava lamps have had their day, and I got rid of mine, their contemporary, the CRTC, must also be re-examined for its relevance and desirability. It is now doing more harm than good.

We see that the actions of the CRTC and its cultural police conflict with the stated goals of this government to facilitate innovation and entrepreneurship. We see that the costs to business, consumers and taxpayers are excessive and unnecessary. We see that under the guise of protecting Canadian culture, it is attempting to define and impose it. In addition, it pours regulatory cold water on the information highway's entrepreneurial flame.

We see that with the reality of today, the current CRTC is obsolete. It costs far too much and delivers far too little. The time is long overdue to move away from protectionist policies and toward those that allow Canadian products to compete in the global market. We only protect what is weak. That which is strong can be promoted. In the right regulatory and business environment, Canadians have no need to fear global competition. Control and manipulation by government is what we should fear.

I ask the government to listen to industry and consumers and remove excessive bureaucracy and the regulatory quagmire within the communications industry so that Canadians can set the standard for the world during the communications century.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Liberal

Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that the hon. member for Medicine Hat is asking the House to condemn the government for an election promise when that is what it was and indeed the people of Canada saw fit to elect the government on that basis.

The people of Canada have rewarded the Liberal record and have chosen to reaffirm their trust.

It was very clearly stated in the platform. We are moving toward the time when the budget will finally be balanced, the debt to GDP ratio will be declining and the government will have a fiscal surplus.

When we reach that time we will allocate every billion dollars of fiscal dividend so that one half will go to a combination of reducing taxes and reducing the national debt, and one half will address social and economic needs through program expenditures.

It was very clear to me door to door, coffee party after coffee party and all-candidate meeting after all-candidate meeting that the specifics of the plan, a 50:50 division of any future surpluses, were hugely reassuring to Canadians, particularly those of us in Ontario where the savage government cuts and an unaffordable tax cut are negatively affecting people every day.

The people of Canada have clearly demonstrated that they respected and trusted the commitments of the finance minister, continued prudent management and staying the course on restoring Canada's fiscal health. They were eloquently stated by the finance minister in the February budget and then reinforced again and again throughout the election campaign. The people of Canada have been consulted.

The people of Canada spoke loudly on June 2 and now we as a government must get on and do what we said we would do. The Liberal government has said that we would meet or exceed deficit targets, and we will. We would impose no new taxes and no new spending cuts, and we will not. We promised that we would address economic and social priorities through selected tax cuts, and we will honour that promise.

Thankfully, and with the support of Canadians, that is not all that is on our agenda, unlike the honourable opposition. We promised to create conditions favourable for private sector job creation and to invest for immediate jobs in growth, in infrastructure, trade, youth employment, labour market training, payroll tax deduction, tourism, rural Canada and small business. We have already begun on a number of these.

Canadians are counting on us to continue our investment in higher education and skills development and to proceed with our investment in technological innovation through the proposed Canada foundation for innovation which John Polanyi endorsed totally in his remarks to the Nobel laureates on Sunday night.

Canadians understood that the tough decision had to be made in the first Liberal mandate in order to get our fiscal house back in order. They understood that as long as interest payments were a significant amount in each budget, it was impossible for government to provide to the people of Canada value for their tax dollars. We could not afford the deficit and the ballooning effect on the debt.

After this Canadian miracle, as economists around the world refer to this unprecedented success, it is totally insulting and inexcusable that the member for Medicine Hat can pretend it never happened.

How can he ignore the miraculous turnaround of an economy that had been called an economic basket case? This is a great Canadian success story, the record and commitments to decrease the debt, decrease taxes and reduce unemployment. I believe this Liberal government will honour those commitments.

It is also clear that the people of Canada voted to reinvest in building a stronger society, an increased ability to look after those less fortunate. That government can and should play a positive role in the lives of Canadians. They voted for improved health care delivery, they voted for support for children's health programs, they voted to increase the child tax benefit.

