Debates of Oct. 18th, 1999

Speech From The Throne

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

What about taxes?

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

The issue of taxes is one that all Canadians are concerned about. At the same time we also recognize that the taxes we pay go into programs that benefit all of us and that is important to our young people.

In terms of moving out of the country, I think the Prime Minister put it very well when he talked about the environment and culture and everything else that makes us Canadian and the importance of holding on to this and not going after small gains in terms of dollars.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I was quite pleased to hear the hon. member's remarks concerning education for our young people because we know this is a very important issue that has to be dealt with in our country.

I would like the hon. member to elaborate a bit upon what the government is doing to make it easier for young people through cuts in tuition or something similar which would make their debt load easier as they struggle through university.

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are several things that the Speech from the Throne addressed and several programs that we have been working with. I will cite some examples that I had written out, guessing that this might be a question that would be thrown my way.

Our expanded commitment to young people now includes the hiring of youth to put in place additional community Internet access sites in communities across Canada, which we know is the most connected country in the world.

We have launched Exchanges Canada which will provide 100,000 young Canadians every year a chance to learn about a different part of Canada and support them in that effort. We are giving young Canadians from the age of 13 an opportunity to produce their first works using traditional and new technologies in the arts and in cultural, digital and similar industries. We are giving young Canadian volunteers the opportunity to help with literacy skills and participate in community and national environmental projects.

At the same time we have signalled what we will do in terms of student debt and loans and ways in which we can deal with the postponement of the huge debt that young people carry.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time this morning with the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest.

I feel very privileged to represent the riding of Kings—Hants in the Annapolis Valley of Nova Scotia. Living in Kings—Hants, we understand the power of tides. We have the highest tides in the world in the Bay of Fundy and the Minas Basin. The Liberals felt the force of those tides in the last general election. There was nothing in the throne speech that will reverse those tides in the next federal election.

The government says that the fundamentals are strong when speaking about the economy. It is very important to remember the words of John Kenneth Galbraith, the Canadian economist, who said that we should beware of governments who say that the fundamentals are strong. The fundamentals that are important to Canadians are simply not strong under the leadership of the government.

One of the most important fundamentals is the issue of brain drain. The choice that each of us has, particularly young Canadians, in pursuing our lives and careers in Canada or in other countries, particularly with the mobility of populations that exists today, is very important. Whether or not we are attracting the best and brightest to the country, and particularly whether we are maintaining and keeping the best and brightest here, is a very important fundamental.

The fact is that in 1986 we lost 17,000 young Canadians to the U.S. through the brain drain process. In 1997 that number had grown to 98,000. Those are 98,000 of our best and brightest people with the education levels to contribute, to pay taxes, to prosper and to help provide the social infrastructure that in the future would allow for more economic growth and the type of caring society that Canadians want, but more importantly the type of caring society that we can afford in the future.

Another fundamental is the Canadian dollar. Under this government the Canadian dollar has dropped from 77cents in 1993 to the 67cents range currently, with the dollar being as low as the 64cents range a year ago last summer. The currency of a country represents in many ways the share value of that particular country. Under this government, the share value of Canada has effectively dropped from 77cents to the mid-60cents range. Those are very important fundamentals.

Tonight we are going to have an opportunity to see the screening of the documentary film about the former Liberal prime minister, Pierre Trudeau, and it is called Just Watch Me: Trudeau and the '70s Generation . Part of that was Mr. Trudeau's response to the FLQ crisis at that time and the question of how far would he have gone.

I suggest that if we were to ask the Prime Minister how far he would go in pursuing the types of economic policies that are aimed at the next election, at the expense of Canadians in the long term, he would probably respond “Just watch me”.

The dollar issue is a direct reflection of the high debt levels we have in Canada, the 50% tax levels, the intrusive regulatory system and things like interprovincial trade barriers which reduce the competitiveness of Canadians and Canadian enterprise globally.

