Paul Crête

[International Women's Day, March 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on this international women's day, the Bloc Quebecois strongly condemns the unacceptable situation in which women are placed regarding pay equity. In 1996, Canadian women still earn only 70 per cent of what Canadian men make. This situation has bad consequences for society as a whole. Equal work should mean equal pay. However, as we near the third millennium, this is still not the case.

The only initiative taken by this government regarding employment was the infrastructure program, which essentially created temporary employment traditionally associated with men. Women are also still underrepresented in certain employment categories. For example, in the federal public service, women only account for 25 per cent of Transport Canada's departmental population and 34 per cent of DND's workforce. Moreover, they hold only 19 per cent of management positions. The government must act.

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the reform ought not to run roughshod over women's dignity.

Does the minister acknowledge that, in actual fact, his reform will transform today's benefits for seniors into welfare for seniors?

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

The old age pension reform announced yesterday by the minister represents a considerable erosion of the financial independence that has been hard won by and for women over the years. Seniors' benefits will now be determined based on family income. Receiving a cheque in his or her own name will not be more than a sop to the feelings of the one spouse who is considered dependent on the other.

Is the minister aware that he is jeopardizing women's financial independence by treating them as second class citizens dependent on their husband's income?

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I listened attentively to my colleague's speech. Finally, he himself stressed the weakest element in the budget speech and the budget itself.

Today, we are experiencing a completely new situation in that there is economic growth, but not necessarily employment growth. When speaking of restoring hope among Canadians, we have to ask ourselves one question: Does the government have any solution that will give jobs to young people coming on the job market and to workers evicted from the work market by new technologies? Those are two categories of people who, today, cannot find a place on the job market despite the economic growth. Considering the budget's content on this aspect, it is not very promising.

I ask the hon. member: Would it not have been better if the government had sent positive messages by making an asset out of the UI fund surplus? By cutting premiums or in some other fashion, the government could have made this money available instead of using it only to cover the deficit. Is the UI fund's surplus not something that should have been addressed in the budget speech as something that could become a positive instrument?

The second element is: What message are you sending to Quebec regions for example when you make it so that the Fonds de solidarité des travailleurs-something that works, that allows capital venture investment of funds provided by workers-is less attractive under the Income Tax Act? That will certainly not help solve the job issue.

The third part of my question is this: How can the federal government simply establish what it calls a technical committee on business taxation, when time and time again for the last two years the official oppsition has been asking for a review of business taxation? After two years and a half in office all the government does is to establish a technical committee. It says that this committee will be made up of economists and taxation experts, but no one will be representing the social view so people can come and ask questions on human resource utilization.

In this society of ours, instead of being evaluated only according to the gross domestic product, why could we not be evaluated also on the way we develop all our human resources? How can we ensure that when 45 or 50-year old workers are laid off because of technical changes, they have an alternative, something to help them start another career. While there was still time before the next election to take concrete measures in favour of job creation why did the federal government not really give priority to the employment issue in this budget?

Why is the government not dealing with current issues?

[Business Of The House, March 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is indeed using a very good example. Let us look, for instance, at the Unemployment Insurance Act. People asked us to vote against the bill as tabled. Thousands of people sent postcards to the Leader of the Opposition. Probably over 20,000, 25,000 or even 30,000 asked us to vote down the bill. Today's debate is not useless as far as my fellow citizens are concerned, because they have asked me to do everything I could to see to it that this bill dies on the Order Paper and that the government takes its responsibilities and introduces another bill more in line with the real needs of Quebecers and Canadians.

This is why I do not have any qualms about turning a debate on what seems like a procedural issue, which it is not, into a debate on a substantive issue.

In the speech from the throne, the government said that the unemployment insurance reform would be based on the same fiscal parameters which applied before. In other words, it stated that it would stick to its philosophy on this issue. This is what we heard from people from all over Canada, people from eastern Quebec and Atlantic Canada. Talk to the people in the maritimes. I am sure that the Liberal caucus has talked about this. At least, I hope so, because if they have not done so, they are not doing their jobs. I am sure that they are doing a very good job and that they are trying to make the government take action on this issue. The best way for hon. members to play a positive role is by debating these issues here in the House as much as possible.

