1350

In 1993, for the first time, three graduates of the University of Waterloo were elected as members of Parliament. I am proud to have been one of those three. Other alumnus was Dr. John English, the former member of Parliament for Kitchener who has now returned to the University of Waterloo but while he was here in Ottawa made a tremendous contribution in initiating the post-secondary education caucus of the Liberal caucus, along with the member for Peterborough and myself. Also involved was the member for Port Moody—Coquitlan, Sharon Hayes, who resigned her position as a member of the House yesterday.

As I reflect on both my colleague John English and Sharon Hayes, I can say that there is very much a sense of family values in the Chamber. In the case of the former member for Kitchener, his wife is experiencing some medical challenges, as is the case with the husband of Ms. Hayes.

The post-secondary caucus helped to ensure the future of post-secondary institutions and the hundreds of thousands of students were given high priority.

The innovation foundation announced in the last Parliament, this throne speech and the prime minister's announcement of scholarships as a millennium project illustrates dramatically that as Canadians we have embraced our knowledge based future.

I challenge all Canadians and Canadian businesses as well as Bill Gates of Microsoft to join the prime minister in making sure that the millennium scholarship endowment fund becomes a national crusade. As a nation we must pledge to our young people that post-secondary education is a right of every Canadian. This right is based on merit rather than financial circumstances.

My time is short and I am unable to elaborate on all the points of the throne speech. However, I embrace the balanced approach of the government's program and I thank the Canadian people for having supported through many sacrifices our efforts to regain the economic sovereignty of our country. As a result, Canadians can be the masters of their own destiny. Together we can continue on the path of nation building with tolerance, compassion and generosity as pillars of our Canada.

Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want to applaud the hon. member's comments. I certainly respect his Hungarian heritage. I have had the pleasure of working alongside many people from Hungary. I can usually keep up with them for the first hour and then I have to resign myself that I cannot quite keep up.

I was interested to hear that when he spoke to a group in Hungary he had the conviction to say that Canada was his home, but his place of birth was Hungary.

Does the hon. member endorse the money spent by his government to fund multicultural activities that celebrate the place of birth somewhat more than the accomplishments of Canadians?

I also ask the hon. member would he support the option of marking Canadian citizen on our census forms? This is the kind of initiative that I think is consistent with his comments and which serves to strengthen our nation and celebrate our Canadian citizenship.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Before coming to this place I was the president of the Kitchener-Waterloo multicultural group. With limited financial resources we assisted the settlement of new Canadians, making sure they had a chance to acquire the language, the customs and gave assistance with job searches.

1355

Canadians come from many different parts of the world. It is important to understand that those roots exist and also to utilize them. Canada is a trading nation. One of the reasons why we are successful is because it does not matter which part of the world we are going to trade with, we are going to have Canadians coming from those backgrounds who can open doors that would not be possible otherwise.

By nature, Canadians are very much an inclusive society. The member talked about not reinforcing those heritages. I can only say that is what Canada is.

Also, during the last Parliament when we were facing the issue of the referendum, Canadians, in particular those who were not born in this country, which is one out of six Canadians, were very strong within the province of Quebec on the whole issue of the referendum to make sure that we maintain Canada. They took great offence at Lucien Bouchard's comments saying that the rest of Canada is not a nation, not a people.

In my case, as I mentioned, my wife is of Irish-Scottish background and my daughter is 11 years old. Surely to goodness she is part of a people and that people is Canada.

The Speaker: This just about brings to a close the question and comment period. I see it is almost 2 p.m. We will pass to the statements by members, but I want to recognize that the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore will have the floor when we return to the debate.

---

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS

[English]

ASIA CONNECTS YOUTH CONFERENCE

Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, later today I will have the honour to attend the Asia Connects Youth Conference being held in Winnipeg this week to mark Canada's Year of Asia-Pacific.

This national multimedia conference has attracted 200 delegates in addition to hundreds more participants at 11 provincial and territorial sites via the Internet.

Delegates will gain invaluable opportunities to learn more about Asia-Pacific, the world's fastest growing region, and meet visiting youth from the Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam as well Asian youth studying in Canada. Like the government's youth international internship program, this conference will help youth gain the skills and contacts they need to enter the global marketplace.

Indeed, the Asia Connects Youth Conference is one more measure of the government's commitment to our youth. I salute the government.

*  *  *

CANADA PENSION PLAN

Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Michael Campbell, host of the Saturday morning radio show Money Talks recently presented his listeners with a startling example of the effect of compound interest.

Invest $3,400 per year for 35 years in an RRSP at 10 percent and receive almost $1.2 million on retirement, enough to fund an annuity of $98,000 a year. But workers who pay $3,400 per year for 35 years into the Liberal CPP plan will receive $88,000 less per year, a paltry $9,000 per year.

If there are members in the House who still think they can justify a CPP pension of $9,000 per year after 35 years of payments, they had better give their heads a shake. We should be acting now to turn the CPP into something worth having instead of leaving it as a massive tax grab which promises only poverty after 35 years of payments.

*  *  *

YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the government will further strengthen and improve the Young Offenders Act.

Several incidents of vandalism and theft in one night in the small rural town of Melbourne in my riding have given law-abiding citizens cause for concern. In frustration and fear my constituents are pressing politicians for change and I hear them.

1400

The crimes show a need for greater responsibility on the parts of both parents and young people. Judgments must be severe enough to deter youth from following a life of crime while making personal responsibility a priority.

To my constituents in Melbourne and Mount Brydges and all other areas who are dealing with the reality of crime at home and in their businesses, I pledge to work on their behalf for an improved and strengthened Young Offenders Act.

*  *  *

[Translation]

LEADER OF THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Montreal daily The Gazette reported yesterday that the Conservative leader had decided that his colleagues would exercise a free vote on the amendment to section 93 of the Constitution Act requested by the Quebec government, since a moral issue is involved.

Why does the hon. member for Sherbrooke not recognize the legitimacy of Quebec's approach and the general consensus over this issue in the province? Why is he ignoring the National Assembly's unanimous vote? Why is he not asking his party to support Quebec?

The reason is the Conservative leader failed to convince his 15 colleagues from outside Quebec. This failure clearly shows that the will of Quebeckers means nothing to the Conservatives, that their leader would rather speak for the rest of Canada than for his constituents and the Quebec people.

*  *  *

[English]

THE ENVIRONMENT

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I commend the government for its promise to invest in a national children's agenda. One of the most crucial investments we can make for our children is through the protection of the natural environment. We have altered biosystems, changed the chemistry of the planet, its topography and geological structures. We have altered hydrological cycles and changed the earth's climate. We are threatening the major life systems of this planet.

[Translation]

When we stop respecting the environment—

[English]

—we demonstrate a profound disrespect for our children.

*  *  *

KINSMEN CLUB OF ERIN MILLS

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in the House today to bring to your attention that the Kinsmen Club of Erin Mills, a community that forms an integral part of my riding, will be celebrating its 20th anniversary this weekend on October 4.

A visionary group of young men started the local Kinsmen Club 20 years ago. Since then they have made a positive contribution to the quality of life in Erin Mills and throughout Mississauga. In its 20-year history the club has organized many local events and raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to benefit non-profit community organizations. Some of the beneficiaries include the Erinoak Treatment Centre for Children, the Credit Valley Hospital, the local Boy Scout troop and the Heart and Stroke Foundation, among many others.

Thousands of our residents have benefited directly from the activities of the Kinsmen. On behalf of the House I would like to congratulate the Erin Mills Kinsmen Club on 20 years of hard work and dedicated service to our community.

*  *  *

MULTICULTURALISM

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Namaste, Sasri-Kal, Ram-Ram, Ya Ali Madat and Jambo.

These greetings emphasize that Canada is a multicultural society. Our multicultural policy was intended to build bridges but it has been manipulated in the past and therefore faces growing criticism today.

Canadians are looking to strengthen their roots in this country. They want to be Canadian first, especially when the very existence of our country is in question. Often people ask “am I a Canadian or am I a hyphenated Canadian?” I can attest to the fact that today culture and multiculturalism are thriving not because of government funding but because people choose to do so on their own.

The multicultural community can play a very important role in the unity of our country. I urge the government to make positive changes to this policy. Let us ensure there is no discrimination, no barriers to their advancement and that they enjoy full freedom as defined in the charter.

*  *  *

[Translation]

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate Justice Michel Bastarache on his appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Justice Bastarache is not only an eminent jurist but also a champion of francophones' rights across Canada. His contribution to the advancement of the Francophonie was acknowledged even by the government of Quebec which, in 1991, inducted him into the Ordre des francophones d'Amérique.

I deplore that the Bloc Quebecois chose to use Justice Bastarache's appointment as an excuse to launch into another unwarranted attack against Canadian federalists.

1405

It is very inappropriate for the separatists from the Bloc Quebecois and the PQ to question the integrity and legitimacy of an institution like the Supreme Court of Canada, because they never hesitate to reward their separatist friends, including some who are not even competent to sit.

*  *  *

BILINGUALISM

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce accused Lucien Bouchard of being against bilingualism.

In fact, Quebec could be a role model for second language teaching. Second language classes are compulsory from the fourth grade to the end of college. It is in Quebec that second language teaching is the most rigorous. It is therefore not surprising that Quebec is the most bilingual province in Canada, with 35 percent of the population speaking both English and French.

However, the Bloc Quebecois denounces the fact that, in Canada, the onus of bilingualism is on the francophones. Forty percent of francophones in Quebec and Canada are bilingual, compared to only 8 percent for anglophones.

In English Canada, bilingualism is too often the last step to assimilation for francophones, which is just what the English provinces want. Denying this fact amounts to refusing to fight against it.

*  *  *

[English]

COMMUNITY ACCESS

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, earlier this week I was honoured to announce, on behalf of the Ministry of Industry, 10 new public access sites to the information highway in my riding of Leeds—Grenville.

The access sites will be located in Cardinal, Spencerville, Prescott, Maitland, Algonquin, Kemptville, Oxford-on-Rideau, South Gower, Oxford Mills and Burritts Rapids. This is a tremendous undertaking and will go a long way to hooking these communities to the information highway. The federal government was instrumental in this initiative by implementing the community access program.

I am proud to say that Leeds—Grenville is now one of the most populated ridings of CAP sites in the country.

The success of our government's efforts with this project is very dependent on partnerships which involve industry, educators, governments, individuals and communities. This announcement is certainly a tribute to the community leaders who have pursued a shared vision of Grenville County's future in the knowledge economy.

*  *  *

CANADA PENSION PLAN

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last week in this House the Minister of Finance castigated the former Conservative government for attempting to save the Canada pension plan on the backs of those who are unable to pay, our senior citizens. “We would never do that” stated the minister.

It seems as though the minister and the prime minister are quite content to put the burden of trying to fix decades of mismanagement on the backs of another group unable to pay, young workers.

Young workers are starting their families and careers, undertaking the major financial commitments of their lives while trying to make ends meet. For many Canadians this will be the straw which breaks their financial back.

The 73 percent increase over the next six years is simply another example of an oppressive tax by the Liberals. Not only will individuals pay up to $700 more per year through this tax, but employers will do the same. This is a sure fire way to discourage the youth of today, stifle job creation and stifle economic growth.

My colleagues and I stand opposed to such a meanspirited attack on young people and on all Canadians who contribute to this fund.

*  *  *

[Translation]

QUEBEC PREMIER

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Lucien Bouchard's economic mission is drawing to a close. Is it an economic mission or a partitionist mission? Did he talk about Quebeckers' concerns? Did he talk about job creation and economic recovery?

If he did, he only paid lip service to it. The truth is that this was no economic mission. Its objective is clearly to promote Canada's partition.

Does he hear Quebeckers when they tell him that their priority is the economy?

No. Mr. Bouchard, how will you justify to Quebeckers the high cost of your trip to France if you do not talk about their priorities? Mr. Bouchard, as you prepare to discuss partition among the splendor of the palaces at Matignon and the Élysée, all Quebeckers demand that you talk about job creation and economic recovery.

It is high time that you put your own interests aside to talk about those of all Quebeckers.

*  *  *

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House the importance to my riding of a mining project that will create 210 much needed jobs in northern New Brunswick.

1410

This summer, the Breakwater Resources project, evaluated at $54.4 million, made it possible to resume operations at the Caribou mine. New processes enable Breakwater to predict that it will be able to extract more zinc, lead and silver ore from the mine than it produced prior to its closure in 1990.

This mine will, therefore, be a source of ongoing employment for my constituents of Acadie—Bathurst for the next eight years.

[English]

The Caribou project clearly highlights the new face of Canadian mining, a high technology industry—

The Speaker: The hon. member for Thunder Bay—Atikokan.

*  *  *

BOMBARDIER

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Bombardier Inc. of Canada, an exporter of quality Canadian technology throughout the world, employs thousands of Canadians.

The Bombardier plant in my riding of Thunder Bay—Atikokan was recently awarded an $81 million contract for 50 commuter cars for New York.

Currently our plant employs 790 employees working on two contracts. One is for 25 bi-level cars for southern California while the other is for 208 subway cars for the Toronto Transit Commission. The plant has even produced rail cars for places as far away as Ankara, Turkey.

Canadians should be proud of Bombardier and of our country's exporting prowess, something this government and all Canadians should continue to support.

*  *  *

MEMBER FOR SAINT JOHN

Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer a tribute to the member for Saint John.

Recently the international leader of the Salvation Army, General Paul A. Rader, conferred on the member for Saint John the Order of Distinguished Auxiliary Service. This is the highest recognition the Salvation Army awards to a non-Salvationist.

The member's contribution to local and national public service is well known, in particular her years as a very progressive mayor of Saint John. The Salvation Army was pleased to recognize her dedicated and practical service to mankind by awarding her this distinction.

The member for Saint John is only the 57th Canadian to be inducted into the Order of Distinguished Auxiliary Service and the first person in Saint John. The award is well deserved and we are very proud of her.

Members of the Salvation Army are here with us today in the gallery and I wish to welcome them to this Chamber.

---

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[English]

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it has been a full week since Canadian passports were found on two men believed to be Israeli counterterrorist agents operating in Jordan.

We agree that the world must be vigilant against terrorism but Canadians want some answers on this affair and they want them now. We do not even know who these men are.

My question for the government is are these two men Canadians? Are the passports they were holding valid, forged or stolen?

Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it can be confirmed that the two passports are forgeries. There are about six million Canadian passports out at any given time.

The identity of the two individuals has not been determined definitively. We categorically reject any notion that there was collusion between the government of Canada and any other government.

Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has an obligation to protect the good reputation of Canadians overseas. The maple leaf flag is trusted and our passport is internationally respected.

Our concern is that any use of the Canadian passport to cloak foreign operatives damages the reputation of Canadians abroad and endangers their safety.

1415

Just to be absolutely clear, did the Canadian government know anything at all about the mission in Jordan in which Canadian passports were used? Were any Canadian agencies involved in any way, shape or form in that mission?

Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government shares the concern of the hon. Leader of the Opposition about the reputation of Canada and Canadian difficulties.

We know nothing about any involvement by any Canadian in the matter. We can confirm that the Canadian ambassador to Israel is being brought back to Canada for consultation.

The matter is being treated very seriously. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has met with the crown prince of Jordan today in New York and he will meet with Israeli officials.

As the hon. Leader of the Opposition knows, it is a Jewish holiday and it is very difficult to find people today.

Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House the Prime Minister said it would be unacceptable for foreign operatives to use the Canadian passport. Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs even threatened diplomatic retaliation.

All of these are fine words, but where are the actions to prevent the illegal use of Canadian passports no matter how or by whom they are used?

Since the government has done little in the past to quell the illegal use of Canadian passports, what concrete steps will it take to ensure that Canadian passports will not be used illegally in this manner in the future?

Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition will know that the Canadian passports require less visas than perhaps any other passport in the world. It is a very desirable passport for people to have. They may have been forged. They may have been stolen. As I say, there are six million of them out there.

The hon. member knows that the government is taking this matter very seriously.

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have travelled extensively and I know the value of the integrity of the Canadian passport.

We are told that there are boxes of these passports being used by other countries. I have just been contacted by a frightened Canadian in Jordan who says that all Canadians are in danger of repercussion. He was told by the Canadian embassy in Jordan to stay indoors for his own safety.

What is the Canadian government doing to protect Canadians travelling abroad?

Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's point is a very good one. It is a concern to Canadians when anything like this happens.

The member knows that it had nothing to do with the Government of Canada. They could have been stolen. They could have been forged.

We are doing our best and the matter is being taken very seriously.

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the very competence of our foreign affairs department is being called into question.

A week after a major incident takes place the government is telling Canadians that it does not really know what is happening. Either that is true or our foreign affairs department is inept.

Which of those two options is true?

Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the ambassador from Israel was called in, I believe this morning, to speak to the Department of Foreign Affairs.

We share the member's concern. It is a situation that everyone regrets enormously.

*  *  *

[Translation]

RCMP INVESTIGATIONS

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Human Resources Development stated that he had warned the RCMP and the Prime Minister's Office last spring of serious allegations concerning a Liberal Party of Canada fund raiser.

I am asking the minister whether he informed the solicitor general at that time.

Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the very day I learned of, or heard of, certain allegations of misappropriation of funds in the matter of which we speak, I immediately informed the RCMP of them, requesting it to investigate, but I did not inform the solicitor general of the day.

1420

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the solicitor general told us that he had not been informed of the RCMP investigation, but we know since yesterday what the Minister of Human Resources Development has repeated today, that he informed the RCMP and the PMO that an investigation relating to a fund raiser was under way.

I am asking the solicitor general for an explanation of how the Prime Minister knew, the RCMP knew, his colleague the Minister of Human Resources Development knew, but he in his capacity as solicitor general did not know what the RCMP was doing, when he is the one responsible for it.

[English]

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very simple. It is not appropriate for the Solicitor General of Canada to be involved in an investigation by the RCMP.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a few months ago, the former solicitor general explained in this House, in relation to the Airbus affair, that the way the system works, the first thing that happens when there is an investigation is that the RCMP informs the solicitor general, who then decides whether it is appropriate to advise the Prime Minister's office.

Since the system provides for the RCMP to inform the solicitor general, how can he stand up and tell us, as he did yesterday, that he was not informed?

[English]

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can say it very clearly because I was not informed.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this is an investigation that implicates the Liberal Party of Canada, implicates ministers and goes right to the heart of the matter of government integrity.

Does the solicitor general still contend that he was not informed by the RCMP because they did not feel it was appropriate to let him know about an investigation into the government's integrity?

[English]

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was not that it was felt unnecessary. It was felt inappropriate.

*  *  *

[Translation]

JOB CREATION

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

During the election campaign, the Prime Minister promised job creation would be a priority. In February, the Minister of Finance said interest rates had to be lower to promote job creation, but yesterday the same minister supported the Bank of Canada's decision to increase interest rates.

How many young people will be forced into unemployment before this government realizes that the real cause of the crisis is not inflation but the lack of jobs?

Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): As you know, Mr. Speaker, job creation has been quite strong in the past five or six months, but it now has to be maintained, which means sustained and sustainable growth.