They voted for new and better support for the disabled and they voted for increasing support for charitable giving. They voted and knew they were voting for 50 percent of every future surplus going back into strategic reinvestments and programs.

We know there will be a need to seek more input. I expect it and Canadians expect it. This government is no stranger to consultation. I need only point out the unprecedented work of the Minister of Finance and his department in the annual prebudget consultations. They were wide ranging and inclusive and provided Canadians the opportunity to have input into the priorities of this government.

We will continue to consult in the manner that Canadians have come to expect and appreciate from this Liberal government. We will seek input on where targeted reinvestments should be and how to divide between tax relief and debt retirement.

Some suggestions may indeed be hard to assign. For example, does a child tax credit go under the tax relief column or the children's program column? This example also serves to point out the kind of narrow anti-government argument Reform members are prepared to engage in rather than the substantive of where should government be involved in bettering the lives and prospects of our children.

The optimal size of government cannot be arbitrarily determined. We must see what partnerships are possible and then see what we can do to be the catalyst to help get the job done.

Canadian values are inherently those articulated by the Minister of Finance in his 1997 budget address. Let us never come to believe there is such a thing as a tolerable level of child poverty or that the growing gap between the rich and the poor is ever acceptable. Let us never forget the debt we owe to our seniors and that there be no stone unturned in the quest for jobs.

I believe Canadians just want us to get on and do the right thing. We are at an exciting time. Corporations are learning that social marketing is good for business. The third sector is coming on line to help better determine the gaps and duplications and become more accountable. The unions are joining in projects and partnerships that are tremendous examples of what can be done.

When the government has a vision shared by Canadians, when we are convinced that we have the right things to do, only then can we set the goals and then go about achieving them with innovation and partnerships to ensure they happen.

SchoolNet is an excellent example. We know it is imperative that all schools and Canadian school children be on line by the year 2000. By setting this goal and enlisting the co-operation of the pioneers, those wonderful retired telephone workers who have already refurbished cast-off computers from government and the private sector, today we have placed over 40,000 computers into the classrooms of Canada.

Today's motion is just another rather transparent attempt to camouflage the meanspirited, survival of the fittest Reform ideology.

We know this type of consultation being sought by the Reform Party needs to meet only with the Canadian taxpayers federation and its leader in waiting, Stephen Harper, to be told that the total surplus should be put into arbitrary tax reductions with nothing being invested into Canada and into the types of programs Canadians want and deserve.

There is no vision in the Reform Party's narrow agenda. Rhetoric about taxation levels without regard for the inclusion of the best health care system in the world is dishonest.

Canadians understand that Americans pay less tax but they also understand that 30 percent of Americans cannot afford to go to the doctor. My patients, when they go to the United States, understand too when asked to write a cheque for $10,000 for their health care insurance.

The protection of our health care system is imperative for all Canadians. Confidence in high quality health care is paramount.

On June 2 Canadians chose the balanced Liberal approach. They were offered an immediate tax cut and they declined. They were offered two tier medicine and they declined.

The hon. member in his remarks scolded the government for not taking responsibility for the debt. I suggest that the people of Canada recognized and rewarded the Liberal plan of achieving a balanced budget before considering irresponsible tax cuts that could risk increasing the deficit and the debt.

Voters preferred our more responsible approach and saw through the Reform Party's irresponsible tax cut promise before the budget was balanced. It is totally irresponsible for a government to artificially determine optimal government size and taxation levels and then, in order to achieve it, drop the ball and allow those least able to fend for themselves to try and get by.

We have seen those results in Ontario. The arbitrary welfare cuts have Harris hookers on the streets. Reckless cuts to hospitals are now being documented in the Ivy School of Business as a serious loss of quality, all to pay for their arbitrary 30 percent tax cut. They have no vision.