The work of the parliamentary committees is to put the finishing touch to bills, to try to improve them, by coming up with amendments that would ensure that we have, in the end, the best possible bills.

However, we are not yet at that stage with the unemployment insurance bill; we are not working out the details, we are still considering substantive matters. As long as we do not have a reform proposal which includes an active policy on employment, it would be pointless to approve anything. We will keep doing the best we can. We will put forward all the amendments needed to improve the bill, but, in this instance, what Quebecers and Canadians are asking for is a debate on the substance of the bill. If we let the government reinstate the bill in its previous form whenever it feels like it, we are not doing Quebecers and Canadians any favour.

[Business Of The House, March 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for a question that will enable me to elaborate on how we see things.

Usually, when Parliament prorogues, all the bills die on the Order Paper and the government must come up with a new legislative agenda. That is the very reason for proroguing.

We accept that view, but we propose that only as an exception should a number of bills, over which the government and the opposition parties would agree, be maintained. The government should do some consulting, rather than trying to forcefully bring back all the bills. Let us look at a list of bills from the last session. Which ones does the government want to bring back? Which ones does the official opposition want to bring back? Which ones does the third party want to bring back? Let us make a list of all the bills for which there is a consensus.

If the government absolutely wants to bring back a piece of legislation for which there is no consensus, it should come before the House and say: "We are asking the House to take this bill back under consideration". Then a debate would take place. The UI bill is an excellent example. If we agreed that Bill C-111 should be brought back before the House, it would be much more democratic, much more elegant for the government to table a proposal to the effect that it wishes that Bill C-111 be maintained, even if this may involve a few amendments. Then the House would debate the relevance of such a proposal. In this way, Quebecers and Canadians

would see very clearly who, between the government and the opposition, takes into account the opinions expressed through consultations, as well as the mood prevailing across the country.

We are not asking that the opposition be the one to decide. However, there has to be some kind of an agreement on that issue. Right now, the government is acting like someone who wants to buy a new car, while also wanting to keep the best things from the old one. This is not logical. There is no continuity in the government's action. The government should take into account the logic in these arguments. It should at least accept the amendment tabled by the Bloc, or the idea of some agreement or negotiation between the parties regarding a list of bills from the previous session. It should not adopt the view that all the bills should be brought back. That would defeat the purpose of proroguing, while also significantly reducing the importance of the speech from the throne. And if the speech from the throne becomes meaningless because all the bills from the previous session can simply be brought back, the government itself will have drastically reduced the impact of its new agenda.

[Business Of The House, March 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the government motion we are debating now is very special. This week, the government focused largely on the throne speech, saying that it signalled a new beginning for this government, which would now adopt a new approach based on jobs in various sectors.

At the same time, the government presents a motion which will guarantee business as usual and allow the reinstating of old bills. The government is acting like those who make resolutions on New Year's day and break them the day after. We have a hard time understanding that, especially since it goes against parliamentary tradition.

It is a well-known principle, and I feel it is important to mention this for Canadians who are listening, that prorogation of the House is a political decision which means we start all over, and that all bills die on the Order Paper. In this way, we make sure that all new government positions are different from past ones. For the sake of efficiency, we can exceptionally reinstate bills, normally those that have been favourably received in the House.

In this case, the government is upsetting the rules. It is establishing the principle that anything can be brought back, at any time, and that, whether there is a throne speech or not, the situation we had in the previous session can being carried over into the new one.

I would like to draw the attention of citizens and hon. members to the fact that, by proposing this motion, by using this approach, the government is really telling us: "When we bring back Bill C-111 on unemployment insurance, it will be business as usual". Yet, during the previous session, the government was told in all the Liberal ridings in the Maritimes, in all the ridings in Eastern Quebec, that the unemployment insurance reform, as introduced, was not acceptable.

