1996-11-01

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from March 5, 1996 consideration of the motion for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his Speech at the opening of the session; and of the amendment and the amendment to the amendment.
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Co-operation and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today as Minister for International Co-operation and Minister responsible for Francophonie to add my voice to the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
Needless to say, it is a great day for a member of Parliament when he addresses the House of Commons for the first time as a minister. I feel especially honoured since it is the first time a francophone from outside Quebec has been appointed to the position of Minister responsible for Francophonie, and I intend to do a good job of representing Canada at the upper levels of the international French-speaking community.
First of all, I would like to thank the Right Hon. Prime Minister for appointing me, for giving the great honour and privilege of serving the people of my country.
I should emphasize the contribution of the people of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, without whom, of course, I would not be here as either a member or a minister. I am very grateful to them and I would like to say that I will remain first and foremost the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
They sent me to Parliament as their representative and, even though I am now a minister, I will continue to represent them faithfully at every opportunity.
Last week marked the 30th anniversary of my arrival in the House of Commons. I have spent 20 years in politics and, as you know, I also used to work here as a public servant. As I said before, I first set foot in the House of Commons on October 25, 1966 as a waiter, and I was lucky. I now stand before you on this November 1, 1996 addressing the House as a minister.
In the past two years, I had the opportunity and honour to perform the duties of chief government whip. Again, I must tell you that it was for me an unforgettable experience, and I thank the Prime Minister for entrusting me with that task.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas, who was appointed chief government whip a few days ago, and wish him the best of luck. Needless to say, his personal experience in a previous incarnation will probably help him do a good job. I mean, of course, his personal experience as a hockey coach, not as a referee.
I also wish to congratulate the government on its excellent agenda as outlined in the throne speech, which can be summed up as putting government finances on a healthier footing, reviving Canada's economy and creating jobs. Canadian interest rates are now at their lowest level in 30 years.
Over 600,000 jobs have been created since the last election, and Canada will soon be able to function without borrowing money. This is a rather spectacular achievement for a country whose public finances were in poor shape just a few years ago.
I want to take a few moments to tell you about the francophonie. Whether at the municipal, provincial or federal level, I always did my best to show my commitment to the francophone community. In 1983, I was the founding president of the Ontario section of the Association internationale des parlementaires de langue française. Until my appointment, a few days ago, I was the parliamentary secretary general of the AIPLF in the House of Commons.
I also had the honour of receiving, on two occasions, the Ordre de la Pléiade from this illustrious organization. This says something about my will to help preserve and promote French language and culture at home and around the world. Representing Canada among the francophonie's official circles will give me an opportunity to pursue my commitment on the international scene and to continue the work of my predecessors.
As a Franco-Ontarian, I will stress to the international community the contribution made by all francophones in Canada, whether they live in Quebec or in Ontario, which is my home province and
that of other parliamentarians, including the members for Ottawa-Vanier and Stormont-Dundas.
I thank and congratulate the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel for doing so much for the francophone community. I hope to rise to the occasion and to continue the work he has done since he first arrived in this House.
A few days ago, during my trip to Vietnam, my first one as minister, I had discussions concerning the francophone summit to be held in Hanoi next year and to which we will make a major contribution. I firmly intend to support a more politically involved francophonie.
We can do more than to protect language and culture. We can be a leader among French-speaking countries and do our share to ensure global security.
As pointed out in the speech from the throne, and I quote: "In an interdependent world, security means taking an active role on the international stage".
Why is it that Canada is so involved in international co-operation? Since our aid program started from the 1950s international co-operation has been a principal vocation for Canada. It has emerged from our shared values of justice, equity, democracy and freedom. International co-operation is our means of working together in practical ways to build a world that is safer, more prosperous and more humane.
This is a role that has manifested itself throughout the years. I remember as a child in school where missionary work was emphasized, where children were encouraged to contribute portions of their lunch money, instead of buying candy bars and soda pop. We were asked to make small contributions to missionary work at that time, many of them organized by the church of which I am a member. We were encouraged to do that, to aid people in Africa and in China and so on. I remember in particular the China effort. That is the heritage from which we undertake our work in international co-operation.