Ironically, a Canadian economist, Robert Mundell, just last week received the Nobel prize in economics for his studies linking currencies to fiscal and monetary policies. He identified the structural impediments of debt, tax levels and the regulatory burden. Again the government has refused to listen to even a great Canadian economist in Robert Mundell, who has been recognized internationally. The government continues to pursue the types of policies and, in this speech, has promised to expand on the same types of negative policies that have us in the mess we are in right now.

There are 32 pages of spending in the speech, spending tax distortions and regulatory spider webs but really very little action on the tax side. It could be said that there may have been a thimble of tax reduction in a sea of new spending in the government's return to the unfettered, wanton spending of the 1970s that got us in the mess we are in right now. That, frankly, is where the government is heading.

The government is now focusing on expanding program spending. Unfortunately, the expansion of spending is not focused on the real needs of Canadians. I did a survey in the spring of my constituents and asked them directly what their priorities were and tax reduction was a major priority for my constituents, as was health care investment.

In the last budget the federal government made a symbolic commitment to health care by reinvesting some, and just some, of what it had taken from the health care system since 1993. I think it was a reinvestment over the period of six years of $11.5 billion when the government had in fact taken $18 billion from the health care system since 1993. By the year 2005, the government will only have reached, under its plan, 1995 levels of health care investment which does not take into account inflation or population growth. The government is big on symbols but has really not addressed the health care crisis.

My constituents are also concerned about defence spending and the government's lack of effectively investing in the defence of our country and in our national defence system. We are increasingly being called on to participate in an increasingly complicated global scenario, whether it is Kosovo or East Timor, with a very fixed or reduced commitment if one looks at it in real terms to spending.

In my riding that means CFB Greenwood is facing significant challenges now with the reduced level of government commitment. The government is now turning its back on the full functionality of CFB Greenwood.

The government is ignoring one of the other concerns that Canadians have and that is our national infrastructure system, in particular our highway system. Highway 101 in my riding is one of the most dangerous highways not just in Nova Scotia but in Canada. There have been 38 deaths on the untwined parts of highway 101 over the past several years. The government has not made the necessary commitment to highway funding. The government only spends 5% of the money it takes in federal gas tax revenues on highway taxes. It is the lowest of any industrialized nation. Again the government has not addressed a real concern of Canadians.

Sadly, the government is now talking about pursuing a new children's agenda which is ignoring one of the most fundamental difficulties that Canadian families and children face. With the ever increasing tax burden under the government, Canadian families and individuals have faced a personal disposable income decline of 8% since 1993. During the same period, Americans have enjoyed approximately a 10% increase.

The government is expanding its taxation. It states that it will bring forward $16 billion of tax reductions. Those are the tax reductions that the government has given through the front door. What the government fails to remind Canadians is that through the back door, through, for instance, bracket creep, the government has actually taken in more than that, about $18 billion. The government has actually continued to plunder Canadians through the back door while pretending to provide some level of tax relief through the front door.

The concern we have is that the government is engaging in almost a corporate re-imaging effort aimed at trying to convince the international community that somehow it is addressing some of the structural deficiencies in the Canadian economy. However, it is doing very little to actually change those structural inefficiencies and impediments to actually put Canada on a growth track where we could have a strong dollar and a strong economy.

The government is trying to devalue its way to prosperity. I remember a couple of years ago when the dollar hit about 65 cents the Prime Minister said that a low dollar was good for the Canadian economy and good for tourism. Now the logical corollary of his argument would be that a dollar trading at zero, if we reduced it to zero, would be excellent for Canadian exports. We could give away our goods. We would be the greatest exporting nation in the world. However, the Prime Minister's economic logic is not really that sound in this area.

We could have a strong dollar and a sustained economic growth if we allowed Canadians to actually enjoy some of the prosperity that other countries are enjoying and actually took the initiative to provide significant tax reform and tax reduction and also address some of these other structural issues, the types of issues which were addressed under the previous government.