If the government has the right to reinstate Bill C-111 without any changes, arguing that it is for the sake of continuity, why did it prorogue? Why did we decide to put an end to current business? Was it to let the Governor General have a good party where those who so desired could go? Was it only for the sake of decorum? It is rather puzzling.

Moreover, it is the wrong message to send to the people, because it seems to indicate that we did not listen to them. In my own riding I had meetings with groups of employees and citizens, sometime 50, 75 or 150, on the question of unemployment insurance. Whether in Saint-Pascal, Pohénégamook, La Pocatière, Saint-André de Kamouraska, Rivière-du-Loup or elsewhere, people told us: "The government has to go back to the drawing board". The motion that the government tabled would allow it to ignore this message from the people, and this is unacceptable.

I could give you another example: Bill C-96, which establishes the Department of Human Resources. It has given rise to a major dispute between Quebec and Canada. This bill would allow the Government of Canada to interfere in all the areas concerning manpower training. It flies in the face of the whole debate on decentralization of manpower training.

Why does the government insist on saying that it wants to bring back a bill like this one, with a simple majority, and that the minister, anytime he sees fit in his political strategy, could bring this bill back? I think that this is contrary to parliamentary rules, to the very nature of the speech from the throne, and to the obligation the government has to introduce new policy thrusts.

If the government can come back with bills of a similar nature, it should have the courage to start the debate all over again and to steer the legislation through all the stages.

All the more so because, in the case of the unemployment insurance bill, in December, the government avoided the debate on second reading and referred the bill to the committee immediately, under the pretence that there was an urgent need. The government's strategy is very clear: it wants to try to bring back the bill in committee without a debate on second reading, because I am sure that several Liberal members from the Maritimes would have a lot to say about this bill if it were reinstated in second reading as it stood last fall.

In fact, the government is trying to avoid taking into account what its own members want, which is something I find unacceptable.

It is often said that the opposition opposes measures for the sake of it, because of the nature of its responsibilities. I would like to mention two bills that the opposition could have agreed to reinstate. They are Bill C-66 on grain transportation and Bill C-78 on witness protection, that were dealt with in the last session.

Why was there no consultation between the government and the opposition parties, as is traditional in Parliament, to find a common ground on bills that could be reinstated? For instance, we certainly would have been in favour of reinstating the bill to prevent excision, which was introduced by the hon. member for Quebec. We are certainly in favour of that and I think we could find that there is unanimous consent in the House on that subject.

There are the two bills that I just mentioned, Bill C-66 on grain transportation and Bill C-78 on witness protection. We could have done the same thing with these two bills and, at the same time, the government could have brought in the bills that had been received favourably in the House. It was very clear from the outset that there was no way we would accept to reinstate a bill such as the one on unemployment insurance reform, but perhaps some agreements could have been reached.

I am thinking, in particular, of Bill C-68 on the reform of electoral boundaries, about which the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine and Bloc Quebecois members from eastern Quebec ridings were in agreement and made representations at all stages to be able to protect the five existing ridings in eastern Quebec. That is a bill that perhaps we would have been able to agree on, with the consent of the Senate, so that it could be brought back here and we could deal with it without ending up where we are now.

Unfortunately, there was no such consultation. The government prefers to hide behind the fact that it would have the advantage of bringing the bill back at any time, at the minister's request. I think the government has made a very bad choice.

Now, let us turn to the amendment the Bloc Quebecois has moved. This amendment would let members respect the privilege of every other member in this House by giving notice of their refusal to allow a bill to be reinstated when the minister asks for leave to introduce his bill. In this way we would be sure that there would be a minimum of respect for members' responsibilities. It would be a mark of a very great respect for democracy and it would conform to the true meaning of prorogation of a session.

The new throne speech having set out a different vision on most things, it is imperative that members ascertain that the new legislation reflects this throne speech and that this throne speech is not only old formulas under a new guise, which very clearly seems to be the case, given the government motion.