For a middle power such as Canada, development assistance is a way of protecting our values as well as contributing to global security. It is a way of contributing to the world community, a kind of ticket enabling Canada to play its unique role in the major international organizations, the United Nations, the Commonwealth, la francophonie, the IMF, the World Bank and the development banks of Africa, Asia and the Americas. It is a way of being a global citizen.
International co-operation also helps Canada influence events in the world in a positive way. This week, for example, the United Nations secretary general named Mr. Raymond Chrétien, Canada's ambassador to the U.S., as his own special envoy to central Africa. Mr. Chrétien will work with central African leaders on finding a solution to the conflict that now threatens hundreds of thousands of people in Zaire and in the great lakes region of Africa.
That kind of appointment shows that Canada and Canada's representatives have credibility where it counts. I would call that the Pearsonian heritage. That credibility comes from having made an international contribution through our aid program.
Since 1994 Canada has contributed money to organizations such as the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the Red Cross, UNICEF and others to help ease the suffering of refugees and displaced people, to find homes for orphans following the genocide in Rwanda two years ago. Our peacekeeping efforts helped keep the airports open in Kigali during the critical period in 1994 which enabled relief flights to land, providing food, medicine and so on to the starving people and to the wounded. All this work means that we are listened to when we raise our voices in the international council. Other countries know that we walk our talk in the world.
However, aid is not only responding to emergencies such as the one in central Africa. Development assistance is also a long term investment which has already paid off dramatically. Let me give a few examples.
In literacy and life expectancy the developing world has achieved in 30 years what it took the industrialized world 100 years to accomplish. Eighty per cent of the world's children now have been vaccinated against the six most infectious diseases and small pox has been almost completely eradicated. Since 1960 life expectancy in developing countries has risen from 47 to 61 years. Two-thirds of the world's people now know how to read, which is up from half in 1960. We must keep this long term investment precisely because it is delivering results and because human development is the best guarantee to global security.
The safety of each and everyone of us is related to several national factors such as the economy, the environment, social security and political stability. In the long term, however, it is the world context that will shape the world in which our children will live. This context will be determined, to a large extent, by how we will have met the most serious challenge of our time: world poverty.
I encountered these realities as soon as I took up my new position. I saw that even countries with impressive economies like China have huge pockets of poverty, in particular in the northeastern area of that country, where the Canadian International Development Agency has set up its community projects.
Poverty reduction is a key element of Canada's development co-operation. Furthermore, it is partly as a result of Canada's influence that this has become a leading objective in international institutions. I intend to address this issue next November 7 with representatives of the World Bank when they are here to present their report on this serious matter.
In order to fight poverty effectively and contribute to sustainable development in developing countries, the Canadian International Development Agency has established 6 broad program priorities. The first priority is to meet basic human needs, and 25 per cent of Canadian assistance falls into this category. These basic needs are, of course, food, potable water, education and health.
According to UNICEF's own evaluation, our contribution of approximately $24 million to their programs meant that, in 1995, over 3 million children were spared the mental impairment caused by a lack of iodine in their diet. UNICEF's executive director personally congratulated the Prime Minister of Canada for his leadership and that of his government in this area.
The second priority is the integration of women. Whether you are talking about food production, health or education, all studies have shown that when women are helped, the entire family is helped. Canada is one of the countries taking part in efforts focused on primary education in Africa known as the education for all initiative. This initiative is designed to improve the quality of the instruction given young girls in 15 African countries.
The third priority is human rights, democracy and good governance. In a few days I am going to Haiti, where, under this heading, we are supporting the efforts of that country's society by providing assistance with elections, as well as with police training and reform of the legal system, among other things.
In the area of the environment, CIDA supports the tree growers co-operative project in India. India loses some 15,000 square kilometres of forest per year. That is an area of forest about the size of Prince Edward Island.
Since 1993 CIDA has funded local co-operatives to plant trees on marginal land and as a result of the tree planting effort Indian villagers now have new skills, improved health and greater food security.