The previous government had the guts to pursue policies like free trade, the GST, deregulation of financial services, transportation and energy. They were not always popular, but they were the right decisions then and have proven to be the right decisions since then. We just wish that this government would now have the vision, the courage and the guts to pursue those types of policies that would allow Canadians to enjoy sustained economic growth into the next century.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Before we go to the hon. member for Toronto Centre—Rosedale, I just want a brief explanation. The use of the word guts in that context was again a political metaphor. It was not addressed for or against any person specifically.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Toronto Centre—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps you put your finger on the problem of the speech from the member for Kings—Hants, whom we all respect for his economic perspicacity and his wit and wisdom, but sometimes perhaps he allows his wit to run away with his common sense and I suggest perhaps in today's intervention as well.

I am surprised that the member is so oversimplifying this issue of tax. I am surprised that he has laid every woe of Canadians at the door of high taxes. I remember when there was a brain drain from his province to Toronto. There were no tax differences between his province and Toronto, it was a question of opportunities. I suggest to him that it is opportunities. Some of the measures in the Speech from the Throne, which address opportunities in academic and other areas which will create an enriched atmosphere in the country for opportunities, will reverse that brain drain because those opportunities will be here for Canadians. That is something he has to look at as well.

The member should not say that high taxes is the reason why the Canadian dollar is low. I suggest he look at the Swedish currency, which is very strong today. The Swedish economy is booming at the moment. Sweden has some of the highest tax rates in the world.

How does the member, with his extraordinary sophisticated knowledge of the working of things, drive down the single lane 101 highway of tax reduction, which he will end up crashing himself and his party with the same problems he has on his highway down in Nova Scotia, instead of looking at all the other factors which we have to address when we are trying to deal with what is a very complex and not a single issue?

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his, as usual, erudite, intelligent and well placed question.

The hon. member is a true Liberal in the traditional 1970s sense. He does point to the fact that Canadians are leaving to find greater opportunities elsewhere. He and I both agree that Canadians are leaving Canada to find greater opportunities elsewhere. Where the true Liberal thing comes in is, at this point, where we divide. I go one way and he goes another in terms of our pursuit of a solution. He believes that government, through government spending, can create better opportunities in Canada to keep Canadians here. I believe that if the government reduces taxes we can create better opportunities here.

In terms of the opportunities for people leaving Canada to seek jobs elsewhere is in part pay. It is not all taxes; part of it is pay. However pay is an instrument closely related to corporate tax rates. Canada has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the OECD. Last year, for instance, our corporate tax rates were lower than those of Italy and Japan. This year we now have higher corporate tax rates than Italy and Japan because Italy and Japan have engaged in tax reform and tax reduction on the corporate side.

If the hon. member is sincere about pursuing greater opportunities for Canadians then he should unshackle Canadian enterprise and businesses from the burden of his party's failure to address corporate tax reform.

Jack Mintz, one of his constituents, submitted an excellent report to the federal government, the Mintz report. It was commissioned by the federal Minister of Finance and then ignored by the Minister of Finance.

I would suggest that this hon. member listen to one of his constituents in Toronto Centre—Rosedale who has provided a great blueprint for tax reform and tax reduction in Canada. If followed, it would ensure that ultimately Canadians would enjoy greater opportunities here and not have to seek them elsewhere while the government pursues 1970s policies which have been discredited around the world and in fact mire Canadians into less opportunities in the future and not more.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate on the Speech from the Throne.

I will begin by mentioning some things that were not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. I believe it is worth mentioning some of them. The government is attempting to hide from some of the very real concerns, some of which we are living through now.

One is the Donald Marshall ruling in terms of native rights, fishing rights, mineral rights and so on. I should say treaty rights in general. That is a huge problem in Atlantic Canada but obviously it has implications from one end of the country to the other.

At this point it is focused on the lobster fishery simply because the lobster fishery is one of the most lucrative fisheries. It goes far beyond that but I certainly do not have time in 10 minutes to go into the minute detail. The government must address the issue and show some leadership on it. Up to this point it has not shown any leadership on the issue.

Yesterday in my home riding in New Brunswick I met with very concerned lobster fishers on Grand Manan Island. We have eighth generation fishermen who do not know whether or not they will be able to make a living at their fishery. The fisheries minister simply hides under his desk when we talk about it. He has yet to bring the native community and the non-native community together to make reasonable progress on this very important issue.