To this end, yesterday, the Bank of Canada took its foot off the gas every so slightly so it would not have to hit the brakes too hard down the road.

[English]

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, unemployment is 9 percent, where it has been for seven lean years, and inflation is 1.8 percent. Before the election when inflation was 2.2 percent the finance minister said there were no inflationary pressures in Canada. Now the finance minister wants to choke off the bit of hope the unemployed have.

How can the minister justify a policy that condemns 1.4 million Canadians to continuing unemployment?

Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, anybody who follows the economy knows full well that the major problem of large industrial countries has been a perpetuation of the boom and the bust cycle. In order to avoid that, it is very clear the central banks have to act with a certain degree of lag time. That is what has happened.

If one wants to talk about government policies, let us take a look at the private sector. Since this government has taken office it has created over one million jobs. In this year alone there have been 260,000 jobs, the majority of them in the private sector.

*  *  *

RCMP INVESTIGATIONS

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House the solicitor general denied any knowledge of an RCMP criminal investigation into the Liberal Party of Canada fund raising practices, despite the fact that his cabinet colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development, brought the matter to the attention of the RCMP six months prior.

1425

Will the solicitor general now confirm that Pierre Corbeil was a paid employee of the Liberal Party of Canada, contrary to the press release from the Liberal Party yesterday, and the duration of Mr. Corbeil's employment?

The Speaker: On the question as put, I do not know that a minister of the crown would necessarily know a member of a political party is involved one way or another. That is the way the question was formed.

If the question could be rephrased I would permit the solicitor general to answer it. Could the member rephrase the question.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware of an individual under investigation by the RCMP, who is under his purview as solicitor general, by the name of Pierre Corbeil?

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am aware that there is an investigation. Surely the hon. member knows that because there is an investigation it would be inappropriate for me to speak specifically to that investigation.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, that being the fact, it is imperative Canadians have confidence in the integrity of the prime minister and the cabinet. The current RCMP investigation puts that confidence in question.

Has the clerk of the privy council been formally advised of this investigation by the RCMP? If so, what steps have been taken to maintain the integrity of the cabinet's deliberation.

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member no doubts knows, given that there is an ongoing investigation it would be inappropriate for me to identify people being investigated whether they be on this side of the House, whether they be on that side of the House or anywhere in Canada.

*  *  *

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister just said a few minutes ago that these Canadian passports were forged. I would like to know if an official from his department has actually seen these passports to determine whether or not they are forged.

Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, no.

Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if they have not seen the passports, I am wondering how the minister can determine that they are forged, make that assumption and say it in the House.

If they have not actually seen these passports, how in the world does anyone from the government know they are forged?

Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Edmonton knows that other people have seen the passports and that is why I have said we have not seen the passports.

*  *  *

[Translation]

RCMP INVESTIGATIONS

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development told me a few minutes ago, in answer to my question, that he had warned the RCMP of an investigation with respect to a Liberal Party fundraiser last spring.

The newspapers also reported this morning that he had warned the Prime Minister's office last spring.

I would like him to rise in the House and confirm that he did indeed inform the Office of the Prime Minister that an investigation was under way into the allegedly illegal actions of a Liberal Party fundraiser.

Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was my responsibility, as soon as I got wind of these allegations, to inform the RCMP, and not my cabinet colleague, which would have been completely inappropriate. This was to be sure that the RCMP could do its job without political interference.

As I said yesterday, I can confirm in the House that, having made my decision and informed the RCMP, I wrote my March 5 letter to Philip Murray, in which I told him:

[English]

“Allegations have come to my attention that at least five different proposals were approached by individuals”.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question was whether the Minister of Human Resources Development spoke about the matter, not to his colleague the solicitor general, but to the Prime Minister or any other of his colleagues, because yesterday we saw him hold a very rapid caucus with senior ministers from Quebec, as soon as a Conservative Party colleague had begun to ask the question and before the solicitor general had even begun to address it.

We have the impression that other ministers besides the Minister of Human Resources Development were aware of this investigation and we also have the impression that the Prime Minister was warned by the Minister of Human Resources Development that such an investigation was under way. Will he answer the question directly?

1430

Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is rare in fact for the opposition to see a government that has acted with speed and integrity in the hours following the allegations about which I was informed.

I wrote RCMP Commissioner, Phil Murray, and asked him to do his job. Once I had made my decision and taken action in the form of the letter I sent him March 5, I so advised the chief of staff of the Prime Minister of Canada.

*  *  *

[English]

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a question on the passports. The minister just said a couple of minutes ago the words “other people have seen the passports”. Who are the other people?

Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for raising that question. My understanding, and I have just been passed a note to this effect, is that Canadian officials have seen the passports and they have been asked to establish that they are forged.

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister again.

Canadian passports belong to the Canadian government. Do we have those passports in our control now and when are you going to have them back in this country?

The Speaker: The question should be posed always through the Chair. The hon. secretary of state.

Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa), Lib.): Unfortunately, I do not have a specific answer to that question. I will find out and I will report back to the hon. member.

*  *  *

[Translation]

RCMP INVESTIGATIONS

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works.

Was the Minister of Public Works, who is responsible for the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party, informed by his—

The Speaker: The question is out of order.

[English]

It is not the official responsibility in a portfolio for the minister to answer that on a political basis.

[Translation]

That is just the way it is. The hon. member for Roberval may put his question.

Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

Did the minister inform his colleague, the Minister of Public Works, who is responsible for the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party, of this problem within the Liberal Party?

Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I definitely had a duty to do so.

Indeed, after making inquiries and asking the RCMP to do so, I of course told the leader of the Quebec wing, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Public Works, because when such allegations are made, it is extremely important that those who are in a position of authority be informed, so they can act as quickly as I did.

*  *  *

[English]

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we want to get to the bottom of this passport affair.

Let us get this straight. We asked if these passports were forged or stolen or valid and the minister said they were forged. Then we asked had any Canadian officials actually seen the passports to determine that they were forged and he said no, other people had seen the passports. Then he got a note from somewhere and said no, it was not other people and Canadian officials actually were investigating that they were forged.

We want to know what is the correct story. Are these—

The Speaker: The hon. secretary of state, if you would like to answer that question, go ahead.

Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the whereabouts of the passports at this point are not known at least to myself. I am going to find that out and report back to the member.

Canadians have seen them and I understand that it is clear that they are forged but we have been asked to make certain that they are forged.

I appreciate that the member's question is otherwise a good one.

1435

Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if the minister does not know where these passports are, how can he be determining that they are forged?

Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, like the member from the Conservative Party, I was a crown attorney for many years and we were trained to be very precise in our answers.

The whereabouts of the passports at this moment are not known to myself. It is being determined beyond a reasonable doubt to my knowledge that they are forged passports. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out who had the passports. I am sure that members know. When I find out where the passports are I will let the hon. member from B.C. know as quickly as I can.

*  *  *

[Translation]

RCMP INVESTIGATIONS

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have learned out today that, on the issue of the fundraiser, the Minister of Human Resources Development knew, the RCMP knew, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services knew, the Prime Minister knew and the President of the Treasury Board knew.

My question is for the solicitor general. First, does he not find it strange to be about the only cabinet member who did not know? And second, is he absolutely sure he is indeed the solicitor general?

[English]

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am aware that there were other people and the RCMP were aware. But most important, I am aware of the need to preserve the integrity of the position of the solicitor general.

*  *  *

CRIME PREVENTION

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.

The best way to fight crime is to engage communities across Canada in crime prevention at the community level and to attack the root causes of crime. During the last election campaign and in the Speech from the Throne the government talked about crime prevention programs, a most laudable goal. Can the minister assure this House and the people of Canada that this program will be driven by the local communities as it should be and not by bureaucrats from Ottawa?

Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can indeed reassure the hon. member that our new crime prevention initiative is going to be driven by local communities all over this country. As a government we were very proud that one of the major new initiatives of this government as it relates to creating safe communities and safe homes is in the area of crime prevention.

I look forward to working with all members of this House and I look forward to working with local communities all over this country to ensure that we have in place the strategies and policies to help Canadians feel safer in their local communities.

*  *  *

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the government is being completely evasive on this issue and we are wondering why. I think Canadians are wondering why. This has been in the news now for a week. Foreign Affairs has had ample opportunity to investigate.

Either the government simply does not know what is going on, or the government does know what is going on and is reluctant to tell this House. We ask which is it. Is it simply that the government does not know what is going on, or is there something about this that makes the government reluctant to share what it knows with this House?

Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is nothing about this that makes the government reluctant to share with other Canadians what is going on. The government as I said takes the matter very seriously.

1440

The whereabouts at the moment of the passports is not a key issue. The issue is that we are asking our ambassador to come back from Israel to discuss the matter. We have called in the Israeli ambassador here. We are taking the matter very seriously. The physical whereabouts of these two passports at the moment is not a big issue.

Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when will the minister tell the House where these passports are?

Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, about three minutes after I find out, which I will attempt to do right after question period, I will let the opposition know where the passports are.

*  *  *

EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I received a disturbing phone call this week regarding a seasonal worker who worked his hours in a 12-week period, qualified for EI, but because of the new legislation having included a 26-week period for calculation of the claim, this man is asked to live on a $39 a week paycheque.

My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. Does the minister recognize that there are unjust laws in the EI legislation and that it discriminates against seasonal workers and part time workers, taking away their dignity?

[Translation]

Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that the case of seasonal workers is a concern to us and we are closely monitoring the employment insurance reform we undertook. I have said it on a number of occasions in this House.

The unemployment insurance system that was in place until our government showed the courage to change it and to adjust it to the new labour market situation was simply no longer adequate and no longer serving the best interests of Canadians. We had to undertake a major and comprehensive reform to replace passive measures with active ones and help the unemployed find work. But we are closely monitoring the situation.

*  *  *

RCMP INVESTIGATIONS

Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabasca, PC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, after the initial shock, the Minister of Human Resources Development confirmed that he had indeed informed the RCMP of allegations of dubious fundraising practices.

Today, we have learned that in fact the minister spoke to several cabinet colleagues, including ministers from Quebec.

Could the minister tell this House when exactly he informed these other cabinet members, including the ministers from Quebec? When did he do it?

Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure this House and the opposition member that I informed my colleagues only after acting on the allegations which I had heard about that same day.

It is only after writing to Commissioner Murray, on March 5, that later in the evening I informed my colleagues of the decision and action I had taken, so they would be aware that some allegations affecting organizations for which they were also responsible were circulating. Obviously, this was the least I could do. It stands to reason.

Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabasca, PC): Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

The minister just gave us confirmation of the fact that cabinet ministers were aware of the allegations; some of them probably knew the individual being investigated. Could he tell this House if he or other ministers toured businesses with this individual in Quebec, and in the Drummondville—Trois-Rivières area in particular, to raise funds for the Liberal Party of Canada?

The Speaker: The question, as worded, is out of order. I now recognize the hon. member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac.

*  *  *

EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, while the deficit is under control and there is in excess of $7.5 billion sitting in the employment insurance fund, there are still unemployed workers struggling to survive on a meagre $39 a week.

Will the minister commit today to making the necessary changes to the Employment Insurance Act to put an end to the unfair treatment of seasonal and part time workers in the Atlantic region, in Quebec and across Canada?

Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the opposition should commend the government for having had the courage to undertake a difficult but necessary reform to make our employment system responsive to modern market conditions.

1445

We now have a more equitable system, a fairer system that takes people off a certain unfortunate form of dependency to help them get back into the labour market. We are putting very substantial amounts into the transitional job fund and, as several of my colleagues from the Atlantic region know full well, this fund is in the best interests of those who live in Atlantic Canada.

*  *  *

[English]

CALGARY DECLARATION

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

Since the premiers so-called Calgary declaration in mid-September, the minister must have heard from many Canadians with their reactions. Can the minister tell us how Canadians are reacting to the principles in the Calgary declaration?

Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all parties in the House with one exception have never been as united for Canadian unity than they are now with nine of the premiers.

They are united for principles that Canadians support from British Columbia to Newfoundland. An Angus Reid poll yesterday showed strong support for a federation that respects the equality of provinces while recognizing that one of them is obviously unique in an anglophone North America.

*  *  *

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the justice minister implied that the system used to select our federal court justices has worked well for 130 years.

Well, an Angus Reid poll last summer indicated that 52 percent of Canadians had lost faith in the courts and today the Globe and Mail stated “We have a judicial appointment system that is out of control, devoid of accountability and free of public scrutiny.”

Will the justice minister move immediately to establish an independent and open appointment process to restore Canadians' faith in our court system?

Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said on numerous occasions in the House already, I believe that the appointment process for Supreme Court of Canada justices has provided us with some of the most distinguished jurists serving in the highest court of the land.

I have to tell the hon. member that the government does not determine its policies on the basis of Globe and Mail editorials. However, I have made it very clear that I see merit in ensuring that there is a wider consultation process in relation to the appointment of supreme court justices.

Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the justice minister if she would be prepared to share with the House her plans for when she is going to do this, who is going to be involved and the form it is going to take?

Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated before, I am open to considering how we can ensure greater consultation as I go about making recommendations for appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada.

I encourage the hon. member and any other member in the House that if they have suggestions how I may hear from a greater number of Canadians, I would be happy to hear from them.

*  *  *

[Translation]

RCMP INVESTIGATIONS

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when pressed just now, the solicitor general told us that he knew that people in cabinet, people around him, the RCMP, were aware of the serious allegations against a Liberal party organizer.

Will the solicitor general confirm that he indeed stated that he was aware that some of his colleagues knew?

[English]

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I became aware that other people were involved in this today in the House. I was not aware of an investigation. I was not advised of an investigation. The investigation is ongoing independently by the RCMP as it should be.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knew, the Minister of Human Resources Development knew, the Quebec ministers knew, the Prime Minister's lieutenant knew, the organizers knew, the RCMP knew. Everybody knew, just not their boss.

What is the solicitor general's problem? Either he is frighteningly incompetent, or he is trying to mislead this House.

1450

[English]

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I understand very well the need to protect the integrity of the position of the solicitor general. The RCMP is conducting an arm's length investigation, as it should.

*  *  *

VIA RAIL

Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.

On September 3 a VIA Rail train crashed near Biggar, Saskatchewan injuring 64 and killing one. Yesterday in releasing an interim report on the accident, the Transportation Safety Board noted that its recommendations are the same ones it made three years ago following a crash at Brighton, Ontario.

The recommendations do not address the cuts to VIA maintenance in the last three years which have led to the closure of maintenance centres in Halifax and Toronto, the originating point of the train at Biggar.

Will the minister request VIA Rail to cancel any further cuts and layoffs to VIA maintenance until the final report of the investigation is completed?

Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say how grateful we are that the Transportation Safety Board has given a preliminary report on the unfortunate crash at Biggar.

This is an incident that we are all concerned about. We are also concerned that some of the original recommendations for safety were not followed. Immediately the Department of Transport took regulatory action against VIA and VIA is complying.

We will do the best to ensure that all the recommendations made by the board will be adhered to very quickly.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this passes as more than being an incident. It is an absolute tragedy that someone had to die before we saw recommendations from the Transportation Safety Board being put into place.

Why did the government not ensure that the minimum recommendations from that previous accident were enforced?

Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to the contrary, the Department of Transport is very vigorous in applying safety standards. Safety is the number one priority for the government in whatever mode of transport.

It appears that VIA did not undertake to make certain changes throughout its system. It did on some services and we are trying to find out why. We have asked VIA to come back and let us know what other actions it is going to take to comply with the board's request.

*  *  *

VETERANS

Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs.

The government has cut the last post fund for veterans from $26,000 to $12,060. This has made it very difficult for veterans.

Will the minister assure the House that he will have his department review the cuts it made to the last post fund and deal with the difficulties and injustices it has caused to the spouses of those families?

Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the question. I know that she has worked hard, like all of us in the House, in support of veterans.

I have been asked to assure the House that this situation will be reviewed. Veterans affairs are always reviewed to see what can be done for veterans. We recently overhauled the review board and that basically cuts the time in half. We continue to review items of interest.

The hon. member knows that a few years ago we introduced a bill that looked after merchant seamen. We will continue to do this on a regular basis.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, there has been $182 million cut from the Department of Veterans Affairs' budget. This has made it most difficult for the veterans and their families.

Cuts to the last post fund have made it more difficult than some of the other cuts because it costs a lot more today to bury a veteran than it did 10 years ago.

Once again I ask the minister to please take a look at the last post fund to see if there is not some way we can bring back dignity for the veterans.

Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the dignity of veterans will be utmost and top priority for the government.

*  *  *

CUSTOMS

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of National Revenue dismissed allegations made by a 25-year customs official, Dennis Coffey, allegations of fraud, nepotism and abuse rampant in the Department of National Revenue.

1455

Today we have obtained a sworn affidavit from Mr. Coffey which I am prepared to table in the House confirming his allegations and contradicting the minister.

Given that Revenue Canada has not denied Mr. Coffey's allegations, is the minister prepared to investigate this matter and if not, why not?

Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member asked this question yesterday and I responded. I want to repeat that response so that it is clear to him.

I said yesterday that no preferential treatment is given to FedEx. Let me repeat it again. No preferential treatment is given to FedEx.

If the member has any evidence to the contrary other than allegations, he should table them in the House. We have not seen one iota of evidence from this member other than the unsubstantiated allegations that he has put forward.

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I offered just a moment ago to table a sworn affidavit from a 25-year veteran of this minister's department.

That is evidence introduced before a quasi-judicial body of the government. One of the minister's top customs officers has threatened to muzzle and fire this officer of the minister's department for making these allegations.

Is that how the minister treats employees who try to expose fraud, waste and corruption in his department?

Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should be very careful of the words that he uses.

I know this hon. member wants to pretend he is a rat packer, but he is certainly no Brian Tobin.

*  *  *

[Translation]

RCMP INVESTIGATIONS

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general stated earlier with a totally straight face that he had discovered in this House that the Minister of Human Resources Development, other colleagues and the RCMP too all knew about this investigation.

Could he confirm, following all the questions he had in the House yesterday and the statements he made in the papers, that at no time and in no way did he discuss this matter since yesterday either with the RCMP, or—

The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt, but the hon. minister has the floor.

[English]

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can confirm in answering the question from the hon. member that in fact I did not speak to the RCMP about this case.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there are two parts to the question. He answered the part concerning the RCMP.

I ask him again: Did he, in the time between question period yesterday and today, discuss this matter with not some but many of his colleagues, since almost everyone in cabinet knew about it but him?

[English]

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no. As I said yesterday in response to the question, the first I was aware of this was yesterday when the question was put.

*  *  *

INTEREST RATES

Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance who, I guess like everyone else, was surprised yesterday to learn that interest rates are now on the way up again.

We have acknowledged that inflation, at 1.8 percent, is well within the parameters of the Bank of Canada's monetary policy. The minister says he has to take action because the inflation rate is at 1.8 percent.

How high do unemployment levels have to go before the minister also takes action on interest rates?

Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member knows that interest rates are at almost a 30-year low. Our interest rates are substantially lower than those in the United States.