The fifth area is private sector development. An example is the six year old Peru-Canada fund which does good development work and at the same time has positive economic spinoffs for Canada. It is a counterpart fund, which means that CIDA provides funds to Peruvian companies to buy the Canadian equipment they need. The Peru-Canada fund is a win-win combination. It is important for us to note this. It has stimulated economies in hundreds of impoverished Peruvian communities and at the same time it protects Canadian jobs by financing the export of Canadian goods.
The sixth area of priority is that of infrastructure services. This is an important sector because it emphasizes that with environmentally sound infrastructure services, emphasis on poorer groups and improving the building capacity of other countries we can make life better.
I want to speak briefly of the relevance of international assistance for Canada. International assistance is not simply charity. It also has short and long term relevance to the Canadian economy. Every dollar invested in the developing world yields over $5 of return in the form of Canadian goods and services, jobs, contracts and export sales, although that is not the reason for giving. Canadians should know that even on that score there is enormous benefit for Canada. Over 70 cents of every development assistance dollar is disbursed to Canadians and it results in over 36,000 jobs per year for Canadians. Canadian food aid alone contributes 5,700 jobs.
I would like to take the next few minutes to tell you about CIDA's partners. In order to implement our programs, we turn to the expertise, talent, and knowledge of partners known as NGOs, non-governmental organizations, which include universities, colleges-over a hundred-, co-operatives, associations, and of course certain companies. There are over 2,000 working with us in one way or another.
Partnerships between the government sector and other sectors that arise through international development efforts have, in turn, led to horizontal partnerships, alliances between organizations and agencies that enrich and consolidate the contributions of all involved.
I have outlined the development assistance program and what it is doing to help build a safer world and how it provides benefits both overseas and here in Canada. Now I would like to talk about how we as a government are managing the process. It is not enough to do good; we must do it well.
The Canadian International Development Agency and its hundreds of partners, organizations, firms and institutions have earned a distinguished reputation for doing good and doing it well. To help these partnerships endure and flourish and to help new ones take root, CIDA must be able to engage the Canadian suppliers of goods and services who offer the best quality and the best price. To ensure this happens I intend to do my best to improve the already good contracting procedures which have already been opened up by my predecessor and others and I will be pushing to modernize the process and push it forward.
Finally, CIDA also needs to find new ways to reach out and involve young Canadians in international development. Today's young people will lead the world in the next century and it is important that they be well prepared and that they be cognizant of our role as a nation and our role in international development. It will be up to them in the 21st century to carry forward Canada's unique role in international co-operation.
I want to conclude by reiterating my thanks to the electors of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell for the excellent opportunity given to me and to the Prime Minister who has assigned me this formidable task of Minister of International Co-operation and Minister responsible for Francophonie.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spent quite a bit of time patting himself on the back for what a wonderful job he has done representing his constituents and for the tremendous job the government has done, he claims, on reducing the deficit and getting the whole country into such splendid order.
The fact is that if the Reform Party had not been sitting on this side of the House opposite them, we would still be mired in the days of Liberal tax and spend. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Everybody across the country knows that if it were not for Reform having brought the issues of the debt and deficit to the notice of the public during the 1993 campaign, the Liberal government would not have done a darn thing about it.
I was at a meeting in the Vancouver area and the member from Halifax was present. I heard her say to the audience: "As a tax and spend Liberal, I crashed and burned with the way the Minister of Finance has handled the finances of the country". She crashed and burned. What a tremendously visual thing that is. Her entire being as a Liberal was destroyed by what was being done by the finance minister. He would not have done it had it not been for the public pressure built by the Reform Party of Canada, the Alberta government, following up with the Harris government in Ontario.
The Liberals have addressed the deficit to a degree and let us be sure, they certainly fiddled the figures a bit by increasing the deficit in their first year. Even if we agree they have done something, what they have subjected the country to is the torture of a thousand small cuts. It has been cut here, cut there, cut here. Nobody has had the time to heal and get on with their lives. The public resolve has been broken down to fix the problems. The Liberals should have done it rapidly and quickly the way it was done in New Zealand; amputate entire departments so that we could get the budget balanced quickly and get on with our lives. This was not done.