The government should have more courage and say to us: "Yes, among bills we have brought forward in the past, there are four or five that we absolutely want to have passed, so we will bring back them to this House". We could even debate the motions. It would be more democratic than the present approach, whereby the government to reinstate by the back door bills that had not been received favourably by the House.

Once more I come back to the unemployment insurance bill. You know, we listened to what Canadians and Quebecers said last fall, during the holiday season and in January, and we could take the opportunity offered by the fact that we have a new Minister of Human Resources Development to take note of certain things, to notice that the government measure has one very important element missing, that is an active policy on employment. The previous bill singled out seasonal workers, and prevented young Canadians from being eligible for unemployment insurance in order to save about $2 billion per year in an unemployment insurance program funded entirely by employees and employers. That was what Bill C-111 did.

If the government gets its way and manages to bring back this bill directly at committee stage, without any debate in the House, it will be an admission that it has no intention of correcting it. The government will be admitting that it did not listen to what Canadians had to say, and that it is still going to try to push all its cuts through and to continue in the same direction that was condemned everywhere across the country and even more so in the Maritimes.

Let me give you another example, Bill C-96. In this case, the government is really saying: "Business as usual".

While the federal government is trying for instance to negotiate an agreement on manpower training with the Quebec government, although Bill C-96 was denounced in the past as not respecting areas of jurisdiction, the Minister of Human Resources Development, in his negotiations with Quebec, would certainly have a much stronger negotiation tool if he would say: "Yes, we realize that our Bill C-96 did not really respect current areas of jurisdiction and what we want for the future in Canada: that the federal government be responsible for some things and that it be made clear; that provincial governments be responsible for other things and that be made clear, and that in the future we not have spheres of activity where the two governments get involved and try to have the biggest poster or the biggest Canada flag on advertisements".

When we see statements like the ones made by the Minister of Human Resources Development, who says that every time the Government of Canada will be spending money, we must ensure that there will be a federal government identification to make sure people will know where the money is coming from, it is very clear that there is no logic between Bill C-96, the new image that the federal government wants to project of its willingness to negotiate in good faith with the governments, and these statements saying that the federal government will make sure that its investment is visible everywhere.

There is a major contradiction there and, instead of trying to sneak bills by us, the government should have the courage to make a list, to table it and to tell us: "These bills will come back because we think they are essential and the House will decide if the proposition is relevant".

The present debate is also a major precedent in the evolution of the parliamentary process. In that regard, I think we would better go back to the basic principle of British parliamentary government.

Earlier, my hon. colleague quoted excepts from Beauchesne that clearly show how important the basis for proroguing sessions is, because this has always been a rather basic decision for a government to make. This means that the government's intention when proroguing a session to start a new one is to change its agenda, change its outlook on things, introduce new bills. This sends a message to the public about the government's new approach, as well as that of the opposition, and serve as a basis to assess the relevance of its actions.

Now, this clarity would be lost. By allowing any bill from the previous session to be brought back at any time, we are not giving the people the chance to pass judgement on the government's actions. I think this will have a major impact in the years to come, on future Parliaments and on the kind of relationship the people will have with their representatives.

It is complicating matters, providing information that is not as clear as the information provided in the past. This certainly is not the way to go to ensure the well-being of Quebecers and Canadians.

To conclude my presentation on this subject, I would like to say that the government seems to want to enjoy all the benefits of prorogation without the drawbacks. They have changed the wrapping. They have packaged differently what they are trying to sell, but the product itself has not changed. The same old toys have been tossed into the box; only the wrapping has changed. And the person opening this box is expected to shout: "Oh, this is great, all new, really different".

But that is not the message being conveyed, not at all. The message people are receiving is that old bills, bills that came under much criticism, that did not go through quickly in the House, that never made it past consideration in committee because of some snag, will be given a second life totally artificially.

Under the motion, as moved, any outstanding bill could be brought back before this House. This seems unacceptable to me, and definitely not in keeping with what is expected from a Parliament like the one in which we are sitting.