We are not dealing with monetary tightening. The governor of the bank has simply eased off on the accelerator a little in order to maintain the tremendous economic recovery and the very strong job creation we are seeing.

*  *  *

POVERTY

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadian children represent our country's future. Canadians are looking to their governments to help low income families and children and give children a good start so that they can realize their full potential as adults.

Can the Secretary of State for Children and Youth tell us what the federal government is doing to combat child poverty?

Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Children and Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we know that child poverty is a major issue and that it is a priority for all governments.

1500

We are working with our territorial and provincial partners on a major reinvestment plan. We are increasing the national child benefit by $850 million starting in July and an additional $850 million. There are many projects and services that we offer for children, too many to mention, but I know that our hon. colleagues support us in our work on these programs for the children of Canada.

*  *  *

PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY

The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of Dr. Zoltan Gal, my brother Speaker of the National Assembly of Hungary.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

*  *  *

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the government House leader to advise this House as to the nature of the government's business for the remainder of this week and business for next week.

Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we shall continue for the rest of today and tomorrow the conclusion of the address debate.

On Monday we will commence second reading of Bill C-2, the Canada pension plan investment board legislation. This will be followed by Bill C-4 concerning the Canadian Wheat Board. When these items have been disposed of we would propose returning to Bill C-9, the Canada Marine Act which was introduced earlier today.

Members will have noted that there are now a number of bills on the Order Paper. As the week progresses I will be in communication with members opposite in regard to adding additional business. Next Thursday shall be an allotted day.

The Speaker: I have notice of a question of privilege. I will hear that before I hear any points of order.

*  *  *

PRIVILEGE

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. I would like to say to other members of this House that I take points of privilege very seriously and have only decided to pursue this course of action after giving it a great deal of thought.

On Tuesday, September 30 the first draw for Private Members' Business in the 36th Parliament was held. A bill that I wished to have in that draw was not eligible because it has not gone through first reading yet. There were very few changes to be made to this bill as it had been submitted in the last Parliament. However two and a half months after I requested it, the bill has not materialized.

My ability to discharge my parliamentary duties has been severely hampered due to the reduction in House staff responsible for the production of private members' bills. Private Members' Business is a means by which public matters the government is not dealing with can be brought forward by private members of this Chamber.

There are 301 members in this House most of whom may wish to have bills drafted, but there are only two legislative counsel on staff plus one on contract to do all the necessary drafting. The support staff who translate, edit and format the bills are not dedicated only to the production of private members' bills. Other House business can take precedence, including for example amendments to government legislation in committee. It is possible that most of their time could be taken up on other business and Private Members' Business would literally grind to a halt.

On July 9 I notified the House that I wished to reintroduce two bills from the last Parliament with minor or no modifications. Because House staff worked a great deal of overtime while the House was sitting, they were on holidays over the summer. This means no one was available to work on these requests for two months. During that time numerous other members also submitted requests for the drafting of private members' bills creating an enormous backlog. At the time of the draw there were around 170 private members' bills in the system with only 23 of them having reached the stage where they could be introduced in the House to be eligible for the draw. That means that there were almost 150 bills tied up in the backlog.

1505

I wish to stress that I am in no way finding fault with the existing staff. To the contrary, they have done an extremely exemplary job under the circumstances and deserve to be commended in the highest manner possible. However despite their best efforts this happens every year and even more so at the beginning of a new Parliament or a new session. The House knows it is going to happen, yet this dire state of Private Members' Business has not been addressed. The inadequate resources devoted to private members' bills especially at peak periods adversely affects the ability of all members of this House to perform their parliamentary duties.

I would request that the House immediately allocate additional resources so this backlog of Private Members' Business can be cleared up as quickly as possible.

I conclude that this is not a point of privilege only for me. It is for all private members in this House.

The Speaker: This is not a problem which is absolutely new to the House. I would find at this point that this is not a question of privilege. However might I suggest that the hon. member speak with his representative on the Board of Internal Economy because this could probably more properly be discussed there. I would respectfully make that suggestion.

As to whether it is a question of privilege or not, my judgment is that it is not.

Is this on another point of privilege?

Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): On the same point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: I would take it that there is probably new information because this is not a point of privilege. Do you wish to raise a point of privilege?

Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I would like to convince you that it is a point of privilege and support my colleague in that manner.

The Speaker: I think, my colleague, that this could more properly be discussed in the Board of Internal Economy. Might I request that his intervention be put off perhaps to another time. Are you agreed?

Mr. Randy White: Agreed.

The Speaker: I am now going to deal with points of order. The member for Calgary Southeast.

*  *  *

POINTS OF ORDER

CUSTOMS

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday in the House the Minister of National Revenue challenged me during question period at page 330 of Hansard to produce in the House facts and table them here regarding the question I asked both yesterday and today. He repeated that request today.

Therefore I seek the unanimous leave of the House to table a sworn affidavit from senior customs officer Dennis Coffey with respect to his appeal to the Public Service Employment Commission Appeal Board which substantiates the allegations which he has made.

The Speaker: Does the hon. member have permission of the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Speaker: You have heard the terms of the request. Is the House agreed that this affidavit be deposited here with the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.

HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order today flowing out of question period dealing with the Minister of Human Resources Development when in answering a question he referred to and quoted from a letter in response to the leader of the Bloc Quebecois.

I would like to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the minister should be required through you to table the letter that he quoted from and referred to. While it is most unlikely that any member in this House of Commons or in any legislature or jurisdiction would stand in his place with a piece of paper and quote from a piece of paper on which there is nothing written, it has happened in the past.

Therefore, I would like to say to you, Your Honour, that the Minister of Human Resources Development should be required to table the letter that he referred to and quoted from in question period.

1510

Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, someone has gone to get the document in question. We will arrange to have it tabled as soon as possible because of course that is what the standing orders call for.

As to the allegation that the minister might have been reading from a blank piece of paper, the minister is a man of integrity and would not participate in any such activity.

The Speaker: We are getting into debate now.

The hon. member's point is well taken. The minister will be asked to table the document which he quoted from in the House. I believe that is the point which the hon. member wanted to make.

Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to our standing orders, I am pleased to table the letter which was referred to earlier today. It is a letter signed by the Minister of Human Resources Development and is dated March 5, 1997.

---

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[English]

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Mrs. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment as Acting Speaker of the House of Commons. I am confident that you will assume your responsibility with great skill, integrity and competence as you have shown so far in your time in the House. You can be assured of my personal support. I wish you well.

I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the prime minister and all members of the House on their election and re-election to this Parliament. As parliamentarians we have a tremendous task ahead of us to steer our nation into the 21st century.

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the people of Etobicoke—Lakeshore. I want my constituents to know that I am determined to work hard in voicing their concerns. I am proud and deeply honoured to be their elected representative for a second time. I will always be grateful for the trust and confidence they have placed in me over the years. It is my pleasure to continue to be of service to them.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank my constituency staff who served me well in the last Parliament and who continue to provide the support I need; my Hill staff, Carole and Donald, my constituency staff, Anne Simone and Phil Sbrocchi, and all who worked to support me in my duties.

Etobicoke—Lakeshore is a beautiful place, a home to peoples of diverse backgrounds, a rich tapestry of multicultural unique neighbourhoods. Etobicoke—Lakeshore is well situated in the greater Toronto area and is in close proximity to the major transportation routes, to Pearson airport, the Toronto Island airport and the Toronto harbour. It is well served by major highways such as the Queen Elizabeth Way, Highway 427 and Highway 401.

The riding is as economically diverse as the people in it. Industries in the riding cut across many sectors. A diverse combination of small and medium size businesses provides services in key industrial areas such as manufacturing, retail and wholesale trade, business and health and social services.

1515

In the late eighties and early nineties the economy of Etobicoke—Lakeshore suffered as companies felt the impact of the recession and the economic policies of the past government. I remember a time when storefronts were littered with for lease, power of sale and going out of business signs. But today we witness a fair degree of economic activity especially in the key sectors of Etobicoke—Lakeshore.

The Liberal government's strong commitment to fiscal responsibility as articulated in successive budgets, the red book and the throne speech has provided a stable political and a strong economic environment to allow these businesses to rebuild and strengthen their positions in Canada and in world markets.

The federal infrastructure program brought under $12 million to Etobicoke—Lakeshore with an estimated 178 direct construction jobs. This resulted in improvements to roads, sewers and other infrastructure of the riding. The federal job strategy program has also had some positive impact on commercial activity and some of the social institutions in the community. I commend these economic initiatives by the government. However, there is still room for greater economic growth in Etobicoke—Lakeshore. The need is still there for job creation opportunities for older workers and for young people.

In last week's Speech from the Throne the government noted that it will continue to take further action to encourage new investments, to create new jobs and to generate the national wealth necessary to assure Canadians a stable and secure future. I am very pleased that the government has made this commitment. There is hope and optimism for the industries and for my constituents in Etobicoke—Lakeshore.

In a consultation meeting with my constituents which I held fairly recently with a mixture of small and medium size businesses in Etobicoke—Lakeshore, I heard that the people of Etobicoke—Lakeshore want a country that is fiscally strong, safe and tolerant. They want a country where youth and adults can find gainful decent employment, a country where young people can realize their dreams. The commitment to invest 50 percent of the budgetary process to these social and economic initiatives shows the government's willingness to practise fiscal responsibility while it addresses these pressing problems.

I can assure the prime minister and the finance minister they will have my support and my constituents' support to stay the course of fiscal prudence and to find opportunities for young people. Our young people are the future of this country. As we head into the new millennium we must ensure that our youth have the opportunity to develop their abilities through education and adequate job training.

In the Speech from the Throne the government placed strong emphasis on these critical issues of concern to young people. Partner initiatives such as the youth internship program with the YMCA and career edge are steps in the right direction in assuring the youth of this nation get on track and stay on track.

I am equally proud that this Liberal government will establish a Canada millennium scholarship endowment fund and will work to reduce barriers to post-secondary education for young people by making further changes to Canada student loans programs. Our commitment to invest in knowledge and creativity must begin with the youth of this nation. Youth in my riding and across the country must be prepared to meet the challenges that lie ahead in a globally competitive economy.

A safe and just society is valued by my constituents and by all Canadians. I have heard from my constituents of Etobicoke—Lakeshore that they want to feel secure in their homes and in their communities.

1520

There are a couple of local newspapers that publish weekly and bi-weekly which contain columns where the crimes committed on a weekly basis are listed. Those listings do cause concern and do give individuals a sense that their communities are unsafe.

We have to ensure that every citizen and every member of the constituency of Etobicoke—Lakeshore feels safe in their home and in their community.

I know many of my constituents are still apprehensive about their personal safety and their concerns are being addressed through crime prevention programs. They have taken the time to organize community based crime prevention initiatives through federal government funding of $30 million. My constituents will benefit from this initiative and I am proud to be part of the team that believes that our criminal justice system and the safety of Canadians deserve attention and action.

I will continue to work for the people of Etobicoke—Lakeshore who want to see a united Canada. I know they look to me to work with my colleagues here in the House to ensure the future direction of Canada. I challenge all members, irrespective of party affiliation, to help in moulding a nation of which we can all be proud citizens.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, to a person who is just an ordinary citizen, not particularly interested in politics, who turns on the TV to find our colleague across the way on the screen, praising the youth program being developed by the Minister of Human Resources Development, as I heard him doing—the minister seems to be confirming my words—that it is important for people to understand that the youth programs, the Human Resources Development programs, must reflect youth problems as much as possible.

What must be understood is that the problems very often differ from one region to the next. When the federal government comes up with programs, very often the problem is that it bases them on a single reality. I do not know if it is the reality as perceived by public servants or by politicians, but it is the reality of people with a view of the country that is very—

An hon. member: Outdated.

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: Outdated, perhaps, but a very global and very uniform view of the country.

I will ask one question of the hon. member across the way. Does she not consider that all of the youth initiatives taken by the government are merely interference in areas of provincial jurisdiction?

[English]

Mrs. Jean Augustine: Mr. Speaker, until the member's last statement I thought he was asking for some way in which we could have uniform programs across the country that would address the needs of young people. I was really applauding him for this.

I represent a constituency which has young people who attend colleges and universities right across this great land from one province to another. They must have their credits transferred. They need the programs of uniformity of credentials. I understood he was referring to the fact that our young people must be given opportunities in all parts of the country to reach their full potential.

It is important to separate out the kinds of squabbles that are occurring right now which do not benefit our young people. While we are involved in these kinds of squabbles our young people are finding it difficult to have their own issues addressed.

I want to compliment the Minister of Human Resources Development.

1525

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your appointment. You look very regal today and I am sure you will rule the House with a fair hand.

I was listening to the member from across the way. She mentioned she has many manufacturing businesses, many retail businesses, small businesses and large businesses in her constituency, as I have. She mentioned that at a recent meeting they were quite happy with what is going on. They are thriving.

This is what I heard when I was campaigning and talking to these people in businesses in Lethbridge. They would really appreciate a tax break. I have been told that if we could give businesses a tax break, they would hire more people, they would reinvest in their businesses, they would expand and they would start new enterprises.

I would like to ask the member if this type of comment has come to her and if there is any plan by this government to do just that.

Mrs. Jean Augustine: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the kind of discussion that takes place once small business and business people are brought together.

What help do we need from the federal government to ensure that we have job creation in business? What can we do to help our own businesses to grow and what can we do to help communities so that we could employ more individuals?

Reinvestment, the issue of not having so much red tape, cutting out the bureaucracy, ensuring there are incentives within programs that would assist us are always on the table and those are the issues that I bring to the fore, that I share with my colleagues in the various forums and that the ministers use in their programs.

Their programs are good examples of what we need to do and more voices speaking for the businesses in my riding would ensure that we address some of those concerns.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have had the opportunity to speak in this new Parliament.

I would like to extend my very best congratulations and good wishes to you on your appointment to this important post. As you have heard from many other members, you enjoy the confidence of this House and we look forward to having you preside over some of these debates.

I would also like to take the opportunity to thank my constituents of Calgary—Nose Hill for their confidence in me and for returning me to this position as their elected representative in the Parliament of Canada.

I take my duties to them very seriously and want to do a good job of representing their interests and of being their voice in these debates.

To my constituents in Calgary—Nose Hill, a profound thank you and a commitment to them to act in their interests over the next term of Parliament.

I am the opposition critic for Human Resources Development, a very large portfolio of government which handles and administers the social programs of this country.

Because social issues are extremely important to Canadians, we have a very important job as official opposition in this House to hold the government accountable for what it is doing on behalf of Canadians and for the administration of their security and their futures.

Canadians take very great pride in our country's social stability and in the security that we enjoy. When we are sick we feel we can be looked after. When we are old we have hope that we will have enough income to have our needs met and to have a comfortable life.

These are only two of many areas where Canadians are proud that there is not the want and the disadvantage and the need as in other countries of the world that are not as fortunate as we have been.

1530

The Reform Party places a very great emphasis on the social safety net for Canadians. Reformers have children to educate. Reformers get sick. Reformers have disasters happen where we become disabled and need additional assistance. Reformers get old and want to have pensions. We are vitally concerned as a party and as Canadians about this important area of Canadian society and Canadian life.

Part of what we have been doing over the last 10 years in trying to emphasize and push Canadian governments into getting our economic affairs under some sort of rational control is targeted to sustain the social security we have enjoyed in the past and enjoy now. Many Canadians see this security slipping away as we are crippled by debt, deficit, runaway programs, and waste and abuse of the resources of the country.

The focus or end target of our strong fiscal message is security and sustaining of the social safety net we enjoy. Sometimes as Reformers we talk a lot about the means but not so much about the end which is vitally important to all of us.

Canadians have a history of hard work, thrift, saving part of our income for a rainy day and investing for the future. These characteristics were essential to the settlement, development and enrichment of this great country. These characteristics are exhibited today by new Canadians, people who continue to come to this country from all over the world to become citizens of Canada in order to build strong futures for themselves and for their children.

Canadians also have a sense of fairness. We like to see those who are disabled, disadvantaged or have experienced unexpected hardships succeed. We like to see the young given a fair start. We like to see those who work, who contribute and who save be rewarded.

Canadians dislike waste. They dislike seeing our tax dollars foolishly spent or abused. Canadians dislike seeing those in greatest need receive too little from the rest of society while some with substantial means receive too much.

I speak for a party committed to a political process which reflects the views and interests of regular Canadians rather than the political elites, a party whose principles and policies are formulated at the constituency level and must be approved by the membership, a party that publishes its principles and policies called the blue book for all to read and to consider.

They know what they are buying when they vote Reform. Often our policies and principles are distorted and misrepresented by opponents, but as we grow in maturity and in strength as a party more and more Canadians know the common sense and the solid policy underlying what we are doing as a party.

I also speak for a party whose leader consults with real people, not imaginary ones, about their interests and needs and has a long term vision for the country based on openness and compassion.

Reform Party principles and policies support a secure and sustainable social safety net including secure retirement incomes, insurance against unexpected job loss, and promotion of research and educational excellence. They ensure that families have the resources to care for their children. Reformers strongly believe that social benefits must be focused on those who truly need them and must be delivered in a compassionate manner.

Reformers also stress that programs must be soundly designed and managed. They must be financially sustainable and administered as much as possible without huge bureaucracies, masses of rules and regulations such as supposed universal benefits which are then followed by complex clawback rules.

1535

All these traditional Liberal practices need to be reduced or eliminated. Co-operative arrangements with provinces, communities and the private sector need to be encouraged and expanded.

Canadians and Reformers are realistic. New realities emerge and Canadians see and understand them. The Liberal Party and the government are slow to recognize new things and even slower to act.

As Canada's opposition party, Reform has a duty and a responsibility to point out areas where the government is not adequately serving the interests of Canadians and to urge government to take corrective action.

The Liberal government is failing to grapple successfully with at least three emerging realities.

The first is that Canadians increasingly understand personal income taxes in Canada are unjustly high. The after tax income of Canadian families has declined by 7 percent since 1989. This translates to a drop in the income of the average Canadian family since the Liberals were elected in 1993 of $3,000. Yet the government continues to waste money and to think up additional non-essential programs while Canadian families increasingly must go without.

The federal government has failed to be specific or to demonstrate convincing determination about cutting taxes for Canadians, allowing them to keep their own resources to care for their families.

A second reality is the consequences of Canada's federal debt. Liberal and Tory governments have gleefully borrowed everything they could get their hands on for the past 25 years. Borrowed money outstanding now stands at $600 billion, with an annual interest bill of $46 billion. This is the largest single item in the government's budget and it looms as a long term threat to Canadian social security. It is a mortgage on our children's future.

A third reality is that Canada's social programs need reform. Many of them are badly designed, unsustainable and even dysfunctional. The traditional Liberal, NDP and Tory approaches of throwing additional billions at problems is no longer a realistic solution, even though we see the government continuing to attempt to do that.

Canadians are concerned by what they see happening. How did we get into this fix? Who was asleep at the switch? How will our social programs be repaired? Who will pay for the errors of the past? What is reasonable and fair? These are important questions.