The Liberals take credit for some of this but in fact while they have fiddled and made this torture of a thousand small cuts, our debt has built up almost to the $600 billion level, and that has eaten away at our social programs. By the year 2007 they will have cut $7 billion from health care transfers because they will not get on top of the problem fast enough.
The Liberal claim that all sorts of jobs have been created is baloney to the 1.8 million people across the country who are out of work, the 18 per cent to 24 per cent of young people who are out of work. I am lucky because in my riding it is only around 4 per cent. I am in an area where the youth are well employed.
Since the hon. member is so proud of his representation for his constituents, could he please give me some examples of how he has represented his constituents in his votes? There are plenty of examples here of how he has suppressed his colleagues when he was the whip and forced them to toe the party line. I am sure his constituents would love to hear how he perhaps canvassed their views and represented them in this place as opposed to representing the party line.
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, it is a rather interesting set of comments. The hon. member criticized the government for not cutting enough and for cutting over too many areas, as he put it. In his view, if I can summarize it, we should have cut an entire department at once. I believe he said that to amputate entire departments would have been better.
The member is entitled to his views. However, there should be a little consistency in the Reform Party. I know that is asking for a lot but let me remind everyone of the so-called taxpayers budget. This document is entitled: "The Reform Party's Plan to Balance the Federal Budget and Provide Social and Economic Security for the 21st Century". It has quotes from the leader of the Reform Party.
The document is best remembered as the budget that would not add up. The hon. member for Mississauga South, an accountant, did some mathematical calculations of this document a year or two back. As an accountant he knows how to count. He indicated to us that the numbers did not jibe but let us not dwell on that. Let us talk about the fact that the Reform Party says that we should have amputated an entire department and not cut all over the place. Here is what the so-called taxpayers budget in brief said.
Here are the cuts Reform wanted to make: social security spending cut 15 per cent; total cash transfers to the provinces cut 24 per cent; other transfers cut 6 per cent; equalization cut 35 per cent; Canada assistance plan, welfare, cut 35 per cent; health cut 11 per cent; post-secondary education cut 9 per cent. I am reading from the Reform Party document which states we should not cut all over the place.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: How about seniors?
Don Boudria: I will get to seniors in a minute. My colleague asked about seniors. Seniors, excluding CPP, cut 15 per cent. The unemployment insurance cut 22 per cent. Aboriginal programs cut 24 per cent. Other social security spending cut 11 per cent.
Let us get into some of the other stuff here. Transfers and assistance to businesses cut 76 per cent. International assistance, my department presumably, to be cut 27 per cent. Other subsidies cut 24 per cent. The CBC to be cut 36 per cent. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to be cut 24 per cent. Other crown corporations cut 21 per cent. Defence to be cut 9 per cent. All other department spending to be cut by 20 per cent. And the member across said we should have amputated in one place and spared everything else. The leader of the Reform Party wanted to amputate the head.
The member in his remarks asked me to prove to him that I have represented my constituents well. I do not intend to do that. The electors of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell do not need to justify to a member of the Reform Party their choice for their member of Parliament.
I would not have raised this but the member has raised the proposition so I will have to answer. In the last election in my riding the people blessed me with a support of 80.2 per cent of all votes cast. The Reform Party in my riding received 7 per cent of the votes cast. The Reform Party and the Conservative Party together would still not get the 15 per cent to get the electoral return back. I would not have bragged about this but he is the one who brought it up in terms of how I represent my electors.
My constituents have elected me at the municipal, provincial and federal levels continuously for 20 years; three times municipally, once provincially and three times at the federal level with the results I just enunciated. It is up to them, not the member across the way, to decide whether I do an adequate, satisfactory or better job. I intend to be accountable to the electors of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and least of all to the Reform Party.
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Jonquière.