The next shoe to drop in this whole debate will be the word compensation. The fishers accept the fact that the supreme court has ruled. We talked about the government exercising the notwithstanding clause to give the fishing community time to resolve the issue because it does not appear as if the minister or the Prime Minister will resolve it. We also talked about a stay of the decision. The government obviously dropped the ball on that as well.

A day after the decision can we imagine the Prime Minister of Canada standing up not knowing whether the government could have asked for a stay in the decision or at least get the government time to respond? He could have done that but did not. This created a crisis when a crisis could have been avoided. That is a big issue that was left out of the Speech from the Throne.

Another one is the merger of Air Canada and Canadian by Onex. It appears like we will be looking at an American controlled airline with services diminished in many parts of the country. However this has never been debated on the floor and was never mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. Neither was the agricultural crisis which extends far beyond western Canada.

We are focused on western Canada and low commodity prices but we are obviously not supporting our farmers the way we should to get them through this international crisis. We are showing no sign that we are interested in helping them. I think the government has to do something.

The same thing applies to the immigration policy. We went through a crisis on the west coast this year in terms of illegal immigrants coming into Canada.

What has been the response from the various ministries? On the immigration crisis the minister says that winter is coming, so there is not a problem out there that mother nature cannot take care of. In the native fishing dispute it is the same. Winter is coming and the winds will blow. Thank God for mother nature because the ministers will not take action when it is necessary.

To go back a little on some of what I have heard from the government side of the House in terms of the throne speech, there has not been a member on the government side speaking on the debate who does not fall back on their financial success. That just amazes me.

What amazes me even more is that we on this side let them stand up and get away with it. They talk about the huge deficit they had and the financial mismanagement that was there when they came to power. It is interesting to note every success they have had. I do not deny they have had success in terms of balancing the books, but the question has to be how they balanced the books. That is the question.

One of my members said that it was like an old country western song, give me 40 acres and I will turn this rig around. They turned the rig around for sure but on policies we brought in when we were in government. One I want to mention is the GST. Every member sitting on that side of the House fought against the GST from day one. In fact most of them over there were elected on that. Anyone over there elected in 1993 was elected on the false promise to eliminate the GST.

It is quite interesting that I would mention this point. It is past history but it is very relevant because on the CBC radio program Cross Country Checkup , hosted by Rex Murphy, the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions as a guest panellist responded to some of the phone calls coming in from across the country.

One of the questions put to him was on the elimination of the GST, that old promise from 1993. The minister in his own words said that they could not abolish the GST. When he was asked why he said that it was because it was bringing in $22 billion in revenue. That would simply blow away every inch of financial success they have had on that side of the House. They won the election on the big untruth. I know I am not allowed to use the word lie, but they won that election on the big untruth.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member is not unfamiliar with skating on thin ice. This time he went a little too far so I would ask the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest to withdraw the term lie.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly will withdraw that term. In terms of the thin ice I will be like the minister. It is something that mother nature will take care of in the next few weeks.

When the junior minister of finance admits on national radio that they cannot get rid of the GST and that the success they had is because of it, it reveals exactly how thin the ice is they are skating on over there when they are talking about their so-called financial success.

There is probably only one member over there, the member for Burin—St. George's, who would agree with every word I am saying. He campaigned on this basis in 1997. Anyway I think the truth lies in the numbers and lies in the record.

I want to examine three or four big issues. One is free trade which that side railed against. Another is the GST which that side railed against. Another is tax reform which we initiated as the government as well as deregulation. I am talking about financial sector deregulation, transportation deregulation and energy deregulation as in the elimination of the national energy program to benefit western Canada.

They have to stand on their hind legs and talk intelligently about what they inherited. It was not the horror show they love to talk about. Every time they get up it is quite interesting that the debt goes from $20 billion to $25 billion to $30 billion to $40 billion. This time next year the debt they inherited will be up to at least $65 billion or $70 billion. It just keeps growing and growing. As the story prolongs it gets more exaggerated.