Let us talk about fairness for a moment. Government revenues to pay for social programs such as educating the young or paying for non-contributory benefits for the elderly come largely from taxes levied on those who are working. Canadians have always been willing to support the transfer of funds between generations. Intergenerational transfers, however, must be seen to be fair.

Are the excessive EI premiums levied on workers and businesses today fair? The answer in the minds of many Canadians is no.

Is the excessive tax hike and the resulting burden placed on generations x and even y fair? Again the answer coming back is no.

Government can be evaluated on many things including on how well it looks after the interests of all our citizens and how well it designs and manages programs, especially social programs.

The throne speech led us to expect government legislation during the 36th Parliament on proposed changes to the Canada pension plan, the new seniors benefit, a national child benefit system, the Canadian Labour Code, as well as new programs for people with disabilities, youth training, education and employment, expanding opportunities for aboriginals and health care.

One of the key blocks in our social safety net affecting every working Canadian is the Canada pension plan, so I would like to talk about it for a moment. The Canada pension plan has been with us since January 1, 1966 or almost 32 years.

1540

Canadians are in favour of a contributory public pension plan. That is assuming that such a plan is well designed and managed. Unfortunately the CPP is neither. It is neither well designed nor has it been well managed.

The combined contribution rate for CPP was just 3.6 percent of earnings for the first 20 years of the plan, moved up to 5.6 percent by the 30th year, and will be 9.9 percent prior to its 40th birthday.

The architects of the plan promised Canadians that contributions would never exceed 5.5 percent. Already we see a margin of error of 80 percent in the forecast of the contribution rate. The inevitable conclusion is that the plan has been either badly designed or poorly managed, and in fact it is both.

Designers made huge errors in their projections of birth rate, numbers of contributors and rates of economic growth. The managers, subsequent Liberal and Tory governments, enriched benefits, added new benefits and invested the fund at low yields without adjusting contribution rates.

The first beneficiaries of the CPP received benefits averaging over 11 times greater than the value of their contributions, while those entering the plan today will receive a return of less than one-half of the value of their contributions. One generation receives a return over 20 times greater than another generation, and we have a difficult situation because of that.

Reform introduced a modern new redesign of this important plan which would provide good and fair pensions for all contributors at retirement. Our plan calls for individualized accounts which means that individuals own all the assets in their account and can leave them to their survivors, while still protecting the benefits of retired and near retired Canadians.

If young Canadians knew that each dollar they put into CPP would go into their own personal account and that they would receive it all back, including a fair market return on their investment, they would gladly support the plan. Our plan reduces intergenerational transfers which will become a major source of social stress. We see that already beginning with the current debate on changes to the plan.

Our plan would be open and transparent. Thus each individual would know the value of their assets in the plan at all times.

The transition from the present CPP to our super RRSP, which is what we have called our Reform plan, would take some time. Middle aged Canadians would have to be given options to stay in their present arrangements or transfer to the new plan. Several countries have already made this transition and we believe Canada can do so as well.

What I am suggesting to the government is not to just keep going down the same old road of poor plan design and eventual failure and crisis but to look around, look at new ideas and adopt a plan that would deliver fairness to future generations of Canadians.

This whole matter of the Canada pension plan will be debated in the House starting on Monday. I urge Canadians who are watching the debate today, if they do not watch any other debate the rest of the year—and some of us wonder why they would—to watch the one on Monday. It will affect every working Canadian, especially our children and our grandchildren. It will be a very important debate.

The latest product of the Liberal spin doctors is the seniors benefit which we understand will be introduced in this parliament. Apparently the program is designed partly by officials in the Department of Human Resources Development and partly by a number of focus groups under the direction of a political consulting firm. The political consulting firm essentially gave the government advice on what was politically saleable, but it appears that no one provided advice on what makes sense for Canadian seniors, for Canadian taxpayers or for future generations.

Among other things, in order to deliver extra dollars to the finance department so it could claim great success in its deficit fighting measures, some believe the tax back rates on this new federal seniors benefit will be irrational but certainly excessive. It will force Canadians to change their economic behaviour in other ways to avoid this penalty.

When people change their economic behaviour and hide retirement income, it simply increases the load on government with more demand for social programs.

1545

The measure will be debated in the House and I urge Canadians to be alert to these changes. We believe there are many flaws in this proposed seniors benefit. For example, the provinces will lose a fairly large source of future tax revenue because the present old age security is taxable and the new seniors benefit is not taxable by the provinces.

We in the Reform Party will work hard in the committee and in the House to ensure that the seniors benefit legislation is right for seniors, taxpayers and for all Canadians.

Canadians are seeking a fresh new vision and plan to replace the failed directions of the past. The Reform Party was formed because the old parties no longer serve our interests. I am sad to say that includes four of the parties in the House.

The Reform Party was formed because the people want good jobs with good incomes as their best social security. They want generous help to be there for the disabled and those in need. However, they are fed up with programs that reward not need, but greed.

Younger Canadians want affordable education and fairness in their tax load. All of us want prompt, caring medical help when illness or accidents strike. We want a safety net if disaster befalls us, but believe we could better protect ourselves and our families against that if there was less government meddling in our lives, however well intentioned.

The Reform Party is finding new and better ways to deliver these results for Canadians. We are seeking out the best thinking and creative alternatives, both here and internationally, to preserve the security and well-being Canadians want and deserve. We will be a positive voice of new ideas and fresh directions as our country moves into the next century.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, while there is much on which I would like to comment, I will make a comment and then pose a question and ask for further expansion from the member for Calgary—Nose Hill.

Earlier today we heard a member from the NDP talk about fairness in taxation. I call their use of the phrase tax fairness a buzzword. We know the buzzword of fair taxation from that party brings with it a political agenda that somewhat represents the politics of envy, taxing the rich and what they used to call the corporate welfare bums and all the philosophy that goes with it.

However, now there is a Reformer talking about fairness in tax load. I would like the member to explain and expand on the difference between the Reform approach to tax fairness versus the typical NDP approach.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, that is what is called hardball. There is an important point of debate here that Canadians are considering, which is the whole notion of transfers between different groups of people.

As the member just pointed out, the former debate was on what would be a fair transfer from people who have more resources to people who have fewer resources. There is now a shift on the axis of the debate because the transfers increasingly have been coming to Canadians who are older from Canadians who are younger and who are just entering the workforce.

The simple fact is that Canadians are an aging population right now. Being one of them I hesitate to belabour the point, however it does need to be made. By the year 2030 I understand there will be 40 percent more seniors than there are now. That means that 40 percent more of the Canadian public will be looking for publicly funded pensions and seniors benefits that have been promised.

1550

Forty percent more Canadians will be making increased demands on our health system. I have already noticed that as you get older a few rust spots appear and you need more body work. This is one of the new realities we have been talking about. There will be some real tension if we do not realize there has been a paradigm shift.

Because of the generous social programs, older Canadians have had a lot of advantages that younger Canadians cannot even hope to have. I urge the government to be very clear. We need to sort this out and to balance it out quickly before there is some real social stress that will cause difficulty in our country.

Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member really believe that we have tax fairness in this country, that the Conrad Blacks and other wealthy people pay their fair share of taxes?

Mr. Jason Kenney: They pay more than their fair share.

Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Now they are saying they pay more than their fair share.

Does the hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill agree that the millionaires pay more than their fair share in taxes? Does she agree with that position? Is that the official position of the Reform Party, that the millionaires in Canada pay more than they should be paying? Is that the kind of party that is representing people in this House? How can that relate to the ordinary people in my riding that live in the inner core of the city, that are suffering from day to day to put milk and food on the table?

Yet here is the Reform Party saying that millionaires pay too much in taxes. Millionaires pay too much in taxes is what they are saying. Does she agree with her fellow member that millionaires pay too much in taxes, those poor Conrad Blacks, those poor Frank Stronachs? Does she agree with that?

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I think I got the gist of the question in the first 30 seconds but I am sure with the additional rhetoric that we really got it.

The NDP unfortunately is really out of touch with reality. NDP members keep going on and on about the Conrad Blacks. The fact of the matter is there is a bare handful of individuals like the person referred to by the member. These entrepreneurs and risk takers employ hundreds if not thousands of Canadians and pay enormous amounts of taxes.

If the member cares to look at some of the figures from the government he will see that the top 10 percent of income earners in this country pay half of the taxes. Mr. Speaker, do you know how much you have to earn to be in the top 10 percent of earners in this country?

Mr. John Solomon: That's not true, Diane.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I hope the member is listening to me. I hear some noise back there but I assume he does want to hear this information.

To be in the top 10 percent of earners in this country you have to earn $50,000. If the member thinks that is big money then perhaps he should try to look at the cost of living. The people in this country who earn $50,000 and more pay over half the taxes and they are in the top 10 percent.

I think the NDP needs to be a little more realistic when it comes out with some of this—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Questions and comments, the hon. member for Provencher.

Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to join this debate. I have a two-part question for the member from Calgary.

Recently it was reported in the Globe and Mail that the good people of Alberta had been consulted on the proposed spending changes by the Klein government. I know that on the first round there were focus groups. The second round of discussions occurred at a forum. I saw people such as the former minister of finance, Don Mazankowski, as well as others, there. Average people from Alberta were consulted in this three day session. The conclusion was that they advised the Government of Alberta not to go for tax cuts. They said that they wanted instead more focus on health care and education.

Having gone through this exercise in Alberta and consulted with the people of Alberta, does the member from Calgary agree with the conclusions of this conference that the people of Alberta do not want any more tax cuts, that they want expenditures in health?

1555

Are people wrong in their evaluation and how does she sit with that?

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that Albertans would be too flattered to be classed in with Don Mazankowski as an average Albertan. I am happy to correct the hon. member.

The consultation with Albertans did not lead to the results and direction that he says they did. The majority of Albertans in the consultation said that any surpluses in the Alberta government coffers should go toward paying the debt of the province. They do not want a mortgage on the province, on our children and on our future.

The member may be referring to a particular group or interest lobby that held a meeting and came out with those other conclusions. There may be such groups, but the majority of Albertans in the consultation done with every household in the province came down four square for using that money to get rid of the mortgage on our future and our children's future. This is the way Canadians across the country would want the government to act and I urge them to consider that.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the average income in the hon. member's riding of Calgary—Nose Hill is about $63,000. In my riding in northern Saskatchewan the average income is about half of that, but the high prices of living in northern Saskatchewan is a reality.

Four litres of milk in some locations in northern Saskatchewan cost $8.50. To try and supplement people's education and future is sometimes out of touch. Any hard time that we feel, there is always warmth and compassion with the New Democratic Party. We will find this in history.

Would the minister consider a fair and equitable portion of a tuition free education for all Canadians?

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, warmth and compassion are good commodities but they do not put milk on the table. What puts milk on the table is money and money comes from having a good job with a good income. It also comes from having a fair tax burden so you can keep enough money to look after your family.

The thing that will not put milk on the table is the emerging multitude of government programs that take money away from working Canadians and leave little for them and their families.

The Speaker: On a point of order, the hon. government whip.

*  *  *

[Translation]

SPECIAL JOINT COMMITTEE

Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:  

That the Members of the House of Commons to sit on the Special Joint Committee considering the various aspects of the draft resolution concerning the proposed amendment to section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, concerning the school system in Quebec, be the following: Reg Alcock, Peter Goldring, Mauril Bélanger, Rahim Jaffer, Gerry Byrne, Marlene Jennings, Paul DeVillers, Réal Ménard, Nick Discepola, Val Meredith, Sheila Finestone, Denis Paradis, Christiane Gagnon, David Price, Yvon Godin, Paddy Torsney.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

*  *  *

1600

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS IN REPLY

The House resumed consideration of the motion for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his Speech at the opening of the session.

Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me, as the member for Papineau—Saint-Denis, to take part in this debate on the throne speech that marks the beginning of our government's second term in office.

I would like to thank my constituents in Saint-Michel, Villeray and Parc Extension for their vote of confidence, and I can tell them today in the House that I will make sure I represent them well and with the respect they deserve.

A new wind of optimism is blowing across Canada. Canadians are feeling renewed confidence. They are realizing that it is time to accomplish many things when governments and citizens undertake together to build a stronger Canada. I am proud to be a member of a Parliament that, for the first time in 20 years, will see Canada achieve a balanced budget, a zero deficit, and eventually a surplus.

This turnaround of the country's financial situation is the doing of Canadians all the way from Saint John's to Victoria, who rolled up their sleeves to regain their freedom to choose, which had been threatened by increasingly higher deficits.

[English]

Together we progressed from what the international financial community once called a basket case to one of the most robust economies in the industrialized world. We are poised to have the strongest growth among the world's largest economies.

At the same time we have not lost sight of the human needs of Canadians. Canada's population is among the healthiest in the world and most Canadians enjoy a unparalleled quality of life. Both of these achievements, one social and the other economic, are testimony to the fact that we did not sacrifice our vision of Canada, a country that is strong and united, a country that values healthy children and strong families living in safe communities, a country where everyone believes in the dignity of work and the importance of self-reliance, a country in which young people have hope for a better future, a country where we share responsibility for each other, especially the most vulnerable among us, and a country where diversity is seen as a great source of strength.

It is a vision that inspires our government. It is the vision captured in the Speech from the Throne.

[Translation]

We will continue to build a society that holds dear the fundamental values of equity and equality. The pursuit of equity and equality enables Canadians to strike a balance in our twofold commitment to promote independence and responsibility to one another.

In Canada, we do not believe a choice must be made between independence and responsibility to one another. And as we progress, we must never lessen our vigilance. We must never neglect any individual or any region. This, to my mind, is the thrust of the throne speech: Canada works for all Canadians and continues to evolve in response to the increasingly changing needs of Canadians.

As Minister of Human Resources Development, every day I see the interdependence of social and economic policy. They are in fact inseparable. Economic growth does not occur in a vacuum. It is a human activity.

1605

[English]

The government has represented Canadians with an integration plan of action, a measured and deliberate plan. It is a plan that invests in the social and economic priorities of Canadians, children and youth, health and knowledge, and it is a plan that respects Canadians' determination to see governments live within their means.

Our success depends on harnessing the energies of all Canadians, of all governments, federal, provincial and territorial, of the voluntary sector and of the private sector.

This is how we turn values into action. We can continue to build a country of which we can all be proud. This is how this government will continue to work to keep our country together.

Part of the new optimism is Canadians' renewed confidence in our capacity as a society to expand opportunity. Young people are looking for jobs with a future. Canadians with disabilities want the opportunity to participate fully in the economic and social life of this country.

Parents are trying to give their children what they need to flourish. Older Canadians want secure income support in retirement.

Businesses, large and small, are trying to secure a competitive advantage in an increasingly global marketplace. Men and women want an economy that creates jobs, not sheds them. Canadians in all regions want to ensure that people in need are not forgotten.

In our last mandate we took action to deal with these issues. In this mandate we will add the essential building blocks that are already in place.

Building Canada is the work of every day and it is the responsibility of all Canadians in every part of the country. That is why the Speech from the Throne stresses partnership.

[Translation]

A society that invests in its children can look to the future with confidence. Renowned experts in child development have established a link between economic performance and investment in human resources and children, in particular.

When we fail to invest sufficiently in the early years of child development, the country's future economic prosperity may suffer in two ways. First, economic growth may be frozen because the necessary human resources cannot be counted on. Second, society may have to assume higher costs later on as a direct consequence of the failure to invest in the early years.

[English]

In 1996 the prime minister and provincial and territorial first ministers made a commitment to improve the way governments work together to help children in poverty. The 1997 budget announced the first down payment of the Government of Canada toward a better way of providing income tax benefits and services to children in poor families.

The new Canada child tax benefit is the federal government's contribution to a new and exciting partnership with provincial and territorial governments.

The national child benefit system will provide more support to low income families struggling to provide their children with a good start in life.

Canadians want to work but our current support system produces some strange results. Parents on social assistance can stand to lose thousands of dollars in benefits for their children when they make the decision to leave welfare for work.

This built-in disincentive is called the welfare wall. The new national child benefit will help tear down this wall. Over time it will help reduce child poverty, strengthen families and enable governments to work further for Canada's children.

I am pleased to say that during the course of this mandate the Government of Canada will at least double its initial investment of $850 million in this innovative program.

By investing in the national child benefit, Canadians are sharing the responsibility to get our children off to a good start in life. They are helping parents get into the workforce.

1610

I will continue to work with provincial and territorial governments as they redirect some of their social assistance resources into complementary benefits and services to help children in low income families, especially the working poor.

By working together we are tackling a problem which no one order of government can solve alone. We have achieved a most significant advance in joint federal, provincial and territorial social policy in the last 30 years.

[Translation]

The throne speech stresses the importance of co-operation in partnerships. The national child benefit represents the best that this type of co-operation has to offer. It is not a mere example of federal-provincial co-operation, but the result of efforts by governments of all political stripes, whether Liberal, New Democratic or Conservative, working together to improve the well-being of our children and prepare a better future for them. When I look at this remarkable achievement, I realize why Canadians are more optimistic.

[English]

Money is only part of the answer. Children need a large investment of time and attention for healthy development. They grow up not just in a household but in a society. They need strong families and they need safe communities, good schools, good health care and opportunities to develop.

We have begun working with provincial governments to develop a national children's agenda to improve the well-being of Canada's children. We will continue to do that with businesses, voluntary groups and unions, with aboriginal groups and communities.

This exciting new agenda will make a difference to the lives of hundreds of thousands of Canadian children, and by improving their lives we are laying the foundation for a better future.

Another key element of our plan is addressing the needs of youth. Canada's young people are the best educated, the most literate and the most technologically adept in our history. Their potential is as limitless as Canada itself. However, to succeed in today's economy young people need more education, better skills and relevant experience. They have to be prepared to learn throughout their lives.

In light of this fact let me share with the House three trends which have developed among young Canadians, as well as what the Government of Canada is doing to help them along.

The first trend is that a large portion of young Canadians can and will succeed on their own. They are staying in school. They are getting varied part time and summer work experience. They are starting their own businesses, or perhaps they are doing voluntary community work.

The only assistance these young people will likely need is access to information which will help them make wise decisions in their education and career choices. Through the government's youth employment strategy we can provide them with the information, services and support they need.

The Government of Canada will create a Canada-wide mentorship program. This program is based on the success of local mentorship programs where a young person can get connected on line or in person with a mentor who has professional experience in the field the young person wishes to explore.

[Translation]

Second, there are young Canadians who, after completing their studies, cannot find the work that would enable them to make a full contribution to society. Experience shows that when young Canadians are looking for that first job, they are confronted with a vicious circle: no experience, no job; no job, no experience.

This is why, we are providing, through programs such as our internship program and our summer student employment initiative, work experience for over 100,000 young Canadians, to make it easier for them to find permanent jobs. This is the boost they need to overcome this lack of experience and thus meet employers' requirements.

1615

That is the hand up the Government of Canada and Human Resources Development Canada are prepared to give them.