The government must review its actions in several respects. It must make proposals that are in line with the throne speech. It must tell us what "social union" means and what the impact of its new policies will be. Above all, its bills must be consistent with that because, according to what we have heard so far, the Canada social transfer will be a general fund that the provinces will be free to manage at they see fit.

The throne speech shows a different approach. It refers to a guaranteed minimum level of financing for each province. These elements directly contradict legislation such as Bill C-96. We would then be debating old bills in accordance with the government's new approach. The first thing we as opposition must say is that we should no longer be debating these bills since they are not in line with the government's proposed policy.

We feel this is unacceptable and hope that the government will agree to our proposed amendment, which would allow a minister to bring back any bill, but members of the House would have an opportunity to explain why they object to it. This would make Parliament more effective, which is something that people everywhere are asking us. I hope Parliament will follow our suggestion.

[Speech From The Throne, February 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's comment brought to mind one thing we could change in the present system, since we can propose changes.

When I went to the Senate to listen to the throne speech, I realized something that we could call absurd nowadays. Why is the throne speech delivered in the other place, where members are not elected and where elected members are not even allowed in?

It is all very technical and symbolic, but at the same time, the following change could really improve things. Why would the next throne speech not be given in the House of Commons, right here, where we would invite senators to join us if the Senate is not abolished by then? Would that not be more respectful of democracy?

Senators are real good people, they have been chosen for multiple reasons, often for their political opinions, but in the end, when the image of the people listening to the throne speech is broadcasted on TV, everybody can see the many empty benches. As for the decorum of the Supreme Court justices, I wonder if that is in line with the democracy we all have to respect. I think we could propose some changes concerning decorum and protocol. Next time, if there is a throne speech here and if I am present at the time, I hope we can hear it in the House and we can invite the senators. I think that would be a way of supporting democracy.

Personally, I also believe there are substantial savings to be made as regards the non-elected House but we could discuss that more thoroughly at the time of the next budget speech.

My colleague's other remark deals with the references in the throne speech to young people, farmers and senior citizens. Regarding young people, there is a reference to employment within the federal administration. Yesterday, the Minister of Human Resources Development said that the text was not properly worded and that we should read jobs within the whole of Canada. We are going to wait and see what the reality will be, because the throne speech talks about jobs only where it deals with the public service. In areas where employment centres were closed, or in an area like

my riding where the experimental farm of La Pocatière was closed, there are no departments where students could work.

Therefore, it is not necessarily a measure which will do a great deal in areas where the need for jobs is the greatest; on the contrary, it will widen the gap between an area like the national capital and other regions of the country. This does not make much sense.

Turning to farmers, there is not much for them in the speech. There is the paragraph I was referring to earlier which deals with rural Canada, but specific measures which will help the farmers of Quebec and Canada face the future, face the new international agreements, will have to be assessed when they come out, because there is nothing concrete in the speech.

The sentence of the throne speech which is the most worrisome deals with senior citizens and talks about measures to sustain Canada's elderly benefit system for the future. The sustainability aspect does not mean that we will preserve the quality of life of our senior citizens. It does not mean that we will maintain what we have developed over the past 20 years. It means there will be cuts, that there will be less security for older people, and I invite them to be extremely vigilant and make every possible representation to make sure that these measures will not have a negative impact on their quality of life. There is no doubt that opposition will have a role to play in this regard.

[Speech From The Throne, February 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting question, because the Speech from the Throne is full of contradictions. For instance, there is one sentence I would like to quote that is along the same lines and bears out what the hon. member for Longueuil just said. It says:

On October 30, the people of Quebec voted in a referendum to stay in Canada.

If the government says in the Speech from the Throne that we voted to stay in Canada on October 30, on the basis of the close results we had, to me this means that if the outcome had been reversed, the government should have said: "The people of Quebec voted in a referendum to create the nation of Quebec" and then acted accordingly as the Government of Canada.