I am proud of what we attempted to do and what we will be able to do when we take over that side of the House. I will entertain questions from my learned friends on the other side of the House. I look forward to it.

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of thin ice, the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest was a member in the House. Actually he sat on this side of the House with the Mulroney Tories when I was a member of parliament in opposition.

It is pretty thin ice when he starts criticizing Liberal members on what we have been able to do with the mess the Conservatives left us when they were over here for nine years. It gets more and more difficult to believe he actually is telling us that we did not do a good job in balancing the books. All the Conservatives spoke of for nine years was about what terrible financial shape the country was in.

I am an accountant by trade and there was something I really believed. I really believed the Tories were good accountants. Can one imagine my shock when I became a member of the government and realized not only did they just talk but they were terrible accountants? There was a huge debt with which we were saddled after hearing about how fiscally responsible the Conservatives were. They really were not very fiscally responsible.

Since then I think we have done a fairly good job considering the difficulties we were facing.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, this is really fun because we sat on the finance committee together many years ago. Obviously the hon. member was much younger then and time has erased many of those memories.

It is interesting that never once did she or any other member on the government's side of the House, including the finance minister, vote for or support any initiative that reduced the size of government or the cost of government. In 1988 when the member was first elected she railed against free trade. Free trade has been the biggest success story in Canada and one of the reasons that Ontario is leading the pack in terms of economic development and prosperity.

Let us go back to the GST. The member was a winner on both issues. She campaigned against free trade and swallowed herself whole in 1997. She campaigned on NAFTA and swallowed herself whole. She did the same on the GST. She just lucked into office as did the government.

It is like turning that truck around in 40 acres or slowing down that tanker. It takes more—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Egmont.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, hon. member was saying how great the previous government was. Why then were the Conservatives reduced from a majority government to two seats in 1993? Why is the member still a member of the fifth party in the House and not sitting on this side?

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, that is pretty obvious. It is because they campaign on the big l . We know what that spells.

[Some hon. members]

Liberal, Liberal.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I did not say whether it was a small l or a big l , so be careful before you stand on your feet and cut me off. In 1993 we were just about wiped off the map. The truth is that they campaigned on a promise to rid us of a very—

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the comments by the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest. I cannot disagree with much of what he has said about the Liberal Party's campaign promises in 1993. In fact, I suggest that there were several big rivals told during that campaign which were never lived up to, the GST and free trade.

I want the member for New Brunswick Southwest to clarify the Conservative Party's latest stand on free trade as a result of having David Orchard in its party, the anti-free trader. I want to know where the party stands on free trade these days. Has it taken a left turn?

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I guess I would have to ask the member from that party where he stands on the UA.

Every party is always plagued with a problem or two. That might be an intellectual hurdle over which some people will have trouble jumping. I guess that is the fun of politics. The definition of politics is the art of the impossible. Sometimes we all have to practise the art of the impossible.

What does amaze me is the hypocrisy coming from the Liberals on the other side of the House in claiming any kind of financial success in terms of managing the economy when they have yet to bring in a major initiative to address the future of Canada in the life of their governments going back to 1993.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, I was greatly pleased with the major policy thrusts of the Canadian government as set out in the Speech from the Throne by her Excellency the Governor General and later in more detail by the Prime Minister.

The focal point of this vision we wish to share with our fellow citizens is quality of life; it will be the main thrust of our activities as a government and must be constantly at the centre of our daily concerns.

The concept of quality of life is a hard one to define clearly. The International Society for the Quality of Life Studies defines quality of life as the result of interaction between social, economic, environmental and health factors affecting human and social development.

For many Canadians, however, it is clear that the concept of quality of life cannot be confused with the concept of standard of living. Our fellow citizens see a marked difference between the two concepts and do not attach the same value to both.

Quality of life is not measured solely against our objectives and successes on the economic level. It is, of course, important to have a healthy economy. Without one, we would find it impossible to make strategic choices for improving our quality of life. Equally important, if not more important, however, to Canadians is the fact that quality of live involves human investment, that is in health, education and skills development and in our children.