[English]

There is a third group of young Canadians whose prospect of finding work in today's labour market has deteriorated dramatically. These are young Canadians who have low levels of education and skills. They need an opportunity to learn new skills such as literacy. These young people require social supports that can best be provided by their communities.

The first step is equipping them with these basic skills. Then they need their first job break. The Government of Canada can help them by bringing together those who can best provide these services.

The goal of many of our programs such as youth service Canada is to work with community and voluntary organizations in assisting young Canadians who had previously lost hope to become self-reliant members of society, and we are doing our very best.

Education is the key to success and we will work hard on post-secondary education to reduce barriers for so many of them with further changes to the Canada student loans program with increased assistance for students with dependants and new scholarships such as the Canada millennium scholarship endowment fund as announced by the prime minister.

We have also made a commitment to do more to see that Canadians with disabilities play a larger role in our economy. I want to tap into the enormous potential of people who can and want to contribute to our economy and society but who do need some support to do so. That is why we have committed to work with the provinces to redesign the vocational rehabilitation of disabled persons program so that it does what it is supposed to do, give Canadians with disabilities a greater opportunity to participate in the workforce.

We have also introduced the opportunities fund to further the economic integration of persons with disabilities.

We believe very much in investing in Canada's human capital. These initiatives are tied together by a common thread. They are about getting the best we can from Canadians and they are about giving the best we can to Canadians. They are about balancing our commitment to self-reliance and our belief in mutual responsibility.

[Translation]

Before concluding, I would like to add a few words concerning how well the issue of the renewal of the Canadian social union is progressing. Every day, Quebeckers tell me how satisfied they are with the progress made in renewing Canada's social union, of which a few of the main characteristics were mentioned earlier.

I am very pleased to hear these comments, as they show that our approach is successful in ensuring the best quality of life possible for all our fellow citizens.

The social union is an essential feature of Canada. It has contributed greatly to making Canada the best country in the world in which to live. A vast majority of Quebeckers would really like—as polls indicate time and time again—Canada to work efficiently and harmoniously, would like co-operation and partnership to replace unproductive fights and what I call federal-provincial turf wars, and so on.

The social union is the ideal testing ground for our ability to work in partnership, modernize our programs, clarify the various roles played by the Government of Canada, share equitably our country's resources and strengthen our economic union. The various levels of government are also capable of reaching agreement when they are motivated by a clear desire to succeed.

Quebeckers are fully aware of the fact that no economic union is possible without a social union to give it harmony, structure and strength. In fact, true economic union and social union go hand in hand. That is why the modernization of Canada's social union is in the immediate best interests of Quebeckers and Canadians alike.

In this context, I find the Quebec premier's attitude toward the renewal of the social union deplorable. It is a marked departure from Quebec's traditional approach, from the grand tradition of Jean Lesage and Robert Bourassa, an approach traditionally characterized by a pragmatic approach, co-operation and striving toward results that will great benefit Quebeckers.

1620

[English]

The Speech from the Throne does chart a course for entering the 21st century. It calls on all governments and all Canadians to work together. It provides a plan for investing in our future, a future that reflects Canadians' determination to build a society based on fairness and equality. The cost of exclusion is far greater than the amounts we have committed to these programs.

[Translation]

I hope all the hon. members of this House will continue working with us for their own constituents and for all Canadians to ensure that our society remains not only one of the most prosperous in the world, but also one of the most progressive, most generous and most responsive to the needs of all its members, and the most vulnerable in particular.

Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Minister of Human Resources Development, and I noticed the tone he used. It was so melodious, it could almost be compared to a symphony orchestra. But it was not melodious enough to lull me, because it rang false all the way through.

Any observer of the Quebec reality can see that the Minister of Human Resources Development does not visit certain parts of Quebec very often. He carefully avoids those ridings he used to visit with his predecessor at HRDC. We all remember Minister Young—whom I can name since he is no longer a minister. There was also Minister Dingwall. Liberal members from the maritimes were all voted out of office, or almost. Poof, they disappeared just like that.

In Quebec, the member for Bonaventure—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, who played a leadership role in this House in the last Parliament and who backed the Employment Insurance Act, did not get re-elected either.

It takes some gall to come and talk about the future and how Canadian society is the best in the world when there are now 500,000 more children living in poverty than there were when the Liberals took office. It takes some gall on the part of a minister who is from Quebec to talk about the youth strategy and job creation. It takes some gall to talk about an even tighter social union and education, when, like this minister, one has sat in the National Assembly as an assistant to a former education minister.

But knowing all that, he discourses melodiously in both official languages, expecting us to applaud.

I will end on a question that is still topical. In light of the questions that the House heard today on the subject of party fundraising, as a Quebecker, would the minister agree, yes or no, that the federal government should take Quebec's lead and pass legislation limiting the funding of political parties to that provided by individuals? That would save the Liberal Party's skin.

Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting that my colleague opposite, a member of the Bloc Quebecois, is telling us what to make of the election results.

I would like to point out to him that our political party made gains in Quebec, while his lost 11 seats, dropping from 49 to 38, is in disarray, is rejected by our fellow Quebeckers, and now represents only a part of the province. I think the member should be a great deal more modest in his analysis of the election results.

I must, however, thank him for his very kind comments about my speech. He found that it was harmonious and elevated and had vision. I must tell him I am deeply touched by his kind words.

I am very happy that my work follows in the great footsteps of the likes of Lesage and Bourassa. I draw his attention to the magnificent passage written by Claude Castonguay recently, taking Quebec's premier to task for breaking with Quebeckers' great tradition of pragmatism in matters of social union, for not following in the steps of people like Jean Lesage and Robert Bourassa, who worked for the well-being of Quebeckers.

But I can reassure the member that, when it comes to current events, he has before him a minister who did his duty by informing the RCMP minutes after learning of certain allegations.

1625

[English]

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the minister on his remarks. This minister is a very accomplished and distinguished minister who has set a tone of constructiveness in his government. While I disagree with much of what he said, I believe that he is a constructive force for federalism in this country and I commend him on that.

This minister does talk a great deal about children and families, which is nice to hear. Liberals do like to talk about those issues but the unfortunate thing is they do not like to act very much on them. In particular, this minister talked about the child tax credit, a commendable albeit very modest effort on the part of this government.

I would like to ask this minister if he thinks it would not be a laudable public policy for the government to pursue tax fairness for families, that is to say to remove the intrinsic penalty that exists in the current code against single income families, families that choose to keep one parent at home to raise their children. There are millions of such Canadian families penalized by the fact that the child care deduction is limited to double income families.

Would the minister support measures such as converting the child care deduction into a refundable credit available to all families? Would he also agree in principle to raising the basic spousal exemption in the tax code to a level equivalent to the basic personal exemption so that stay at home parents are no longer penalized by this government's tax code?

Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his very generous words about the work I am trying to do in favour of renewing Canadian federalism. It is very generous of him.

My job in the government is to provide programs and services to a number of people who are most vulnerable. The Department of Human Resources Development has about six million Canadian clients to whom we are trying to give a break which will allow them to have a better quality of life.

There could be a number of other measures that he can certainly discuss with the finance minister but my job in the government is to provide certain programs and services. I am glad that the member does actually recognize the benefit of the Canada child tax benefit. I was extremely sensitive to his remark about this maybe not being enough. Maybe we could get the support of the Reform Party in order to do more with the Canada child tax benefit.

Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was rather taken by the hon. minister's comments about the revenue departments of the provinces and the federal government working together. That sounds like a partnership between John Dillinger and Lucky Luciano.

He was talking about how literate Canadian youth are. This is a bit of a contradiction because he also remarked about the programs to increase literacy in the population. If he thinks Canadian youth now are more literate than they were in the past, I would say he is betraying his academic origins. He is not aware of what is out there. He has not tried to hire anybody lately, to try to find somebody who can write a coherent paragraph, who can spell and who knows a thing about grammar. That is not his department, that is for the provincial departments of education. However, I wish he would not make statements about the high degree of literacy of our population.

With respect to the Canada millennium endowment fund, I understand that access to these funds is not going to be based on merit but on something called need which will be defined by the bureaucrats in whatever way they choose. Now if that is wrong I would like to be corrected. If it is not based on merit then this thing is going to be a very useful educational tool because it means the young people will be taught at a very early age how to work the system the Canadian way.

1630

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I would ask hon. members to remember they should address each other through the Chair.

Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, I will take great pleasure in addressing you. You are a gentleman and I should have congratulated you on your appointment to the Chair when we began. You know that I was very pleased by your nomination. I must congratulate you.

I would like to clarify one thing that I said. The gentleman does see a contradiction between two of my paragraphs. I did say that this generation of Canadians is the best educated one. It is the one that has developed the most skills in computers, in so many other technical aspects that were not available to us and they are doing well. I am extremely proud of Canadian youth. They are doing well.

That does not stop us from recognizing across the land that some youth unfortunately have not been well served in school or did not find in their families or in their societies the support that allowed them to go far enough in school. Indeed there are problems related to illiteracy. The government is committed to giving these youth a second chance.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Lotbinière and, following that, all Bloc Quebecois speakers will do the same with a colleague from our party.

Although I have already criticized the government since the June 2 election, this is my first formal speech in this new Parliament. While taking part in the debate on the address in reply to the throne speech, I want to thank my organizers, my supporters and especially the voters of Berthier—Montcalm, who have renewed their trust in me in a proportion almost identical to that of 1993. Thanks to them and to a wonderful team I have the honour of representing them once again in this House. They can count on my undivided attention, on my availability and on my friendship.

I must also thank my wife and my children for their support and for allowing me to be here to represent the Bloc Quebecois of course, but more importantly to look out for the interests of the Quebec people. In my way, I want to contribute, in this House, to the creation of a country that we can call our own.

As for the throne speech, the Prime Minister said it would probably be the last one before the celebrations marking the new millennium. I will tell the Prime Minister—and I hope he will also make sure of it—that we will do our utmost to ensure that this is indeed the last throne speech before the next millennium. Because what we Bloc Quebecois members want first and foremost is to have a country by the year 2000.

What does the throne speech tell us? Many things were said, but I can think of two essential points: first, all the allusions made in the two previous throne speeches of the Liberals to devolution, change, respect and realignment of federal-provincial powers have disappeared. These words are no longer used by the government.

When it started making cuts to transfers, to social programs, to health, to education and to social assistance, the government talked about devolution and about respecting the powers of the provinces.

1635

But today, because we are seeing that there may possibly be a budget surplus, because of the slashes the Liberal government has made in these programs and because the taxpayers are in the process of getting this government out of the red, now the Liberals are back to their old bad habits.

With the expected budget surplus, they are paying out big bucks for the right to trample over provincial jurisdictions. I will not go into all of the examples there are in the Speech from the Throne, because my ten minutes would not be enough, but I will list three of them.

First, they want to measure the academic readiness of our children. Today is not the first time they are being told that education is none of their business. Mr. Duplessis did battle on this in 1950. This is not yesterday's news. It is not just those wicked separatists, that awful Bloc, who are demanding this. It dates back to the fifties.

They also make no bones about wanting to get back into manpower training. Yet I thought they had just handed that over to the provinces. Now they want to make resources available to help young people get back in the work force. That has no concern of theirs. If they have money left over in their budget, let them give it back to the provinces from whom they stole it in the last budget.

They also want to set up some ten or twelve programs with a national slant, what they call Canada-wide programs. They have been told for more than 30 years that we in Quebec want nothing more to do with Canada-wide programs. Programs from sea to sea do not apply to Quebec. But they persist.

Where I come from, in my country of Quebec, we call that provocation. This federalist propaganda whose aim is visibility over efficiency has caused the leader of the Bloc Quebecois to say justifiably in his response to the throne speech that the speech was nothing more than big federalist talk. Unfortunately, that is the sad reality.

After bringing misery to the families of seasonal workers, after cutting payments to provinces and scuttling their budgets, the hangman becomes the generous lord of the manor distributing money over the heads of the provinces. It is disgusting and hypocritical.

Now the Liberal government is realizing that it cut too much and too quickly. Why not analyze the situation seriously? Why, with the expected budget surplus, does it not mend its ways by returning the money it took from the provinces in the area of health care, social assistance and education; why does it not lower taxes, lower employment insurance contributions and reform personal and corporate income tax as proposed in the 35th Parliament, as the Bloc put forward in its proposal, which was well received?

Why not go after poverty with a vengeance, improve the employment insurance plan and reverse all the cuts that were made?

The repayment of the debt should be debated. I agree with some members who have proposed a debate on the repayment of the debt. I think we should have a very serious debate on the matter.

For the time being, however, the focus should be on health, education, employment and the eradication of child poverty during this 36th Parliament. However, for this to be successful, the federal government should not meddle in these areas. It should give the money back to the provinces, as they know much better how to use this money where it is needed.

The second element of the throne speech that stands out in my mind, and it is of particular concern to me as justice critic, is the federal government's willingness to score political points by taking the hard line with Quebec. Why do I say hard line? Because the federal government intends to continue with its reference to the Supreme Court. It will carry on with its strategy of instilling fear about what might happen following a yes victory in Quebec.

On the one hand, the Liberals praise the merits of Canada, while on the other hand, they are trying to deny one of the most fundamental principles of democracy: the right to decide.

There is worse yet, and this took place after the Speech from the Throne was read. At his swearing-in ceremony, responding to journalists who asked him if there were plans for the Canadian armed forces to take action in Quebec following a majority vote in favour of sovereignty, the new chief of defence staff, General Maurice Baril, did not reject the idea out of hand. The general said neither yes nor no, but that the political question does not arise. He should have said, in a democratic country such as Canada: “There is no question of it, it is a purely political question”. This is very disappointing in a country that considers itself a frontrunner when it comes to democracy.

1640

There are all the strong-arm tactics that are still going on with respect to the issue of Quebec's sovereignty, and to possible consequences for them as well as for us. We never say that, the day after a yes vote, the first people interested in sitting down with Quebec would be my friends across the way. I will not say “my friends” because I do not want my constituents to hate me, but the government opposite would be the first, following telephone calls, probably from all the financiers in the world, to want to negotiate with a sovereign Quebec.

Another thing that upsets me about this throne speech is that the Liberals take credit for the entire Calgary declaration that Quebec is a unique society. We are more than that, and have been for some time. This is not just nasty separatists, or nasty members of the Bloc Quebecois saying so. I will run through a short list of premiers of Quebec who, over the years, have said more than once that we were more than the Liberals wanted us to be, that we were a people.

In 1950, during the opening speech at the federal-provincial constitutional conference—because that is the second national sport in Canada—Maurice Duplessis said: “Canadian confederation is a pact of union between two great nations”. That was in 1950.

In 1960, Jean Lesage said that “provincial sovereignty must not be a negative concept incompatible with progress. Quebec is not defending the principle of provincial autonomy because a principle is involved, but for the more important reason that it views autonomy as the concrete condition not for its survival, which is henceforth assured, but for its affirmation as a people”. So said Jean Lesage in 1963.

In 1968, Daniel Johnson senior said that “a new Constitution should be so devised that Canada is not just a federation of 10 provinces, but a federation of two nations equal in law and in fact”.

I will conclude with one last quote from Mr. Johnson, again at a federal-provincial constitutional conference, in 1968: “The Constitution should not have as its sole purpose to federate territories, but also to associate in equality two linguistic and cultural communities, two founding peoples, two societies, two nations, in the sociological meaning of the term”.

You will understand that, in Quebec, we say no, no, no and no, as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs would say, to the Calgary declaration.

Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member who has just finished speaking.

This afternoon, in this House, the Reform member for Calgary Southwest said that he believed millionaires in this country paid too much in taxes. Is the hon. member in agreement with this statement by the Reform member?

[English]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, this afternoon in the House the member for Calgary Southwest of the Reform Party expressed the point of view that millionaires were overtaxed in this country.

What I want to know is whether the Bloc Quebecois agrees with the Reform Party that millionaires are overtaxed, that Conrad Black pays too much in taxes. That is the position of the member for Calgary Southwest of the Reform Party. Is my friend from the Bloc in agreement with that?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): On a point of order, the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should produce a precise quote to show that any member of the Reform Party said that Conrad Black was overtaxed.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Chair finds it difficult to believe that that is a point of order. The hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, unlike the Reform members, I find this an excellent question.

Unlike the Reform, I believe that it is not true that the rich in Canada pay too much income tax. On the contrary. The rich in Canada do not pay enough income tax. There is all manner of tax evasion. Even more than that, when it comes to such extremely important aspects as money laundering, who gains from it? Those with money. Canada is recognized world wide as the world capital for money laundering. What are the Liberals doing about it? Nothing at all.

1645

It is almost as if they had both hands in the till themselves. The Liberals may need to wake up, and one day I will be asking them to co-operate with me—because I will be introducing a private member's bill on money laundering.

As for the hon. member's excellent question, I disagree totally with that, if the Reform indeed said it. I hope that they are not that out of touch with reality. If they did say it, however, I totally disagree with their position.

[English]

Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am always interested in the comments of the hon. member, having worked with him in the last parliament on the justice committee. I know the hon. member to be a lawyer. Therefore I am particularly interested in a couple of the comments he made pertaining to the position of the Bloc Quebecois.

One thing I believe he said—and he can correct me if I misunderstood him—was that somehow the Liberal Party was denying the democratic rights of the people of Quebec. I wonder if the hon. member even recognizes what democracy is, in view of the fact that the people of Quebec have very clearly expressed in two referenda that they wish to remain in Canada.

It seems to me it is the Bloc Quebecois that refuses to accept the democratic will of the people of Quebec by continually ignoring the results of two referenda, going back and going back until it hopes it will eventually get the answer it would like to get. It seems to me that is ignoring the democratic rights of the people of Quebec.

As a lawyer I would like the member to explain why he thinks it is inappropriate and incorrect to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada on matters of international law.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, I too have worked with the member on a number of occasions and I can confirm that he is highly intelligent. I do not understand why he is asking such questions today.

Two things. First, I did not discuss the subject of democracy in the matter of the two referendums in response to the throne speech, but I am pleased to answer. As regards democracy, yes there were indeed two referendums: one in 1980 and the other in 1995.

In 1980, and here I will give a little course in history for those opposite who so quickly forget, the Prime Minister was Pierre Elliott Trudeau. He told Quebecers to vote no for change. Quebecers voted no for change. What change was there in Quebec? There was a constitution, which we rejected, which the National Assembly unanimously rejected, and which was jammed down our throats. It was shoved down our throats with the words “Shut your trap, you Quebeckers”.

That is why there was another referendum in 1995. In between, they had their referendum on Charlottetown, which he forgot to mention, in which English Canada said no to Quebec because it was too much, and Quebec said no because it was not enough. They forgot that across the way.

In 1995, there was another referendum where—let me finish, I will not be long—there was no winner. It was 50:50. Here again there were promises from the Liberals, which never led anywhere and never will, because the federal system cannot be reformed. Quebec's only option is to vote yes in the next referendum, it is to become sovereign.

To answer his second question, neither the justices of the supreme court nor the government opposite can stop a people on the march toward its own country.