In 1994, the first throne speech by the present government made no mention of changing the Canadian federation. The Prime Minister had stated that he wanted to put constitutional quarrels on ice. Those are his words.
It is obvious today that he has changed his mind. In the throne speech of February 27, 1996, which we are discussing today, the government justifies the proposed actions by referring to the desire for change expressed by Quebecers in the referendum, stating that "this desire for change is broadly shared across Canada".
Here are a few of the changes announced by the federal Liberals in the last throne speech, which they have been attempting to implement ever since, without any great success, I might add. First of all, the government proposes to limit federal spending power in areas that are exclusively provincial. We are in agreement in principle, up to that point.
The conditions of application are where it starts to get complicated. They require new cost shared programs to have the consent of the majority of the provinces.
First of all, the government is not announcing its withdrawal from areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, as Quebec has called for. On the contrary, the federal government is imposing its right to interfere by setting certain limits, including consent by the majority of provinces. It requires the consent of six provinces before accepting implementation of any new program.
This limitation of spending power is much less than the proposal contained in the Charlottetown accord. In it, the federal government was required to have the agreement of seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population. In addition, this limitation was entrenched in the Constitution.
Today, the federal government makes no mention whatsoever of putting this into the Constitution. It could be changed at the whim of some subsequent federal government, like any mere law. The provinces will never accept such an offer.
The most flagrant example is that of the daycare centres which the Liberals wanted to put into place. Although this program is included in the famous red book of the last campaign, the federal government has never managed to obtain the consent of the majority of the provinces. So, in order to justify the non-fulfilment of this campaign promise, the Prime Minister is dumping the blame onto the provinces, saying they are the ones turning it down. It is their fault because they cannot reach agreement. How did the Prime Minister expect to fulfil this campaign promise, knowing full well that the provinces would never accept such an offer?
The Prime Minister speaks of changing Canadian federation but he could not have done a worse job of it. Another change in the Canadian federation proposed by the Prime Minister is to entrench the concept of distinct society and a veto for all in the Constitution.
First of all, the distinct society proposed by the federal government was less than Meech and less than Charlottetown. To the Government of Quebec, the distinct society concept is obsolete.
Any new negotiations with Canada must, from now on, be from people to people, from nation to nation.
Furthermore, we will never go along with the compromise solution proposed in a bogus bill or some strategy to recognize Quebec as no more than the homeland of French language and culture. This interpretation means nothing at all. It provides no constitutional guarantees and certainly no legal powers. The federal Liberals would have been better off proposing nothing at all.
On top of that, there will now be a regional veto, snuggled through the House in Bill C-110. This bill takes us from bad to worse. To bring about any constitutional change at all, the federal government will no longer need the consent of seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population but all the provinces. That is some constitutional change. There will be no more constitutional changes. It will be impossible.
Because of these recent changes made by the Prime Minister and the federal Minister of Intergovernmental affairs, from now on it will be impossible for Quebec to make any constitutional arrangements without the prior consent of all Canadian provinces.
Contrary to Quebec's stated expectations, other Canadians consider that if Quebecers remain in Canada, they should be just like other Canadians and submit to majority rule, without any special rights or status. To a Quebecer, this is unthinkable. All efforts of the past 30 years were focused on letting Quebecers make their own decisions on a number of important issues within the Canadian federation.
In the sixties, Liberal Premier Jean Lesage said we should be "maître chez nous", and his successor, Daniel Johnson senior of the Union nationale said it was equality or independence. Another Liberal Premier, the late Robert Bourassa, spent more than 15 years asking for cultural sovereignty and then distinct society.
Unfortunately, all these attempts at constitutional change were to fail. English Canada's no became progressively louder. Today, the Chrétien government is trying to make us go through this again. He keeps saying that everything is fine, everything is all right, but the results show the opposite is true. He even says he has done enough, and that now the ball is in the other court.
In spite of all these failures, undeniably, Quebecers want an independent Quebec within a strong Canada. That this phrase has became famous is no accident. There is an element of truth in it. Even if we have been unable to agree on fundamental political issues for the past 30 years, we and Canadians have established important economic ties. The jobs of hundreds of thousands of Canadians depend on Quebec, and vice versa.