That would have made sense, but it is very difficult to make sense of the current statements and positions of the Prime Minister and his Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. It is the old double standard. We win if it is 50 per cent, but for you to win, it has to be 60 per cent. This is a complete denial of a democratic system that has been the pride of Quebec and Canada.

It is pretty hard to make sense of all this. I think the Government of Canada should confirm that the next time Quebecers vote on the national question, the results will be recorded and will be binding as they were in 1980 and in 1995, with this difference that Quebecers will decided to create the nation of Quebec.

I think there is an increasing body of evidence that the only way we can resolve this question in Canada is to ensure that Quebecers will be in a position to establish, from nation to nation, as equals, a relationship and a partnership that is mutually advantageous for Quebecers and Canadians. This will be possible once Quebecers have voted again.

Meanwhile, the Government of Canada should remove the implication in the Throne Speech that it will keep Quebecers in a straightjacket by calling a pan-Canadian referendum.

We must know what the government's intentions are as soon as possible, so that it will be clear to Quebecers and Canadians that the government will abide by the choice made by Quebecers.

[Speech From The Throne, February 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to resume the debate after question period.

When the first part of my speech was interrupted, I was talking about what is most important according to my constituents, namely what the government is going to do in the coming months.

I was referring to something that is very important to both Quebecers and Canadians, in that people must feel respected as citizens of a country, whether it is Quebec or Canada. And that is something that Quebecers obviously do not find in the throne speech. When told that the decision on their future may well be made by all Canadians, they are obviously very unhappy about this; they do not identify with that part of the throne speech.

The speech contains another, more concrete part that is more difficult to address, but I think it is essential to do so. My fellow citizens everywhere have criticized the Prime Minister for his behaviour in assaulting Bill Clennett. I think it is not too late for the Prime Minister to apologize to Mr. Clennett, because his action had a very negative impact on all young Canadians. I am talking about the children who talked about that incident and asked their parents whether such actions were acceptable. I think it is unacceptable. We are replying to the throne speech, but at the same time there is something in this that I find unacceptable.

Another demand made by an increasing number of people across Canada is to simplify the system in which we live, so that we can properly assess government effectiveness.

We should have more clearly defined jurisdictions, and a simpler fiscal system, to make it easy to see whether or not everyone is doing his share. In order to move beyond phrases like "make the rich pay", we need to be able to determine if indeed we are all pulling our weight in this society of ours. Are the tools available to all taxpayers to claim, for instance, every tax deduction they are entitled to? Do companies, the wealthy, and ordinary people have an equal chance of using the tax legislation to their best advantage? Do they have access to all deductions? As matters stand, the answer is no. It is pretty obvious that only the wealthy and big companies can afford to hire tax experts to find every last loophole in the tax legislation, not the common man. Nothing in the speech from the throne indicates that the government is prepared to head that way. I think this is a change the government should consider.

I shall call this eliminating the expert bonus. That is when a company can afford to hire a tax expert to find the tiniest loophole in the Income Tax Act, enabling this company or an individual with a large income to get a better deal than someone else, who does not have as good an income. It is somehow similar to the systematic hunting down of UI abusers. Of course we must make sure that everyone obeys the law, but we must make sure that governments have the same kind of requirements for big companies, those that were once referred to as corporate welfare bums. There is a need to guarantee a degree of fairness in this regard, and there is no indication of anything of the sort in the speech from the throne.

Another paragraph of this speech caught my eye because I watch so closely over the interests of my riding, which is located in a rural area. It reads: "The government is committed to the economic renewal of rural Canada." It is very well to mention rural Canada in the speech from the throne. I think it is a good idea to call the attention of the House to this issue, but at the same time, several of the government's initiatives adversely affect rural Canada. How can the government advocate at the same time the development of rural Canada and the pursuit of its current UI reform, which will systematically penalize rural areas across Canada, fostering the off-farm migration of the young people when the rural communities need them to take over in time. There is an inconsistency in all this that is unacceptable.