[English]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona, Trade.

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first allow me to thank the residents of the new riding of Lotbinière for electing me to represent them in the House of Commons.

1650

This new riding is the result of major changes brought on by the readjustment of electoral boundaries. The riding is now made up of some 50 municipalities grouped in five RCMs which I would like to salute. There is the RCM of l'Érable, whose main municipalities are Plessisville and Princeville which, incidentally, is celebrating the 150th anniversary of its founding; the rural section of the RCM of Bécancour, which includes the municipalities of Sainte-Sophie de Lévrard and Les Becquets; the RCM of Arthabaska, which includes the municipality of Daveluyville; and the RCM of Lotbinière, with its scenic municipalities located along the St. Lawrence River, namely Leclerville, Lotbinière, Sainte-Croix and Saint-Antoine de Tilly, and a municipality of the RCM of Chutes de la Chaudière, Saint-Lambert.

I would also like to salute the small community of Joly, where I come from. Even though it only has a population of 1000, on June 2, I became the second citizen of that municipality to get elected as a member of Parliament. The first one was Adrien Lambert, who sat in the House of Commons from 1968 to 1979.

I would now like to comment on the throne speech, a document which includes no firm commitment, except for the sad fact that the federal government intends to become a very centralizing entity.

This piece of federalist propaganda clearly shows the intentions of the current Liberal government: an unprecedented invasion of areas under provincial jurisdiction.

Instead of redistributing the surplus to the provinces, which were hit hard with cuts during the Liberal government's first term of office, this government is getting ready to ignore completely its so-called partners, the provinces, and hand this money over to citizens directly, with no regard for real needs in health and education, particularly in Quebec.

No, Quebec does not want a return to the era of Trudeau, who, it will be remembered, created a Ministry of Fitness and even a Ministry of Urban Affairs; all to hamstring the Lévesque government.

We in the Bloc Quebecois are going to fight to put a stop to this sinister plan by the Liberal government.

The financial decisions of this government have even been felt directly in my riding. On August 25, 1,000 people marched through the streets in support of keeping open a seniors' residence in Saint-Flavien. The demonstrators did not understand why they were being forced to make this difficult choice.

The reason is very simple: the federal government's cuts in turn reduce the amounts earmarked by the Government of Quebec for health care in Quebec. We have here another Liberal government ploy: do everything possible to discredit the Government of Quebec, but Quebeckers are proud and will continue to support Quebec's sovereignty proposal.

I now draw your attention to employment insurance. With all the changes introduced by the Minister of Human Resources Development, what used to be unemployment insurance has now become poverty insurance.

Right now, in both my riding offices, in Laurier-Station and Plessisville, I am getting calls from people. They are worried, anxious about the approaching winter. They do not know whether they will still be eligible for employment insurance; fathers, single mothers, young people who have worked hard to get off welfare will find themselves forced back on to it. The present government supports this policy. That is unacceptable.

In recent years, the Liberals and Conservatives have literally emptied the riding of Lotbinière of all federal services. In Plessiville the Employment Canada office was closed, over local protests. Now unemployed people, students, have to travel up to 100 km to get services. Another unacceptable situation.

I am asking the Liberal government to correct this error and to restore to my riding the services to which my constituents are entitled. I am asking it to correct the errors of the past.

Whether the Liberals or the Conservatives are in power makes no difference.

1655

Moreover, we saw last week where the interests of the Conservatives lie, when their MPs and their leader, when the Conservative MPs from Quebec voted against the existence of the Quebec people. This is the party that wanted to win over Quebeckers during the last campaign by pretending to be there to defend our interests. The Conservatives shed their disguises this past week. Now we know their true colours.

I am surprised, moreover, to see how the Liberal government is copying from Quebec: partnership, drug insurance, youth employment strategy—copied from Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi. Let me tell you, the day is not far off when the Liberals are going to start talking about the sovereignty of Canada. I understand them. Try to find two federalist who agree on what federalism means. It is impossible. They are still looking for a definition, which as years go by is becoming increasingly ambiguous.

We in the Bloc Quebecois, we Quebeckers, know what we want and where we are going. Year after year, René Lévesque's plan is gaining ground. Between 1980 and 1995, the yes vote in Lobtbinière went from 37 percent to 50 percent, and in the next referendum the sovereignist vote will be even stronger both in Lotbinière and across the province of Quebec.

The minister of provincial meddling will have to find a factor other than 50 percent in order not to recognize the next referendum in Quebec because there will be an overwhelming majority in favour of the yes side.

I would like to tell you that we have hope on this side. We know we will enter the third millennium as a country, Quebec. We will get out of this centralizing government which is shackling us. Quebeckers are seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, they know that soon they will be free from the federal yoke.

To conclude, let me tell you what the Bloc's priorities will be for the years to come: Quebec, Quebec, Quebec, and Quebec.

[English]

Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have just a brief comment. I listened with great interest to the points made by the previous speaker from the Bloc. Those members often use, as did this member, notions of democracy.

I noticed with great interest only a few days ago that the hon. member from the Bloc spoke about cuts to government funding and services. He used great emotion and passion to make speeches that a sovereign Quebec would not have these kinds of problems. The poor would be taken care of. The students who he talked about would have free education. The thousand people who rallied in the streets would never occur in the promised land of the separatists.

The hon. member would be aware that only a few days ago the rural municipalities of Quebec marched publicly to demonstrate against the premier. In a very undemocratic fashion he was imposing, in an authoritarian way, cuts to the municipalities of Quebec and forcing them to make these changes.

When the Quebec media asked him whether he would relent on it because it was a crushing blow, notwithstanding the marching in the streets he said “Absolutely not. I won't be deterred. I am pushing forward”.

If the hon. member wants that gentleman to be the first president of Quebec, is that what the people of rural Quebec can expect from him and from the premier of Quebec?

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Speaker, I am stunned to hear my colleague opposite talk about this kind of imposition when, since 1993, the Liberal government has unilaterally and savagely cut transfers to the provinces, which means that if Quebec wants to balance its own budget, it is forced to unload part of its fiscal responsibilities onto the municipalities.

1700

I would like to say to him that if the federal government paid its dues, including the $2 billion for the harmonization of the GST and the billions of dollars we have been deprived of because of the cuts, not only would we not be short of funds, but we would not be doing any unloading onto the municipalities and the Quebec government would already have a balanced budget, even before you did, a budget that would be a lot stronger than yours.

Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether to laugh or cry this afternoon. The “It's the fault of the federal government” tape is playing once again.

I would just make one correction to what my colleague said, and I will be doing this often. There should be no talk of “we the people of Quebec”, because I am one of the people of Quebec and because 62 percent of the people of Quebec voted for a federalist party in the last election.

So, it is nice for the people of Lotbinière to have you here, but one thing is sure, you cannot talk on behalf of “we the people of Quebec”. If you want to say “we the separatists” or “we the people of the Bloc Quebecois”, that is all right, that is your problem. But we—myself and the people in my riding of Bourassa—are federalist and very proud to be Canadian and we voted over 66 percent for the no side. The community is over 80 percent francophone, and we too are “we the people of Quebec”.

I have a question for the member. I would like to know whether he agrees with his friends Guy Bouthillier of the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste—another extremist—and Raymond Villeneuve, a former FLQ member who beats up people in Ville LaSalle in the name of an independent Quebec, when they said at a recent press conference: “We have to prepare, we have to raise an army in Quebec and be ready for any eventuality, we have to have our guns ready if need be”. Does he agree with that? Then, we can talk about democracy and decent things.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Speaker, I will answer my colleage, the hon. member for Bourassa, by asking him a question. Is he in favour of partition? It is the whole debate about partition that is firing up passions in Quebec.

[English]

Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me begin by congratulating you on your appointment as our Deputy Speaker. I say to you how much I am going to enjoy working with you knowing that you will preside with a firm and fair hand over the workings of this Chamber. I would also like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond to the Speech from the Throne.

I would begin by saying how proud I am of the vision and the commitment to Canadians that we find outlined in the Speech from the Throne. I would like to say how proud I am to be part of a government that has found a way to at once reflect the priorities of Canadians but in a fiscally responsible way. I would like to say how proud I am to be part of a country Canada that is proceeding toward the 21st century with a renewed optimism, with a sense of hope and a sense of direction.

It was only four years ago when we could not say these things, when that hope and that optimism was not part of the Canadian psyche. It behoves us to reflect on how indeed we have come to the point of optimism at which we find ourselves.

I would suggest it has a lot to do with the way in which our government has partnered with Canadians. I think of the work of my colleague the Minister of Finance and his decision to include Canadians in the budgetary process, to have them sit at the table in prebudget consultations to debate the issues that have faced us as we have come to be able to manage our difficult fiscal circumstances.

Engaging Canadians in their governance, including them, has allowed us to make the right decisions and has now brought us to a point where for the first time in 30 years our government can begin to think about the choices that we want to make to build a stronger Canada for the 21st century.

1705

As we have identified the priorities of Canadians, we know indeed that what they want is to be able to continue to live in what is one of the greatest countries in the world, to find ways and means of increasing the democracy that has become renowned around the world.

What are the priorities that Canadians are asking us to address? They want the government to focus on children and youth. They want the government to focus on our health care system, a system that has come to define us as a nation. Canadians want us to understand work and innovation and how changes in work, and knowledge and new technologies are impacting our economy and our relationship with it.

But members can imagine how proud I am as the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that in the Speech from the Throne we also identify the priorities that Canadians put on aboriginal peoples. Canadians want us to address aboriginal children and youth. They want us to understand aboriginal health and the impact it is having on their communities. Canadians want us to understand the relationship that aboriginal people have with work and innovation.

Canadians understand and 80 percent have told us in a 1996 Angus Reid poll that they want aboriginal issues to be high or medium priority for their federal government. They believe that the status quo, our approach and our relationship with aboriginal people is not good enough and it must change.

Canadians understand when we talk about aboriginal children and youth that the demographics of indigenous communities are such that the populations are growing at twice the rate of non-aboriginal communities. They understand that fully 60 percent of the population in aboriginal communities is under the age of 25.

The circumstances that present themselves to indigenous people are like those that we faced as non-aboriginal Canadians in the fifties and sixties, but the hopes and the dreams that we had in the fifties and sixties are not the hopes and the dreams that aboriginal people have.

When we think about aboriginal health, Canadians know that the suicide rate for young aboriginals is upwards of five times as great as it is for myself and for members. They know that the life expectancy for them is six or seven years less than it is for us. They know that for aboriginal people the incidence of TB and diabetes is two to three times higher than it is for other Canadians and they do not accept this. Canadians believe that we can and must do better.

When we look at work and innovation and consider the circumstances facing indigenous communities, we know that the unemployment levels are upwards of 83 percent. We know that the average income is somewhere around $8,800 and falling. The circumstances are not good and the status quo, our approach is not good enough either.

As I have had the opportunity to cross the country and engage in conversations with other partners, other members of Canadian society who want to be part of a new relationship, I am optimistic about the strategies that our provinces and territories are focusing on. They believe that by supportive methods, encouraging economic development and partnering with aboriginal people we can make progress. They look at the changes they have made for example to their social assistance programs that have reduced the dependency and focused on building trampolines so that Canadians can be partners and participate in the economy. They are saying we need to do the same for aboriginal people.

Provinces and territories are understanding there is a role for them to play as we try to make life better for aboriginal Canadians. The private sector has also been most encouraging.

I think of B.C. Hydro and some of the strategies that the leadership and management of that company are engaging in to encourage a changed relationship, a stronger partnership with aboriginal people.

I think of the BHP mining company. We have diamonds in the north. The company that is opening that new resource understands it can build new resource models, new mining models that recognize that aboriginal people who are there on the land need to have access to the resources and benefit from these new riches that are now going to be part and parcel of this Canada we know and love.

1710

Aboriginal people themselves believe that we need a new relationship. They believe that the structural relationship the federal government has had with them is not good enough. Their commitment to this change is probably no clearer anywhere than in the royal commission's report on aboriginal peoples.

I have not had a chance to publicly congratulate the commissioners of that report and I am glad to have the opportunity to do so now. There are different interpretations of the royal commission's report on aboriginal peoples. For me having read it and understood it, the underlying message that comes out of that impressive piece of research and documentation is that there needs to be structural change in our relationship with indigenous people here in Canada.

The commissioners identify that it is no longer acceptable for us to continue in a paternalistic way, to provide only programs that create dependency. They provide for us a model of a new relationship. It is very important. It says we must begin by mutually recognizing the existence of each other. We must add to that a mutual respect for our similarities and our differences. But very much a part of that model are the words responsibility and sharing. The fiduciary responsibility that we have as the crown with aboriginal people must be reflective of responsibility and sharing.

These are very important initiatives. The work of the royal commission can serve to guide us as we flesh out and build a new framework for the relationship.

We are not starting from ground zero. At this point I would like to reflect on some of the very important initiatives that were introduced to this House and in our relationship by the former Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Hon. Ron Irwin. That minister identified that we did have to change our relationship. One of the most fundamental initiatives he undertook was to push us toward understanding the inherent right to self-government that aboriginal people have.

This belief is founded on an understanding of the treaty relationship, this very sacred relationship that the crown has with First Nations. When people ask me what it means to be Canadian, I can tell them to look to our very beginning, to look to the early days when the British and the French landed on the shores of our country and met the First Nations, the indigenous people.

What was our approach? It was not an approach that took us to war. It was an approach of peace. It was an understanding that through treaties, through a partnership we could all live in this great land and benefit and be productive. That treaty relationship is fundamental because it recognizes that when my ancestors came here there were governments that were working effectively and providing for their people. We agreed to write a treaty.

In understanding that, and in reading the report of the royal commission and in understanding how we are going to make life better for aboriginal Canadians we know they have to have concrete autonomy. We have to return jurisdiction so that as they find solutions for education, as they find solutions for housing, they will be reflective of tradition, of the aboriginal tradition, the beliefs, the attachment to the land.

We have increasing numbers of indications that this approach is working. Not only are we restoring the treaty relationship in provinces like Saskatchewan and Alberta but in provinces like British Columbia where we did not get around to writing treaties we are now writing modern treaties. I look to the Nisga'a agreement and the strategies that are in place there to build a strong relationship between the people of that First Nation and this country Canada. We go to the Yukon where we have indeed signed self-government agreements.

First Nations are joining together in appropriate ways to build communities that are large enough to have the capacity to structure important models of governance that will help build a strong future for their people.

1715

There are other initiatives which were implemented by the government reflective of the structural change. We have to target and improve the capability of aboriginal communities to support themselves. The models we build have to be reflective of that responsibility.

In our new housing strategy that issue of responsibility is clear. In partnership with the CMHC money is available. The aboriginal people make contributions to the development and building of these homes.

We focus on economic development. We recognize that the old model of social assistance, a tool of dependency, is not good enough. The modern tools of economic development are ones which we have to focus on and to ensure that aboriginal people have access to the resources that have made this country great.

I think of the relationship of building strong aboriginal government with a focus on developing the capacity for a transparent and accountable aboriginal government. The importance of this is to ensure that improvement in First Nations communities will be seen, will be tangible and will reflect the needs of the members of those First Nations.

We also have to understand that we need to build a new fiscal relationship structurally different from the one we have now and more reflective of the need for predictable funding in an ocean of fiscal transfers. We have to explore the strategies of own source of revenues and taxation. We have to challenge ourselves to include aboriginal people's access to resources, mining and forestry so they something with which to develop and grow.

I am encouraged by what I see, by the comments and the directions of the leadership of our First Nations and aboriginal people. I am optimistic of the strength of partnerships that we can build between the federal government and the aboriginal people, including other partners such as the provinces, the territories, the private sector and individual Canadians.

I do not believe there has ever been a time such as now for us to find solutions, modern solutions, to a circumstance that none of us is particularly proud of, a history and a relationship that must change.

As the minister I am but a facilitator. I am one partner. Our challenge as members of this House will be to understand the roles that we as individuals can play in bringing our communities together, municipalities with First Nations. We can find strategies that we can share and that will be effective and responsible, knowing that this is the best country to live in not only for non-aboriginal Canadians but for aboriginals as well.

I implore the members of the House to work with me as we identify a new framework, a new capacity to work productively, proactively and strategically together with First Nations leadership, to build a new relationship and a strong future for all Canadians.

Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her very impassioned comments. They are consistent with some of the comments we heard from the minister earlier.

I find these people speak from their heart. They have the ability to paint a picture which they believe in but which I do not think it is quite accurate.

I ask that they consider allowing the Canadian people to be the ones who paint the picture. The presentations which I heard this afternoon, as a new member in this House, seem to imply that we have arrived, we are there, as a Canadian people and it is now time to move on to new government programs.

I point to the throne speech with 29 new spending initiatives and very little reference to paying down the debt or relieving Canadians from the tax burden they carry.

1720

I am concerned that they are talking about more government investment. We have had years and years of government investment and that has not done it for us. I am concerned when they talk about partnerships, because government partnerships mean that somebody is left out of the partnership. Usually the one left out of the partnership is the struggling entrepreneur whose tax dollars are paying for one who is allowed into the partnership. This is not going to stimulate the innovation and entrepreneurial drive that was referenced in the throne speech. It is counterproductive.

I ask the Liberals to consider what the Canadian people are saying and I refer them to one of their own recent polls done by Earnscliffe that points out that 57 percent of Canadian people feel the government has done a poor job in reducing government waste.

I would also point out that the number one priority for Canadians from the government's own survey is the reduction of government spending. Yet we have a throne speech with 29 new spending increases.

I want to encourage the minister and the people on that side of the House to stop misleading the Canadian people with the picture that we have arrived. I would be much more encouraged if I had heard a much stronger commitment in the throne speech to relieving my grandchildren of the burden of this national debt, giving my children the opportunity that tax relief would allow them in a more innovative and entrepreneurial environment.

Hon. Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, fundamental to the Speech from the Throne is the underpinning that we have to build strategies and programs that are reflective of our fiscal means and which accommodate our resources. We have not gone through four years of very difficult times to forget that everything we do must be affordable and reflective of the fiscal reality.

I also remind the hon. member that the role of government is not to balance the budget as an end in itself. The role of government is to respond to the needs of Canadians, to make life better for Canadians. I suggest to him that the approach and the strategy we have provided allow us to take very serious account of our fiscal reality, of the resources available to us to make sure we do not ever again spend too much, but to reflect the needs of Canadians and make choices that are reflective of Canadian priorities.

A hallmark of the government has been our capacity to understand and ensure ourselves of the priorities of Canadians and to show that we can respond to those in a fiscally responsible way.

All the aspects the hon. member reflects are part of the Speech from the Throne except for the understanding that the management of the deficit and the debt is not an end in itself. Managing those is instrumental and a requirement for us to continue to build a great country and respond to the needs of the people of a great country who want to continue to have the best country in the world in which to live.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the remarks by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The tone was excellent, the kind of tone that befits the issues she intends to defend. I had the opportunity to hear her speak on other occasions, outside this House, and she displayed on those occasions the same attitude she is displaying today.