In this connection, I would like to discuss a matter that is very important to me, and I am sure, could be instrumental in settling all constitutional quarrels once and for all. In its plan for sovereignty, Quebec is proposing to the rest of Canada a natural and democratic change that would lead to a new partnership agreement between our two peoples.
The plan for Quebec favours economic association with the rest of Canada, in order to maintain the unfettered mobility of goods, services, capital and individuals. Just think, every 15 minutes we in Quebec buy one million dollars' worth of goods manufactured in the rest of Canada. That is why it is important for both parties to maintain these economic ties.
The plan for Quebec also specifies that the Canadian dollar will remain Quebec's legal currency. That is the most beneficial solution for both Quebec and Canada, especially because of the significant volume of trade between the two states.
According to the latest estimates, trade between Quebec and Canada is worth over $65 billion, including close to $50 billion with Ontario alone. This would be a concrete way of ensuring trade stability for both Canada and Quebec.
Canada's economic space will be maintained, because it is in the interest of Quebec and the rest of Canada to maintain it. It could be managed by joint organizations, including a council of representatives from both parties, who would discuss issues of common interest. A joint tribunal would be responsible for settling disputes, including trade disputes.
There could also be a partnership council made up of Quebec and Canadian ministers equally, as well as a parliamentary assembly of delegates from both sovereign states. These two institutions would allow us to decide to act jointly in other areas and to share our resources.
The major difference with the current situation is that we would always have the choice of acting either independently or jointly with Canada, within the partnership, and neither party would be able to impose its rules and its views on the other. That is what a true partnership means.
To achieve this goal, we, of course, need the agreement of the rest of Canada. As far as the basic elements of the economic association are concerned, the vast majority of English-Canadians think an arrangement with Quebec is inevitable. It would be in everyone's interest to build an economic and political partnership in which there will be minimal friction and maximum co-operation to our mutual advantage, an environment in which we can all aspire to a better future.
That is the kind of arrangement the federal government should seriously consider, instead of proposing all sorts of initiatives that
are doomed to failure and dragging out the dreadful constitutional debate.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with great attention to the presentation of my hon. colleague.
I wonder if he would care to comment on an article that appeared yesterday in the Toronto Star . The headline states: Bouchard's experts deliver a grim report''. The article reads:Quebec Premier Lucien Bouchard's own experts have told him what he didn't want to hear-language wars and political uncertainty are turning Montreal into an economic backwater''.
The article continued: "`The bottom line is that until the burden of political uncertainty has been lifted, one cannot reasonably expect Montreal to realize its economic potential to an extent necessary to create the number of jobs that it so badly needs,' the task force's report concludes".
It is clear by now that it is the separatists' own drive to take Quebec out of Canada that is creating the problem. There is a lack of jobs, specifically in Montreal, but I presume throughout Quebec. I wonder if the hon. member would be willing to support the subamendment of the Reform Party, which we are supposedly debating today, which states:

-and, in particular, recognition that it is the separatist movement in Quebec that threatens the economy of Montreal.

Jean H. Leroux: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. For the last 30 years there have been discussions between Quebec and Canada to try to find a decent settlement for Quebec. However, every time this has been tried it has failed because some parts of Canada refuse to recognize the distinct society and the distinct way of the Quebec people.
We have to find a solution. What we need now is a new deal between Canada and Quebec. That new deal, because it is a proposition, could be a sovereignty partnership between the two parts of Canada. Canada and Quebec could be allies.
When I visit the rest of Canada I always tell them that, yes, I am a sovereignist, yes, I think that some day Quebec will be a sovereign state. I also tell them that my second best country after sovereignty will always be Canada. People like that. People around the country are starting to understand.
The Liberal member on the other side of the House may not agree, but I have met academics around the country and discussed this with them. Some of them thought it made sense. People are sick and tired of 30 years of nothing going on.