As John Wright from Angus Reid has said, the tax cutter bus has ended up an express bus with no destination. I believe the people of Canada expect from this government continued prudent fiscal management. I believe they expect us to do what we said we would do, to put the GDP to debt ratio on a permanent downward trend—

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

The Speaker

Colleague, forgive me for interrupting you. You will have eleven minutes left when we come back.

As it is 2 o'clock, I would like to proceed to Statements by Members.

TaxationStatements By Members

1:55 p.m.

Reform

Rick Casson Reform Lethbridge, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of honour that I rise to address this House for the first time, to rise from the seat that belongs to the citizens of the constituency of Lethbridge.

I have pledged to be accountable to them and to bring their ideas and concerns to this House and to hear their pleas for economic relief. I have pledged to make this government accountable to them.

Whether it is hardworking families in the agricultural sector or industrious entrepreneurs in large and small businesses in cities, towns and rural districts, or families struggling to make ends meet raising their children, or the disadvantaged who are desperately seeking a better life, one common thread that ties them all together is the continuing erosion of their after tax income.

I reassert my pledge to work hard as a member of the official opposition to press the government to bring much needed and long overdue tax relief to these and all citizens of Canada.

High Performance Hockey ProgramStatements By Members

2 p.m.

Liberal

Nancy Karetak-Lindell Liberal Nunavut, NU

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the full sponsorship of Horizons North of the NWT High Performance Hockey Program. Congratulations to the athletes, six of whom are from my constituency, and their coaches, for striving to be the first ever hockey team from the NWT to participate in the 1999 Canada Winter Games in Cornerbrook, Newfoundland.

I would also like to congratulate 19 of my constituents from Nunavut, 14 athletes and 5 coaches, who participated in the 1997 Canada Summer Games in Brandon, setting our highest participation rate ever.

I have seen the positive impact of sports on young people's lives, teaching many skills such as teamwork, determination and commitment. Canadians from across the country were impressed with the calibre of our athletes.

I urge all the youth of Nunavut and the rest of Canada to participate in sports either as athletes or as volunteers.

National Aids Awareness WeekStatements By Members

September 30th, 1997 / 2 p.m.

Liberal

Janko Peric Liberal Cambridge, ON

Mr. Speaker, recent reports from Health Canada confirm the increase of HIV infections among young people, women, native people and injection drug users. AIDS continues to exact an enormous toll on those inflicted with the disease and on their loved ones.

The theme for this year's National AIDS Awareness Week is the changing face of HIV-AIDS. From September 29 to October 5 many community groups fighting AIDS will be organizing various events to promote the awareness of HIV-AIDS.

I rise to congratulate the Canadian AIDS Society, the Canadian Public Health Association and the Hemophelia Society for their ongoing dedication to increasing public awareness of HIV-AIDS.

Dora AwardsStatements By Members

2 p.m.

Liberal

Sarmite Bulte Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON

Mr. Speaker, last night the 18th annual Dora Awards ceremony was held at the Winter Garden Theatre in Toronto. The Doras are named after the late Dora Mava Moore, a teacher and director who devoted her long life to creating theatre and theatre companies in Toronto. A recipient of many awards and honours, including the Order of Canada, she was truly one of the key founders of professional theatre in Canada.

I would like to congratulate all of last night's winners and nominees and make particular mention of two of my constituents. Fiona Reid was nominated for outstanding performance by a female for her performance in the Canadian Stage Company's production of “Arcadia”. Vinetta Stromgbergs was nominated for outstanding direction in Native Earth Performing Arts' production of “Sixty Below”.

Minister Of Intergovernmental AffairsStatements By Members

2 p.m.

Bloc

Maud Debien Bloc Laval East, QC

Mr. Speaker, the French President, Jacques Chirac, said and I quote “France will accompany Quebec, whatever route it chooses to follow.”

That was enough to get the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs into a panic. Trying to appropriate the words of the French President, the minister asked himself: “Is anyone not willing to accompany Quebec?”