I do not know if it comes from being a woman, but her image is completely different from that of the former Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who came across as very aggressive. This makes for a welcome change. I agree with everything she said, for instance, about poverty among aboriginal people in Canada, about health, suicide and so on.

1725

It is true. I know because, when I was sitting on the human resources development committee in the early part of my former mandate, I saw the problems she is talking about. However, the royal commission, which tabled an extensive report, indicated huge amounts are involved. I think she had better say whether or not she is prepared to go as far as recommended by the royal commission on Indian affairs. Is she prepared to act on the commission's recommendations?

Speaking of understanding and this understanding attitude I welcome—we really need it in this House—is the minister prepared to recognize, in the same positive and open manner, that we are a people?

[English]

Hon. Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my comments, the work of the royal commission is a tremendous body of knowledge which is valuable not only to me as the minister responsible for Indian affairs but to other partners as well, the provinces, First Nations and Canadians.

When we look at the over 440 recommendations that are a part of that document, really only 89 are strictly under the purview of the federal government. They are much more far reaching and broad than saying that the federal government has this and this to do.

As I said, while many people have different definitions of the work of the royal commission, fundamental to that work is a clear indication that the structural relationship has to change. The way we have worked together in the past has not provided us with the benefits one might expect.

Their message is that we have to be much broader. We have to include more people in solving the difficulties which face our aboriginal Canadians.

The sense is that if we partner together effectively, if we build a relationship with First Nations and ask for their input and advice on taking the recommendations of the royal commission and building a plan of action together, engaging the provinces and the private sector, including Canadians in that process, we will find the solutions we need to ensure that aboriginal people are able to benefit from the wealth and prosperity of Canada.

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had to stand in the House. It is a bit of an intimidating experience. I congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your appointment and the minister on her new responsibilities.

The appointment as Conservative critic for Indian affairs and northern development is an appointment I take very seriously. I think we should all take a moment to reflect on the responsibilities of a critic.

The responsibility of a critic is not just to jump to their feet every time the government stands, or rather sits; the responsibility of a critic, number one, is to be positive and, number two, to look for defects in what the government is saying. Certainly a critic has an innate responsibility to be responsible in their comments. I am not sure that is always recognized in the House. It is something we would all look forward to seeing a bit more of.

There were a few comments made by the hon. minister about the royal commission on aboriginal peoples. There were many good points brought up by that commission. There were also some negative points. The fact that we are individuals gives us the ability to disagree with certain points and to agree with certain points.

There are a few things the minister referred to which bear reflecting on again.

We have a number of statistics. When we hear the word statistics we quite often lose sight of the fact that those statistics involve people, men, women and children. They are not just numbers in somebody's book. We are dealing with human lives and futures.

1730

When they understand that they are dealing with over 600 First Nations' communities, that there are a lot of pressing problems, that there is rampant child poverty, that 30 percent of the aboriginal community is under the age of 15 years, as politicians, if they do not understand anything else about that, they will understand that many of them will vote in the next election. There is a long journey.

There are a couple of points we should not forget. We have to proceed on this and we have to proceed together. We have to keep the principles of accountability and transparency, which were mentioned in the throne speech.

We can do three things. We can stagnate. We can continue to do what we have done. We can stand still and not move forward or we can move forward together.

Hon. Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the comments of the critic of the Conservative Party and thank him for his intervention.

He reflects precisely my point of view, that indeed we, as members of Parliament, have a role to play in building with First Nations the strategies for the future. I look forward to working with him as we work together with First Nations to find that framework.

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate you on your appointment to your new job. We actually did not think this was going to happen until we occupied the other side of the House. I am sure that you bring expertise and fairness to the position. I look forward to a long tenure with you.

While I am congratulating and thanking people, I would certainly like to thank the people of the grand old constituency of Wetaskiwin for returning me to the House of Commons for the second time. This is a real endorsement of our party's policies, our leader and our platform. If I may be so bold, it is probably an endorsement of myself as the candidate.

That did not come about strictly by accident. It came about as a result of a lot of hard work. I would like to thank those people who spent so much time, effort and shoe leather getting me elected. They did an exemplary job and I would like to recognize them here in the House.

When I was going around in my constituency during the election campaign, I talked to a lot of people in the coffee shops, on the doorsteps and on the farms throughout the constituency. Their concern was that they felt they had more government than they could afford, that the debt was certainly a huge problem, that it was a millstone around Canadians' necks. They told me that they would like a fresh start. Coincidentally, that is exactly on what we campaigned.

Therefore, it is incumbent on us to do our utmost to give Canadians a fresh start and to ease the tax burden. As the labour critic for the Reform Party, I noticed that the throne speech was sadly lacking in the area of labour.

Being a farmer, labour as it relates to me most directly is in the shipment of grain to port. Of course, a lot of other products have to go to port. We discover that these shipments can be interrupted either through work stoppage, that is a strike or a lockout.

I was most disappointed that the government did not take an opportunity to put into the throne speech some sort of final offer selection dispute settlement mechanism. I think this is of utmost importance. The loss of markets that we suffer each time there is a work disruption is an immeasurable commodity. Although we can measure certain amounts of lost markets, we cannot measure the entire impact on the economy.

1735

Mr. Speaker, if it is not too late I wish to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary West.

What about the amendments to the Canada Labour Code? We expect them to be tabled in the House very soon. Those amendments would be an excellent opportunity to see a final offer selection arbitration settlement mechanism take place.

This mechanism would affect about 700,000 federal workers, people who do not necessarily work for the federal government but who come under the jurisdiction of the federal labour code. That represents about 10 percent of the Canadian workforce. These people are mostly involved in the movement of goods, services or capital. They are people who work in the airline industry, the banking industry, the railroads and the post office.

We think it is of utmost importance that we have a mechanism to settle these disputes and yet we are not getting any kind of co-operation from the federal government. The federal government will use final offer selection arbitration once they have legislated either a locked out group or a struck group back to work. If it is good enough to use after these people are legislated back to work, then why not make it available to the parties before the work stoppage starts?

How would that work? The parties involved would agree on who their arbitrator was. They would present to the arbitrator the matters that were agreed on, the matters that are outstanding and their final position on those outstanding items. The arbitrator then would choose all of one position or all of the other position, no compromise position.

To me, this is a tool that can be equally used by labour or by management. If it is used to its ultimate, as I have said in this House many times before, it will not to be used at all. Both parties know that they have to bargain in a most earnest situation. They have to arrive at the best possible bottom line. There would be no fudging, no hedging, just the bottom line. If they do not, then an arbitrator can be imposed on them.

Some people have said this takes away the right to strike and disrupts and interferes with the bargaining process. Quite the contrary. Groups that are either locked out or on strike will have their bargaining process far more compromised through back to work legislation than they ever would with final offer selection arbitration.

I was most disappointed that we did not hear any mention of this during the Speech from the Throne. It is high time we adopted this. As I mentioned, Bill C-66 as it was known in the last Parliament, died in the Senate. Therefore I expect that the minister will reintroduce it in the House in the coming weeks. I am going to push very strongly to see that there are some changes made along the lines of final offer selection arbitration.

Canada is in a global marketplace. We have to establish our reputation as a reliable supplier of goods. Not only do we have to supply the best possible commodities, which we do, there is no problem with that, but we have to supply them on a regular, consistent and reliable basis. If we do not, our customers are certainly going to be looking elsewhere. It is like being in the supermarket business, if it is not on the shelf, it is pretty difficult to sell.

1740

I am looking forward to seeing the bill come back to the House for debate, which I am sure will be any day now, at which time we will be addressing it and making all sorts of improvements to it, not the least of which is final offer selection arbitration.

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was quite intrigued by the comments of the member opposite on the approach of final offer selection arbitration.

I wonder if the member opposite has any data on the results of final offer arbitration or arbitration awards generally. Do they generally tilt in favour of the union or do they generally tilt in favour of management?

The data that I have seen most recently indicated that arbitration tends to tilt in favour of labour. That may be a very good thing, but if one is looking at cost, if one is concerned about the fiscal ramifications, I wonder if the hon. member has any information which would indicate that arbitration tends to tilt one way or the other.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Speaker, that certainly opens up a great debate. We could probably talk about that for some time. I agree that I have seen some information which tends to indicate that final offer selection arbitration tends to favour labour slightly.

However, every work disruption and every strike results in labour getting some improvements in its situation, either in working conditions, benefits or wages. I think that while some of the information does seem to tend to favour the unions, it would at least settle a strike.

Having to take the drastic step of passing back to work legislation, which, by the way, some government members have already decided, and have said so in the newspapers, is the way to handle the postal strike which has not happened yet, will have a tremendous detrimental effect on the bargaining process.

We should have some apparatus in place that is an item that either labour or management can put in its tool box and require them to bargain this situation right down to the nitty-gritty.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I must commend the member. The president of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union president, local 832, would be pleased. He was instrumental in bringing into law in Manitoba that settlement process. It was immediately repealed by the Conservative government because he was right. It kept parties honest and the Conservative government and employers had a problem with that. Without question, it was a process that did keep people honest and it did favour labour because government and employers were being dishonest in their negotiations.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a question there but in reply to my colleague's comments, I can only underscore the need to have some sort of process in place to encourage the parties to come to an agreement on their own. A negotiated settlement is probably the best settlement. There is no probably about it, it is the best settlement. Any time that two parties can negotiate and settle their differences without any interference from outside is the best way to go.

1745

Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise to address the Speech from the Throne, this being my first speech in the House. I wish to thank the voters of Calgary West for choosing me to be their voice in Ottawa.

When one drives east along Bow Trail toward city centre one cannot help but admire the concrete and steel of Calgary's new downtown rising up toward the blue sky of Alberta. One has to marvel at Calgary's energy, her productivity, and take note of how the city has grown and prospered. No matter how many tax dollars, government jobs or military bases Ottawa has deprived Calgary of, we still have a low unemployment rate, low taxes and a hunger for Canada's lowest income tax rate.

The meaner Ottawa gets, the leaner Calgary becomes. We now have a city that thrives upon private industry, not the fat of the federal government. I am proud to represent a city that still exemplifies the pioneer spirit from the roughnecks who drill for oil to the settlers who moved west in horse drawn carts made of wood. Indeed my own family moved west around the turn of the century to plough its section of land.

Speaking of my family, I would like to thank mom and dad along with all the others who helped in my election. I have my father to thank for my start in politics. He would let me stay up past my scheduled bedtime, but only if I watched the evening news with him and answered questions about what I had observed, to which he often offered the right political spin.

Let me tell the House a story about when I was in diapers. A mess began to develop. It got worse over time. Nearly $700 billion later we call it the accumulated national debt. The man who started the mess was Pierre Elliott Trudeau. When I look across to the Liberal benches I see some of his accomplices. The current prime minister was Trudeau's minister of finance and under Trudeau he learned to spend, indeed he liked to spend. He taxed and he spent until his heart's content, so much so that he still cannot wean himself from the nasty habits he developed under the man who started the wave in Salmon Arm.

Then came the mandarin from Manitoba, the whiner from Winnipeg who now lavishes upon himself as the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He has begged for political pork, dined diplomats and grovelled for government goodies. Who could forget the hyena from Hamilton who shrieked and shrilled her way under the public's skin and who is now eligible for her $2.8 million gold plated MP pension plan?

I would like to talk about the department that just grew and grew. His bureaucrat parents named him manpower and immigration, but their own rules made his first name politically incorrect so they changed it to citizenship and immigration. The bureaucrats kept on feeding him and tending to his every gurgle, burp and expansion. They proudly watched as their pet department grew into a strapping example of government largesse.

As a right of passage they named him employment and immigration, a title that made the bureaucrats burst with pride, but even the bureaucrats noticed that their fully grown program had developed a nasty streak. Instead of solving the problems he was created to solve he actually made them worse. Unemployment was permanently doubling that of our neighbours to the south. Multiple generations of families were beginning to get hooked on the spiralling dependency that he was pushing. The bureaucrats changed his name to human resources development, but they could not hide what had happened. Their little pet had grown into a $57 billion monster.

1750

Members are probably asking what went wrong when the monster roamed unchecked across the land. The government renamed unemployment insurance, employment insurance, but that did not change the want for work or make good on its 1993 election promises. The government tossed out band-aids, candies and bromides, but it got a bad case of inaction when it came to repairing the structural problems.

For example, UI charges repeat claimants the same premiums as someone who works but has never collected. No actuarially sound insurance plan would have high risk users pay the same or even less than low risk users. Even more UI is distributed disproportionately according to region. Nova Scotia alone has five different regions of eligibility. People living and working within an hour of one another have different eligibility requirements. This begs a question. Does the government have credibility on the jobs issue?

The Liberals have presided over the highest level of unemployment in recent history. They are now into their 82nd month of unemployment above 9 percent. UI has become a payroll tax with overpayments now over $7 billion per year. For the average Canadian worker that amounts to $400 a year in overpayments.

A total of close to $14 billion has been hoarded by the Minister of Finance so that he can gloat about deficit reduction. He even brags about his 43 tax increases and how he has taken $26 billion more from us.

How about an insurance program that is actuarially sound and free from political interference? How about at least lowering the payroll tax that kills jobs? Alas, there is more program mismanagement.

Can we trust the Liberals with our pensions? Canadians under 35 years old do not believe we will have a pension. Why? Because the government has dug an unfunded pension liability of over half a trillion dollars. That is why the government is so gung ho about RRSPs.

Even if the Canada pension plan survives Liberal mismanagement, people my age will receive less than a 50 cents return on every dollar they throw into it. The government is ripping off young people. They want to take 10 percent of our wages for a program that will not be around when we need it. If CPP did survive under Liberal mismanagement it would only pay out $8,800 per year, even with maximum contributions.

In contrast the same contributions invested at a 6 percent rate of return, the numbers the government claims for the CPP, would create their own pension yielding $26,000 per year. Please do not ask us to trust the government. Let us opt out of its pyramid scheme and wrest our money from its corrupting grasp.

Yet I fear there is even more. The Liberals pride themselves on the political machine vote buying tactics. Why they even preened about increasing the size of the bureaucracy by 3,000 temporary bureaucrats with $90 million of taxpayer money.

Then there was the billion dollar student handout. For every single student this handout is intended to help, the program hurts nine more. Increasing debt or the size of government and taxes only deprives young people of work. Young people want structural repairs that will create real jobs, not promises that result in less work and higher taxes.

Cut taxes to stimulate investment, growth and jobs. Stop the pyramid scheme to burden young people with pension debt. Link student loans to social insurance numbers. This would reduce default problems and therefore increase the likelihood and dollar value ceilings on private sector student loans.

This story of the department that grew and grew reminds me of three questions that all politicians should ask before they start feeding a program.

1755

First, how much should it cost? Second, does it benefit all Canadians or cater to a special interest? In other words, is it just a narrowly focused vote buying tactic? Third, would fellow Canadians vote for the program if the question was put to them?

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate the hon. member for Calgary West on his maiden speech. Let me also disagree with the content of much of his speech.

On the issue of reforming the Canada pension plan, there was an accrued liability and we could not afford to continue on a pay as you go basis. Reform of the Canada pension plan was put in place by the federal government with agreement from the provincial governments. It is important to note that.

I recognize that the Reform Party, in its policies, would get rid of the Canada pension plan. It was to turn it into a super RRSP. If the people happened to have Bre-X in their super RRSPs they would retire with no pension.

It is very clear that Canadians on the whole want the Canada pension plan. It was the subject of the election campaign. The plan will be there for younger Canadians.

Earlier today I talked about spending some money, and I am proud of it. One of the things I talked about spending money on was students, universities, research and development. I think the member, when talking about spending money, should focus on the program. The University of Waterloo and Sir Wilfrid Laurier University are in my riding, as well as Conestoga College.

Sure, that is spending money, but it is also investing in the future of our young people and in the future of our country. Hopefully the member can make the distinction. Most members of the House were not here prior to 1993. I think he should also acknowledge that.

Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member opposite admits that the CPP needs reform.

He also talked about how the plan was improperly set up in the first place, in a sense, and admitted basically that it was a pyramid scheme. At least with that I say he is beginning to address the problem.

When he talks about investment does he really mean squandering? With the money that has been put into the plan, he and his party have run up a half trillion dollar debt. The Fraser Institute puts the number at $1 trillion. His own government puts it at over $500 billion.

Who am I to trust? Am I to trust the members across the way who have done such a poor job with the money they have been entrusted with, or am I to trust the people themselves to look after a plan? I would trust myself and other Canadians far more than I would trust the government with the money.

Once again I quote the statistic for those young people who are watching and listening today. If they put full maximum contributions into the CPP they will get only $8,800 a year. If they collect from 65 until 75, should they live to 75, they will only get $88,000 out of that plan. If they had their own plan they would get $26,000 a year or $260,000 by the time they turn 75.

That is far different from what the Minister of Canadian Heritage will get with the $2.8 million pension she will collect by the time she turns 75, or the $3.4 million that Brian Tobin, who is now collecting money as the Premier of Newfoundland, will get. It is a travesty. They should be ashamed.

1800

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate you on your appointment as Acting Speaker. I look forward to working within the rules of this House and supporting you in your role.

[Translation]

It is an honour and a pleasure for me to be able to comment on the recent throne speech. For the second time in fourteen months, the people of Etobicoke North have given me the opportunity to represent them in the House of Commons. I thank them for their strong vote of confidence and I promise to do everything I can to perform my duties with honesty during this 36th Parliament of Canada.

[English]

The throne speech sets the government's directional course and lays out the priorities for this Parliament. I believe it has done this very well. It has responded to the needs of Canadians and to the needs of the constituents in Etobicoke North.

People in my riding frequently refer to three major concerns and priorities: first, the need for the economy to generate more jobs so that more Canadians, in particular young Canadians, can re-enter the workforce; second, the need to resolve our national unity problem so that we can move forward and remove the last major impediment to economic growth in Ontario, Quebec and the rest of Canada; and third, the need to restore confidence in our health care system.

The throne speech addresses these key issues very completely but before I expand on that, I would like to comment on the overall context of the throne speech. That is where we are today and where we have come from. When charting a course for the future, we really need to know where we are today and where we have been.

Our journey to fiscal responsibility and economic renewal has been a very difficult one. The road was rough and winding. We had to make difficult choices about which way to go but I am proud to say that our destination is in sight. If we stay on this road, our children's future and Canada's future will be secure.

We are seeing the very positive results today. Canadian interest rates are at their lowest in decades. Inflation has been beaten down and is firmly under control. We are more competitive as a nation. Consumer spending is up and so is business investment. Make no mistake, good jobs are here and more are coming. In summary, the hard work of all Canadians is beginning to pay off, but our job is not yet complete.

[Translation]

In my riding and in other regions of Canada, there are business representatives that tell me they are unable to recruit people with the necessary skills for new positions. The tragic irony of all this is that this is happening at a time when many Canadians, and particularly young Canadians, are unable to find quality jobs.