In fact, economic growth and an improved standard of living must involve good social programs and good social policies.

What do our fellow citizens want, then? They want to live in a country where quality health care is accessible. They want to live in a country where all children can receive not just a basic education but one that will prepare them for the realities of the 21st century.

They want to live in a country where all of us can improve our quality of life by improving our skills. They want to live in a country which understands that children are our greatest asset and which has chosen to invest in their development.

They want to live in safe communities with green spaces, where their health will not be threatened by a deteriorating environment. Canadians want their government to achieve a consistent balance between social and economic objectives.

They want their government to understand these needs and to be able to meet them in a concrete fashion. Our government understands that message. This is why it has chosen to make the improvement of Canadians' quality of life the central theme of its vision for the years to come.

However, investing in social programs alone is not enough. Our investments must be in strategic areas, they must be targeted. They must achieve the objectives that we set for ourselves as a society. While it is relatively easy to measure economic results, it is more difficult to establish social performance indicators.

How do we measure quality of life? A number of factors may give some indication, including life expectancy, the quality of one's physical environment and the crime and poverty rates, but other factors are subjective. For example, how do we measure social exclusion? In the coming months, therefore, we must work to improve our performance indicators.

I should point out that, for the first time, the report on departmental performance that is to be tabled in a few days will include a number of social indicators.

The government is driven by a will to improve the quality of life of Canadians and has made a number of commitments regarding strategic investments, which include, of course, economic investments, but also social ones.

We are investing in our young people and in our children, because they are tomorrow's adults. We hope to provide them with the best possible start, both from a family and an educational perspective.

We are also investing in families through various tax measures that will allow them to better meet the needs of their children. It is our hope that parents can have a real opportunity to improve their situation. To that end, we want to ensure that the development of skills is not only a priority, but also a reality.

The government also supports various sectors through research. Investing in research and development will allow us to remain competitive and to continue to develop state of the art technologies. We will also strive to ensure Canadians get the best possible care and a healthier environment. We also want to provide Canada with modern infrastructures, so that our country is ready to meet the challenges of the new century.

Clearly, we will work on modernizing physical infrastructures, and it is my firm intention to initiate quickly the dialogue that will enable us, by December 2000, to provide clearer details of this new program.

If Canada is to affirm its prosperity in the context of global trade, it will have to have the means to do so, that is, ensure transportation safety, protect the environment and encourage tourism and telecommunications. The list could be long and will, no doubt, have to be shared with other public or private partners.

Thought must be given to culture as well. Canada draws much of its national identity from the diversity of its people. Writers and artists are recording our heritage in the archives of history daily. We must give them the means to do so.

As well, new technologies lend themselves to all sorts of innovations. It is up to us to discover how to use them to reduce the huge distances between people across the country. The Internet must be used to serve Canadians and in both official languages. It must also serve the economic and cultural interests of Canada as a whole.

The immense possibilities offered by the information highway must be mastered and put to use. It is not only a useful tool, but a vital one. It may be of particular benefit to the population of Canada spread between the two oceans and across the vast northern territories. It eliminates distances and thus opens to all who dare previously impassable trade borders.

This is why the government wants to develop in all sectors a new infrastructure program in co-operation with our provincial and private sector partners. This, clearly, involves strategic investments for the future.

Our government intends to build on our successes. The previous infrastructure program enabled us to revitalize our economy in several key areas. The next one will enable us to equip Canada with all the tools it will need to remain competitive and on the leading edge of economic and social development. With the budget surplus we can consider making strategic investments that will help us in meeting our objective of improving the quality of life for Canadians.

Let there be no misunderstanding. We are not talking about wasting the gains that have been so dearly paid for. Each investment will be carefully assessed in terms of its effectiveness, its relation to our needs and our ability to pay for it.

We must never lose sight of the fact that we are talking about taxpayers' money. In recent years our government has asked the people of Canada to make the necessary and sometimes difficult sacrifices so that we could restore the health of our public finances. While the time has come to reap the benefits of our collective efforts, it is also clear that the government is committed to never returning to the days when we put ourselves deep into debt. Never again will we live beyond our means.