Yes, and none other than him and his government. Among other things, he refuses to accept the democratic rule of 50 percent plus one; he wants to draft the referendum question himself; he argues that all Canadians should have their say in the future of the Quebec people; and finally he tries to use the justices of the Supreme Court by having them declare the democratic choice of Quebeckers illegal.

Rather that making a fool of himself, the infallible minister should react calmly and take note of the willingness of France to recognize a sovereign Quebec.

Global WarmingStatements By Members

2 p.m.

Reform

Bill Gilmour Reform Nanaimo—Alberni, BC

Mr. Speaker, this December in Kyoto, Japan, Canada will be signing an international legally binding treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The signing of this agreement is only two months away, yet the government refuses to divulge the standards to which Canada will agree.

President Clinton and Vice-President Gore have been front and centre consulting Americans on global warming issues. European leaders are actively debating global warming strategies. However, in Canada we have heard nothing from the Prime Minister yet alone the environment minister, despite the fact that the economic and environmental implications regarding this treaty are substantial.

The provinces, whose responsibility it is to administer emission reductions, are not on side. Ordinary Canadians are still waiting to be consulted.

Before the government agrees to any reductions in greenhouse gas levels, ordinary Canadians and the provinces must be in agreement. This agreement must come before the treaty is signed, not after.

Member For BourassaStatements By Members

2:05 p.m.

Bloc

Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the liberal member for Bourassa gave another very subtle analysis of the national question and its impact on the economy.

With his well known sensitivity, he explained to us that the economic renewal is the work of the federal government while the economic problems can all be blamed on the Bouchard government. Clearly, the hon. member for Bourassa completed his Ph.D. in economic demagogy at the Federal Liberal University.

As to the declaration of the President of the Conseil du patronat français, who said that “French economic circles are not worried” by Quebec sovereignty, the hon. member considered that it should go unnoticed in the antisovereigntist paranoia.

Yet, this is more than words since the French firm GEM PLUS announced a $20 million investment in a research center in Montreal. It is a sad observation, but the good news for Quebec do not rejoice Liberal members when they do not serve Liberal propaganda.

Speech From The ThroneStatements By Members

2:05 p.m.

Liberal

Claudette Bradshaw Liberal Moncton, NB

Mr. Speaker, I support the government's priorities outlined in last Tuesday's throne speech.

Two issues I find in the Speech from the Throne are of particular importance to me: children and crime prevention.

I am very proud that the government is committed to helping children at risk. We recognize that parents, governments, the private sector and community based organizations must work together to ensure that our children develop properly.

I also believe that investing $32 million in community based crime prevention programs is a big step in the right direction. The initiatives will help decrease incarceration rates and render our streets safer.

Crime in costing Canadians $46 billion a year.

We must ensure that the government's priorities and commitments outlined in the throne speech become reality. We must work together so that each and every Canadian can lead a safe and full life.

I will work on behalf of my constituents—

Speech From The ThroneStatements By Members

2:05 p.m.

The Speaker

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands has the floor.

Gun LegislationStatements By Members

2:05 p.m.

Reform

Lee Morrison Reform Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Mr. Speaker, Morris Bodnar, Georgette Sheridan, Bernie Collins, Gordon Kirkby, Marlene Cowling, Jon Gerrard, Elijah Harper, Glen McKinnon. That is not a list of Canada's most wanted. It is a list of Manitoba and Saskatchewan Liberal MPs who are no longer with us thanks to the Liberals' draconian gun bill.

People in my part of Canada are still seething over that legislation. Talk of civil disobedience is rampant. So much anger in central Canada about a government policy would have this regionally oriented government scurrying to make amends. But of course to Liberals anything west of Ontario is extraterritorial.

We prairie people are Canadians too. Our devotion to individual freedom is our unique characteristic. In the name of national unity this government should readdress its wrong headed firearms legislation.