[English]

I was delighted therefore to note that our throne speech committed our government “to work with the provinces, universities and colleges, the high tech industry and other rapidly growing sectors of the economy to better forecast the number and types of jobs that will be available and to develop a plan for ensuring that young people are appropriately educated to fill them”.

I was particularly pleased to see the reference to colleges. I believe that there are many opportunities available for technicians and people with trades in a number of our industrial sectors.

That is why I am supporting the establishment of a telecommunications learning institute in Etobicoke in association with Humber College. Such an institute will focus on research and training so that our workforce skills are leading edge and we are prepared for the latest advancements in communications technology.

While our colleges have a major role to play, clearly our universities do as well. The jobs of the future will increasingly be knowledge based jobs and our ability as a nation to foster a culture of innovation through research, development and entrepreneurship will determine our future economic growth.

That is why the formation of the $800 million Canada Foundation for Innovation that our government established in the last budget is so important. So too is the recent announcement in our government's throne speech to establish a Canada millennium scholarship endowment fund. These scholarships will make post-secondary education more accessible and affordable and will help young Canadians prepare for the knowledge based society of the next century.

There is another serious issue that in my view is still a threat when it comes to job creation and unemployment. I refer to it as structural unemployment.

1805

[Translation]

Gone are the days when the Canadian economy was expanding and thousands of jobs were created automatically. Sure, our economy is currently vibrant and it creates many jobs. However, the country and the government are facing the challenge of bringing unemployment back to the lowest possible level.

[English]

Perhaps we can never achieve an unemployment rate of 5 percent but perhaps we can. We should look very carefully at those countries that have achieved very low rates of unemployment without triggering unwanted inflation, countries like the United States, Holland, Great Britain and others. To be sure, because of our unique Canadian society we cannot transplant these solutions here but surely we can learn something from their experiences.

Changes in the global economy and changes in the workplace are at the root of structural unemployment. Countries that understand these developments are best positioned to create the public policy environment to deal with them. There are certainly many changes occurring.

Automation is replacing people with technology. We see it every day of our lives whether it is at the supermarket, or when we do computerized banking or whether it is robotics in the manufacturing sector. Organizations throughout the western world are making their organizations flatter by eliminating levels of management and by redesigning, re-engineering and rightsizing, as the term is used, their structure. There are changes occurring in the workplace such as the use of overtime hours, the use of part time versus full time workers, more contract employees and there are many other trends.

Many of these changes are characterized as necessary because of the increasingly competitive global economy. At the same time however it is interesting to note that stock markets in Canada and the United States and industry analysts are discounting the positive impacts of downsizing initiatives. In fact the evidence seems to point to the fact that companies that are focused more on growing their business and not so much on cost cutting have experienced better profitability performance over the last few years.

I applaud Canadian business leaders like Courtney Pratt, the president of Noranda, when they speak about business' multi-stakeholder responsibilities and the need for business to invest in people.

[Translation]

We know that in Europe, the exceptionally high unemployment rates in countries such as Germany and France are due to what economists call, and this is an understatement, the labour market's lack of flexibility. The expression refers to social benefits, manpower mobility, the ability to cope with flexible work patterns, etc.

[English]

We should learn something from these experiences.

There are a number of other initiatives that I believe would spur employment in this country. For example in Canada we could introduce tax incentives at minimal cost to the federal treasury to encourage employees to own shares in their own company. In the United States and elsewhere these schemes are referred to as employee share ownership plans or ESOPs. There is a very aggressive and well developed tax incentive program for ESOPs in the United States and in the United Kingdom. In Canada at this point in time we have no similar regime.

Studies in the United States and Canada comparing ESOP versus non-ESOP companies have consistently shown ESOP companies to be superior performers in profitability and job growth. ESOPs if properly implemented across Canada would make good public policy and would inspire and encourage Canadians to build a better and more compassionate Canada for all Canadians. The results would be both immediate and long term.

To conclude I must say that at the same time that we move aggressively on the economic front we must work very hard on the political front to ensure that we remain a united country from sea to sea. Constituents in my riding are tired of this continuing debate and they want to put the national unity issue to rest. They see how the uncertainty about Quebec's future in Canada is having a negative impact on the economic prospects in Ontario, in Quebec and in the rest of Canada.

At a public meeting I called in my riding a number of months ago to coincide with the release of the health forum report, I was made very aware of the concerns many Canadians have about the responsiveness and the accessibility of our health care system. Medicare is uniquely Canadian and very worthy of our support and attention. We must initiate public policies to restore the confidence of Canadians in our health care system and I pledge to do my utmost to achieve that end.

Mr. Speaker, I have exhausted my time and I thank you and this House for this opportunity.

1810

Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned in his remarks the need to resolve the national unity problem. I submit that the national unity problem will never be resolved until we deal adequately and fairly with our aboriginal people.

I was pleased to hear earlier that the government is committed to working in partnership with our aboriginal people. I would submit that there is a very practical opportunity for the government to do this in a very real fashion.

The Pic River First Nation submitted a land claim and this claim was rejected after a legal review by the Department of Justice. The Pic River First Nation feels that this legal review was seriously flawed and they are seeking an independent legal review of their land claim. They have launched a court action but they are quite willing to forgo court action if the government will agree to work together with them in partnership to have an independent legal review of their land claim.

I would submit that this is an opportunity for the government to show and put meaning to the words in the throne speech, to work realistically in partnership with the First Nations, to resolve this outstanding land claim rather than force this First Nations group to go through a lengthy court action. The deadline date for this would be October 9. I would urge the government to move in the direction of resolving this issue before that time.

I further feel that for Canada to resolve the national unity issue we have to deal fairly with all peoples and that means looking at the aboriginal situation in a fair and reasonable way. A first step to admit that we want to obtain national unity would be for Canada to issue an apology to the aboriginal people for the manner in which we have historically treated aboriginal people over the years.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I have had the good fortune in my experience in life to have visited and worked in the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and other parts of Canada. I have developed a great respect for our native peoples and the contribution they make to the overall culture of our country.

While I am not familiar with the specifics of the case in his riding, I think he probably heard the comments earlier by our Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. If it was like the reaction of my own, I was moved by the compassion and willingness to develop models and solutions that will be workable into the next millennium. I know that will involve working very closely and getting the co-operation of the provinces and territories and other stakeholder groups to make that happen.

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Etobicoke North mentioned that he is in favour of tax incentives. It is a marvellous idea. It is one that the Liberal government tried in the 1970s to generate economic growth. Instead what it did was it helped to create a $600 billion debt and stagnant unemployment today.

Instead of tax incentives, why does the member not encourage his government to give Canadians tax relief? Instead of picking winners and losers in the economy, why does the member not encourage his government to let Canadians decide what to do with their own money?

Does this minister believe that Canadian taxpayers, small business people and homemakers know better how to spend an extra dollar than do the Liberal politicians and bureaucrats?

Mr. Roy Cullen: Mr. Speaker, to the member for Calgary Southeast, I thank him for the promotion which I have taken note of.

In terms of tax relief, let us look at the United States. I was down there recently at a conference on employee share ownership. The United States is probably the market economy of the world and employee share ownership plans are absolutely taking off. It is a huge movement. What it is saying is that the workers and people in all levels of management have a piece of the action. The result is there is better productivity and greater profits. More profits mean more growth and more growth means more jobs. Therefore with a tiny tweak in terms of a tax incentive which would have very minimal cost to the treasury, we could actually accomplish some great things and get a lot more Canadians back to work.

Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, like others I want to congratulate you and welcome you to the Chair.

1815

I want to thank the constituents of Malpeque for having the confidence to re-elect me to this 36th Parliament.

As my constituents know very well, the last four years were not easy in our thrust to put the country in a secure financial position for the future. The reality is that in Atlantic Canada, where there has been a greater dependency on government programs, we have felt the pain of cuts and program changes more vividly than in other areas of the country.

My constituents have shown their willingness to accept what had to be done. However, they are also telling me that they are at their limit in terms of program elimination and cost recovery. Constituents of Malpeque want us in this term to ensure a balance between our economic and social agenda. They maintain we need a strong central government to carry out such initiatives. They welcome and support the latest initiatives of the government on the unity file.

Our plan during the election set out our values and priorities, a growing economy, a modernized health care system and investing in knowledge to equip Canadians to compete in a changing world. We also offered during the election a workable plan for enhancing the unity of our country and securing our future.

The throne speech begins the task of implementing those commitments in quality care, increasing the cash floor which is of particular importance in Prince Edward Island, education, knowledge, innovation, the commitment of $2 billion for the youth employment strategy and in trade where agriculture, fisheries, tourism and aerospace production are of particular importance to my riding and to Prince Edward Island.

The commitment of the Government of Canada to adopt its programs to reflect the social economic realities of rural Canada is of particular importance. Given these facts, I am still both anxious and optimistic about the future. I am anxious because I have seen the amount of pressure that those with economic power can place on government. We saw that here the other day in the debate on supply as the right-wingers from across the floor argued for tax breaks for the wealthy when we should be investing in programs that meet the needs of ordinary Canadians.

Before long we will have the ability to make decisions based on our people's needs rather than those of the international bankers and bond holders. That gives me optimism for the future. We have regained the ability to address the priorities of Canadians. We did it with a fair bit of pain. We regained that ability, but how will the ultimate decisions be made?

I believe we must recognize as parliamentarians what we are up against in making such decisions. That is the pressure from the economic right and the strategies it employs to undermine our ability as parliamentarians to represent fairly the needs of people. They some how manage to portray the needs of the economy above the needs of people. We need a strong economy but it cannot and should not be the absolute in and of itself.

In one sense I am speaking on the broader issue of democracy, of politics and of the needs of people in society to support and participate in our parliamentary democracy, not just those who have economic power and sway.

In the last decade our various political institutions have come under considerable attack, often very subtly, by those who have much to gain if the political institutions of the land can be undermined. Politicians are attacked as well and not just on their ideas; sometimes the person and the business itself.

As move toward the next millennium both within Canada and globally we are really in a battle of democracy versus the market.

1820

Let me put this as concisely as I can. With all the trade agreements, the linking of the markets in the financial sense, it has caused power to shift. Let me put it this way and compare it to space. The economic space has grown and the political space has narrowed.

I believe if that space is out of balance between economics and politics we are all in trouble in terms of meeting the needs of the people in our nations. In other words, if the market has all the power then all we can really be is a consumer.

This is summed up best by Arthur Shafer in Peter Newman's The Canadian Revolution:

The values of the marketplace have infiltrated every institution in Canada, the family, the church, the legal system. Anti-human, commercial values are dominating every sphere of life. Now that we're coming into economic hard times, the sense of each man for himself, save your own skin, get whatever advantage you can is going to sink public spiritedness and make it much more difficult to preserve our sense of obligation to the community.

This pressure on the essence of government is also explained appropriately by John Ralson Saul in his book The Unconscious Civilization:

People become so obsessed by hating government that they forget it is meant to be their government and is the only powerful public force they have purchase on.

That is what makes the neo-conservative and market force argument so disingenuous. Their remarkably successful demonization of the public sector has turned much of the citizenry against their own mechanism. They have been enrolled in the cause of interests that have no particular concern for citizen's welfare. Instead, the citizen is reduced to the status of a subject at the foot of the throne of the marketplace.

My point is that the individual and the government are linked together by an artery. If we act to sever that artery by replacing or opposing a central role for government, we cease to be individuals and revert to the status of subject.

I have outlined the foregoing to put into context the kind of environment in which we will work in the House and this Parliament. We have to recognize from where and why that pressure comes. I certainly believe in a strong role for government. I believe that the public sector actually creates value in our society through its institutions, its programs, its public services and its workforce.

Part of the reason we see this subtle attack on this institution and government itself is that some in the private sector know that if they can shift that responsibility then they can profit by doing so.

It is the desire of some in the corporate sector to move back to a time when individual problems, regardless of circumstances, were an individual responsibility. We cannot allow that to happen.

As Thomas Jefferson stated, the care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government.

The corporate sector recognizes that if government can be moved out of the way there is a profit to be made in the offering of what is now a public service. One of the best ways to achieve its goal is to substitute markets for those public programs now authorized through democratic institutions.

I put these points on the table to show what I believe is one of the greatest pressures on this institution. To protect ourselves from being subverted by that pressure I refer members to page 140 of Hansard and the remarks of my colleague from Hillsborough when he talked about more power being put to members of this assembly. That would certainly lessen the power of the bureaucracies within Ottawa and would also lessen the ability of those with economic clout to pressure cabinet ministers to make decisions. What we really need is real debate in this House and for the decisions to be made here.

I believe we can better achieve our objectives as stated in the throne speech by assuring, as the hon. member for Hillsborough had argued in his remarks, that greater power is put in the hands of the members of House of Commons. I think it is one of the most fundamental things we must do.

1825

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it was a pleasure to listen to the speech by the hon. member who is a dairy farmer. You get some good home farm advice. But I wonder whether the Liberal members are redundant. Except for their trained seal capacity to vote as told they have all been spewing the same bland stuff that was in that throne speech, and there is nothing there.

I especially take great exception to the fact that almost every one of them has said, as we heard during the election campaign, “we have our fiscal house in order”. We keep hearing that. I do not know how to say this diplomatically or in a parliamentary way but it ain't true. We do not have our fiscal house in order.

The debt has been increasing. I am a teacher and I would love to have an overhead projector here. If we look at the size of the debt, instead of going up one way on a graph as it did from the previous government, it has now gone another way. The Liberals take credit for this wee little turn in the graph.

The fact is under this government the debt still went up from $500 billion to $600 billion. Instead of paying $40 billion a year in interest we are now paying $47 billion a year in interest. They keep on repeating this and it has worked. A lot of people in Canada think it is true that our fiscal house is in order.

I want to give them a mild applause for at least making that little turn, but it is not good enough. I would like to ask this member to respond specifically to my question. How can he keep saying we are all okay when in fact they have been responsible for adding yet another 20 percent, another $100 billion, to the debt during their previous term?

Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. Maybe he needs some down home farm examples so he can understand how annual deficit and accumulated debt really work.

Let me compare it to a farm. In terms of my farm or the farm of any member over there, we have had capital investment in terms of our mortgages, equipment and so on. We pay our interest payments as the year goes by. But what is very important is the operating capital in terms of being able to use that capital to operate so we can pay the interest on our mortgages and remain in business in a very productive and progressive way.

What we have achieved in comparison to that is that we have paid off our operating debt. We have the accumulated debt to pay in the future. On an operating basis we have surpluses of moneys with which we can gradually pay down that debt. As we said in the election campaign we can split it 50:50, put some of it toward debt reduction and tax reductions and with the other 50 percent we will make investments in terms of social and economic programs. That is major progress.

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech and agreed with a great deal of it except for the first bumpy part at the beginning when he was doing the hail the government's throne speech business about modernizing the health care system and all that sort of stuff. Why on earth is he still a Liberal? Why on earth did he ever become a Liberal?

Why on earth did someone who was once the president of the National Farmers Union ever become a Liberal when the fact is everything he said with the exception of the bumps at the beginning is something that New Democrats have been saying day in and day out in this Parliament for years? We are the only market critical party in this Chamber. The government of which he is a part has signed free trade agreement after free trade agreement enshrining the very ethic that he just spoke against.

1830

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has 30 seconds to respond.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, I could not answer that charge fully in 30 seconds.

I recognize we cannot do as the NDP always wants to do, which is to write cheques and never find any way of paying the bills. I come from Prince Edward Island and trade is extremely important. We have established some rules whereby we can trade and ensure that our people are treated fairly.

---

ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS

[English]

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved

TRADE

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I will just pick up from where I left off.

I happen to be rising pursuant to a question I asked the Minister for International Trade about the multilateral agreement on investment, which has everything to do with what the hon. member for Malpeque was just talking about, that is, restricting the power of government even further than the power of national governments have already been restricted by the various free trade agreements which the government has already entered into.

The other day I asked the Minister for International Trade a question about when and how and if the government was going to permit the public to have some say in what the government's stance would be in the negotiations with respect to the multilateral agreement on investment. These negotiations have been ongoing for two years in Paris, in the context of the OECD. They started in April 1995. They were actually scheduled to end in April 1997.

If the Liberals had had their way we would have had a negotiated agreement—done, finished, fait accompli—by April 1997 and they would never have even let us know it was happening.

We could not have relied on the official opposition or even the third party in the last Parliament to have raised such matters because they all bow down to the same altar of the multinational corporations and the global economic order that was created for the benefit of investors, and to hell with the workers and everybody else.

We finally have a Parliament in which these kinds of issues can and will be raised.

I want to hear from the government how it intends to involve the Canadian public. What will the government's stance be at the multilateral agreement on investment negotiations?

We know from the draft, as it stands, that the MAI intends to drastically reduce the power of governments to intervene in the economy on behalf of the common good, the public interest, regional development, research and development and all the other ways in which governments have sought to act in the interests of the Canadian people.

The government has the ability to seek certain exemptions in respect of social, educational, health, cultural and other areas of concern, such as government procurement, et cetera.

We need to know what the government is going to do very quickly because the negotiations are scheduled to end in April of 1998. If the Canadian public is to be meaningfully involved, there needs to be a process now. We do not want to be looking at an agreement which has already been negotiated, where the government has put the Canadian public in a take-it-or-leave-it position. We want to be able to say now to the government, in various public ways, what it is it should be insisting on in those negotiations.

If the government continues to insist on being at those negotiations, at the very least it should be doing what the Canadian people insist it be doing, and that is making sure that our ability as a people and our ability as a government to act in our own interests is protected by the various exemptions which the government should be seeking in the MAI negotiations.

I look forward to hearing from the parliamentary secretary exactly what the government's position on this will be. What exemptions is the government seeking?

1835

What are the deal breakers? What are the things that they absolutely have to have or there will be no deal in Paris?

I see you rising, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I have already exceeded my time. I hope not because I have the greatest respect for the time limits put on me. I will sit down and look forward to what the government member has to say.

Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, foreign direct investment currently accounts for one in ten jobs in Canada. It is estimated that each additional $1 billion in foreign direct investment helps to create 45,000 new jobs over five years. Encouraging more investment in Canada is one of the best ways to create jobs. Is that not the goal of the NDP?

The government has in place a comprehensive, consultative process and is committed to ensuring the opportunity for full public discussion on the proposed MAI. The member opposite has already been provided with a personal briefing on the MAI, as were all critics. In addition to a general media briefing, all members of Parliament and senators have been sent two copies of an information package on the MAI.

The minister will also be writing to the chair of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade to arrange his appearance before the committee.

Provincial officials are consulted through conference calls and negotiated debriefings. They have full access to working documents.

The business groups that have been consulted to date include the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Council of International Business and the Business Council for National Issues. Consultations have also taken place with groups representing specific sectors of the Canadian economy, including culture, energy, mining, telecommunications and agrifood.

With respect to non-governmental organizations, the government has to date, consulted with the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Auto Workers and has been in contact with the World Wildlife Fund.

As the negotiations approach the deadline for completion in the coming year, the scope of consultations will be broadened to include additional NGOs, especially those concerned with labour and environment issues.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.37 p.m.)