Before going any further, allow me to quote the Prime Minister: “Today I have set out a comprehensive strategy, for people, for opportunity, for excellence, for success, for a high quality of life, for sharing, dignity and mutual respect, for creativity and innovation”.

Simple logic holds that this strategy which centres on the quality of life applies to everyone without exception, including government employees. As a public sector employer, it is incumbent upon us to attend to the development of what is undeniably the greatest asset of any government, the public service. It is time to reaffirm our commitment to our employees. Everyone, public service employees, carpenters and musicians alike, need to feel appreciated for their efforts and in the work they do.

Our employees are the representatives of the government, the very government that imposed budget cuts, that took away what had been gained, that demanded sacrifices, that caused belts to tighten. It was often our employees who dealt with the public who had to face the backlash from angry Canadians.

A better quality of life for the people of Canada will have a twofold impact on our government employees. They too will benefit from the overall improvement in addition to being granted greater recognition for their work by a public that has been reassured.

I will of course see to the well-being of our public service employees' needs through the Government of Canada's overall strategy. I will also see to it much more directly through the implementation of a series of new measures throughout the public service.

Improving the way in which we deliver our services to the public is obviously a commendable objective, but we must have the means to do so. That presupposes that our public service is properly equipped and it will be. We will modernize our public service. We will renew it. We will tailor our management to the needs of the next century.

In Canada we want to create an exclusive public service, but time is of the essence. In a little over four years, 40% of our senior managers will be eligible for retirement and it is not clear who will ultimately replace them. Almost half of our public service employees are over the age of 45.

I reiterate my personal commitment. We will start by providing stimulating work in a positive environment. We must recognize and acknowledge the importance of front line staff in the delivery of services to the public. We will recruit the best and most outstanding employees.

We will do everything we can to make sure that our public service regains the prestige once associated with it. The Public Service of Canada, similar to those countries emerging from major transformations taking place throughout the world, will be less cumbersome, more technology based and, as a result, more alert.

This will benefit everyone: the employers through better performance, the public through more efficient services, and the employees through acknowledgement of their work and the resulting sense of personal satisfaction from a job well done.

Naturally, the primary responsibility for this transformation lies with the federal government, which is well aware of the needs of its public service.

I realize that our union partners may be skeptical of these commitments by the government. I can only reiterate my firm desire to undertake the necessary discussions we will need to have on the methods to be used to meet our mutual objectives in an atmosphere of partnership and dialogue, not confrontation.

By the end of our mandate, when the application of the measures announced has taken shape and when the new quality of life has made itself felt in Canadian homes, the federal government will regain its place at the top of the list among employers of choice. We will have a modern, efficient and motivated public service that will be able and happy to assume responsibility for the destiny of the Canada of tomorrow.

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

Mr. Speaker, it will soon be four months since the House of Commons recessed so that the Prime Minister and his Cabinet could put together the throne speech. The President of the Treasury Board must certainly be pleased with what her leader had to say.

First of all, she mentioned the quality of life of all Canadians. I have read and reread the throne speech, and was even present when the Governor General read it, but I found no short-term solutions to serious problems such as the fisheries dispute, which is worsening daily in the Atlantic provinces.

There is nothing to put an end to the arrival of boatloads of immigrants on the west coast. Nor is there any clarification of the government's position with respect to Onex, which would like to buy and merge Air Canada and Canadian Airlines, or anything to repair the grievous damage this government has done to health care, social services and postsecondary education. There is nothing to put right the terrible unfairness in EI, for which barely 42% of unemployed workers who pay premiums qualify when they lose their job.

There is nothing to narrow the gap between rich and poor, which grows wider with each passing year. I wonder whether the minister, the President of the Treasury Board, was one of the 500 people who marched in Montreal yesterday to try to make people, especially rich people, aware of the terrible straits in which several hundreds of thousands of Canadians find themselves. With many, many children coming to school hungry every day, donations must now be sought so that they can be provided with breakfast and lunch.