To answer the hon. member's question, Montreal has always been left out in the cold. Historically, whenever the federal government has made economic decisions, it was always to the detriment of Montreal. The government wants to make a nice big village out of Montreal, but it is gradually taking away the city's economic powers and giving them to other regions.
I believe the solution for the future is a sovereignty-partnership between our two nations.
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
The speech from the throne was delivered a long time ago. When asked to speak on it, I had to read it over again. I did so. I found a series of general comments, which sounded like political platitudes. I also found that a lot of things which should have been said were not mentioned by the Queen's representative, when he addressed the two Houses.
In order to find a little more substance, I read over again the budget speech presented by the Minister of Finance.
As you know, we are in an era of economics. Everything is in relation to the economy. Everything is calculated, whether it is the fuel consumption of automobiles, the cost of adopting a child, or the price of a child's kiss. This is the age of economics.
I read what the Minister of Finance told us in his speech and I compared it with the speech from the throne. I noticed that some terms kept coming back. The Minister of Finance talked about securing the future of Canadians, something also mentioned in the speech from the throne. The minister spoke about anxiety, a lifestyle that is in jeopardy, a medicare program that is threatened, and a pension plan that is in serious danger.
He told us about the fear of Quebecers and Canadians regarding their jobs and the future of their children. The governor general made similar comments in his speech from the throne. The minister added that his government wanted to find concrete solutions to these issues.
I will stop here for now and continue after question period.
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. member. He will have seven minutes left after question period. We now move on to statements by members.

Statements By Members
Chedoke-McMaster HospitalsMr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Chedoke-McMaster Hospitals Foundation in Hamilton has expressed dismay that the recent $818,000 severance package awarded by the hospitals to a former administrator will hurt fund raising.
Indeed it might, especially if the public were to realize that according to its 1994 annual financial information return, the foundation raised $1.03 million in donations at a cost of $783,000 in fund raising expenses. In other words, out of a little more than $1 million received from the public, only $247,000 was available as a gift to the hospitals.
A bit of simple math shows that it could take more than three years of fund raising by the foundation and $3.3 million in donations to raise enough money to pay off the $800,000 severance package.
This is scandalous. Hospital beds are disappearing, nursing staff has been cut and the sick suffers while hospital directors squander the public money entrusted to them.
Reform PartyMs. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my constituents in Surrey North are worried. They face uncertainty about their health care and pensions. They are concerned about their children's education for the 21st century. Taxes have gotten out of hand and they are deeply affected by violent crimes committed on some of their doorsteps. Yet this government does little or nothing.
On pensions Reform's fresh start platform puts security back into old age security. On health care and education Reform's fresh start increases funding from Ottawa by $4 billion. On taxes, when the books are balanced, Reform's fresh start offers individuals and parents of young children tax relief. And Reform's fresh start offers victims of crime a victims' bill of rights and all Canadians assurance that violent criminals will not be let loose to harm someone else.
This government does little or nothing except when it comes to its own pensions.
Dr. Gerald RooneyMrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of my constituents, Dr. Gerald Rooney, who has been inducted into the Humboldt and District Sports Hall of Fame. Dr. Rooney was born on Christmas Eve in Estevan and then had the good sense to move to Humboldt, Saskatchewan in January 1958 to raise his family and practise optometry.
Dr. Rooney's sports involvement in Humboldt started in 1959 coaching a bantam hockey team. Throughout the sixties, seventies and eighties he coached hockey, baseball, served on many community sport committees as well as on provincial bodies. In 1973 and 1974 he served on a five-person special government appointed task force on hockey in Saskatchewan.
In a special ceremony last week Gerry was honoured by the community for his longstanding commitment to the Humboldt Bronco's Junior Hockey Club. He has also managed and coached provincial and western Canadian championship hockey teams.
Sports are an integral part of prairie community life. We are fortunate to have people like Dr. Gerald Rooney who are willing to volunteer so much time and energy for the good of all.