We will also be able to judge the government on how it will review the mandate of Canada Post. A committee has been set up by the minister to hold hearings in six Canadian cities. In the next year, we will be able to see whether the government truly takes into account the needs of rural areas and whether it ensures that the CPC not only delivers the mail but also contributes to the economic development of every region in Quebec and in Canada. These will be good tests that will show whether the government really cares about rural development.

How can rural development be reconciled with the current exercise, which consists in closing Canada employment centres right across the country and centralizing operations in every region? The government is recreating small centralized units in very large regions. This means that many Canadians who previously enjoyed more accessible services will no longer do so. It also means that there will be fewer opportunities for workers to adjust and to get adequate counselling. In my opinion, these measures are unacceptable and they also contradict the will expressed in the speech from the throne. There is no connection; the government fails to reach its objectives.

I want to mention another point in the speech from the throne. I was very surprised when I read it. I find it interesting to see a reference to aboriginal people, they are recognized; however, nowhere is there any mention of the Quebec people. The government wants to ignore the wish expressed by many Quebecers, close to 50 per cent of them, at the last referendum. If Quebecers were asked whether they form a people, a vast majority of them would say yes.

Had the government wanted to send a clear signal that it got the message, it would have done so in the speech from the throne. It would have clearly indicated that it recognizes Quebecers as a people. But there is no such mention in the speech. Obviously, this government-perhaps because it does not know what really goes

on in Quebec-did not manage to get the message sent by millions of people. It could have said things differently in its speech from the throne.

To conclude, I would like to say that the touchstone of a good throne speech is the feeling of confidence in the future it inspires in citizens. Do they think the government has put forward adequate measures to settle current problems?

Employment is the great issue on everybody's mind. Everybody seems to think that, over the last 10 to 15 years, we have set up a system in which very productive people can manage. But at the same time we have deliberately chosen to toss aside people who may be overtaken by new technological requirements and those who have experienced in their life an unfortunate event that prevents them from re-entering the labour market. This is a shameful waste of human resources.

If there is one clear message which the throne speech ought to have got across to give a flicker of hope, it is the message that workers will get a real chance to find a job. The throne speech should have given them that hope. Yet, not a word is to be found in the throne speech about people who are 40, 45 or 50 years old, about workers who have been displaced by technological change, about people who have been working for 5, 10, 15 or 20 years for the same company and find themselves unexpectedly unemployed overnight.

What is the government going to do for them? There is not a single word about the help they might be given. There is no hope for the future to be found in the throne speech, and it does not meet at all the needs of Quebecers and of Canadians. It needs to be amended in the way suggested by the Leader of the Opposition. I hope this House will consider the amendment moved by the Bloc.

How can a government be so short on creativity after only two years in power? Is it because the men and women who are part of the government lack the necessary skills? I do not think that is the case. There are men and women on both sides of the House who have all the necessary qualifications to do the job. There is a more fundamental reason. It is because Canada is an ungovernable country. As long as it does not decide on a fundamental structural change, as long as it does not accept to set up a new relationship between its components, it will go on trying to tinker with old plumbing instead of dealing with structural problems.

On this side, we have taken due note of the message for Quebecers and Canadians contained in the referendum results. We have been told: "We are not ready yet". We accept the result and that it would take 50 per cent plus 1 to have a majority, which result has not been reached. We have acknowledged the result. On the other hand, there is a very clear message sent to Canada and Quebec: a significant change is needed. This change lies in the recognition that there are two peoples in Canada and that we in Quebec must have all the powers we need to be able to develop and in order to have a partnership between the two countries, not an tangled mess like the one that is proposed in the speech from the throne.

If we were to implement what is proposed in the speech from the throne in constitutional matters, we would find ourselves in an even more complicated situation. Ten years from now, it would be worse than it is now. We should have gotten out of the rut. That is what the government has not managed to do and what it would have the opportunity to do if it decided to change its position in order that Quebecers and Canadians can finally see a reflection of themselves in the government now representing them.