When the minister talks about the quality of life and the environment of Canadians and Quebecers, can the minister tell us whether or not she intends to do something about these oversights in last week's throne speech? I await her comments.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what we are doing today is very clear: we are analyzing a throne speech. What is a throne speech? It is the outline of the government's vision for the future. This does not preclude us from focusing on short term problems, on everyday problems.

In a throne speech, we look at where we have been, where we are now and where we are going. I hope the member for Frontenac—Mégantic will agree with me that, if one looks at the progress made over that last five or six years, from 1993 to 1999, the situation has improved in several areas in Canada. That does not mean that there are no problems here, even though we are fortunate enough to live in such a great country.

Canada is far from being a perfect place. There are still some major problems. We talk about improving the quality of life and not only the standard of living—and we must make a distinction here in that the quality of life also implies looking at the social aspect of life in our society. This is what matters.

When we talk about improving the quality of life, it means improving the welfare of families, children and any person living in Canada. Poverty levels in this country are clearly unacceptable. That is why, for example, the Speech from Throne shows that we have a vision for the future with regard to families and children.

First and foremost, we want to focus our attention on early childhood, to give our young children a good start in life, to help families with children, to reduce their tax burden. Then, we will increase the child tax benefit, which is paid to low income families to help them meet their children's needs so they do not have to rely on welfare.

This is a clear commitment to help children, to give some people a chance to break free from poverty. Moreover, the throne speech leaves the door open for further improvements.

Our government's commitment to improve the quality of life of Canadians says it all. We recognize the fact that our country is great compared to others, but we still have to work together to improve the quality of life of Canadians.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief, but I would like to ask my colleague a few questions.

She says that the Liberal government has done a good job in the past six years. I do not know where she was, because in the Atlantic provinces, the Liberals have lost nearly all their seats.

As for students, by the time they get their degree, they have a debt load of $30,000. If two graduates form a couple, they are saddled with $60,000 in debt before they even get a home.

There are 800,000 workers who do not qualify for employment insurance. Women need to have worked 700 hours to qualify. So what about all these young workers and women workers? If there are 800,000 workers who do not qualify for employment insurance, how many hungry children does that create?

The number of food banks has gone up 10% more in recent years. Where do the children fit in here? Where has the Liberal government been these past six years? It has merely been following in the footsteps of the Conservatives, who started the employment insurance cuts in 1986, and the Liberals are just continuing them.

If the minister does not believe this, let her leave Ontario and Quebec and come to New Brunswick and the rest of the Atlantic provinces to see what is going on, to see how people are having trouble making ends meet.

When I went across Canada on my employment insurance fact-finding tour, that is what I found. People are hungry. It is not the tiny change mentioned in the throne speech that is going to make any significant change for women. Women do not quality for employment insurance if they have worked less than 700 hours in a year. The change the minister is proposing is a minimal one. I would like her comments on this.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I also said in my presentation today that, if we have come this far in Canada, it is because we asked huge sacrifices of Canadians, not just workers but all Canadians.

In 1993, when we were faced with an incredible debt, a $42 billion deficit and a stagnant economy, what did we have to do? We had to put in place a very restrictive plan for the use of all our resources and we had to make major cuts. The public was behind us, it was supportive.

Now, I do not think Canadians would ever again allow a government to accumulate such a huge deficit. So, Canadians agreed with our initiatives and they are the ones who made these sacrifices. There is no question about that.

In spite of these circumstances, we were able to get the economy going again and keep our inflation rate very low while maintaining interest rates at an acceptable level. The national unemployment rate has gone down and we have managed to preserve social programs, although they had to be redefined. Clearly, that redefinition of our social programs affected some groups more than others. This is why the government, in its throne speech, demonstrated its commitment to making investments wherever necessary.

The impacts of our employment insurance reform were significant, because that was a comprehensive reform. We are currently looking at these impacts with a view to making improvements.

What do we find in the throne speech? It deals with the parental leave for women, for example. Did I not hear the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst say “Congratulations on extending the parental leave from six months to one year and making it more accessible”?