The Aerospace IndustryMr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, recently, National Metal Finishing, a company located in Mirabel, launched the second phase of its project, with the Quebec minister responsible for industry and commerce, Rita Dionne-Marsolais, in attendance.
The company, which specializes in drilling, wing coating and metal finishing, and which is the most modern in the aerospace industry, will provide Quebec and Canadian companies such as Bombardier-Canadair and Bell Helicopter with a competitive advantage. Mitsubishi, the big Japanese multinational, is another major client of NMF Canada. The third phase is already in the works.
In my riding of Argenteuil-Papineau, and particularly in the Mirabel area, the aerospace industry is a major employer. The Mirabel airport is undoubtedly a big promoter in the development of this industry. About 60 per cent of all Canadian jobs in the aerospace industry are found in Quebec, and the Laurentian region is definitely a leader in this field.
Fighter PilotsMr. John Loney (Edmonton North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today as the member for Edmonton North to congratulate a team of Canadian pilots from Canadian Air Force Base Cold Lake, Alberta. These Canadian pilots won the prestigious NATO
fighter jet competition in the William Tell Air-to-Air Weapons Meet over six American teams.
This victory by Canada is evidence of the excellence in jet fighter training provided at CFB Cold Lake. A Canadian consortium which includes such major contractors as Bombardier, British Aerospace and CAE is promoting a plan to bring NATO pilots to Canadian bases for training. This could result in a $100 million infusion into local communities if their bid succeeds.
This victory by the Cold Lake team distinguishes our Canadian forces pilots as among the best in the world. We feel that the NATO authorities should give strong consideration to relocating the training facilities to Alberta.
The Fight Against UnemploymentMr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last weekend at the biennial convention of the Liberal Party of Canada, the Prime Minister was crowing about what he has achieved over the last three years.
Yet the Liberal government's performance as far as reviving the economy and lowering unemployment is hardly impressive. It is too easy to blame the state of the country's finances or provincial governments for the way things are. When you make promises, you must be able to keep them.
Job creation should be this government's number one priority.
Urgent effort is required to bring about a significant improvement in the job market as quickly as possible. The Canadian government must take concrete steps to effect a substantial reduction in Canada's rate of unemployment. The rate of unemployment can be reduced.
John ReynoldsMs. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the outstanding volunteer efforts of Mr. John Reynolds, a constituent of Etobicoke-Lakeshore who shared his years of Canadian experience in administration to help develop a farm administration bureau in China.
Mr. Reynolds had been asked to assist in reducing energy waste in the production of starch. After making an analysis, he initiated a program for dust abatement and general clean-up. He advised on changes in water use and heat recovery to reduce energy costs and to improve overall efficiency.
All Canadians, especially the residents of Etobicoke-Lakeshore are proud of the volunteer efforts of Mr. Reynolds as well as those of some 7,000 other CESO volunteers who since 1967 have completed more than 30,000 assignments in over 100 countries and in every Canadian province and territory.
Rocky Mountaineer RailtoursMr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, when VIA Rail cut back on its passenger rail service in western Canada, Rocky Mountaineer Railtours stepped in to offer first class passenger service to those who wished to see the Rockies, the interior plateau and the Coast mountains from a train. Unlike VIA, the Mountaineer travels through the western majestic mountains during daylight hours so that travellers can enjoy the breathtaking mountain vistas and experience the hospitality of the great city of Kamloops during their overnight stay.
Rocky Mountaineer Railtours has proven to be an exceptionally positive contributing corporation. It has provided hundreds of jobs in the Kamloops area and is presently investing heavily to expand its service and create more jobs.
A recent decision by VIA to offer unfair competition will seriously impact on the Mountaineer. I urge the Minister of Transport to come to Kamloops to meet with those affected in order to head off what could be a very serious blow to the local employment opportunities presently provided by Rocky Mountaineer Railtours. This blow would curtail much of the service which is enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of visitors to western Canada.
Stay-In-School ScholarshipMr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, aware of the rising costs of post-secondary education and many challenges faced by their youth members, the Boys and Girls Club of Ontario started a scholarship program in 1992.
This year's recipient of the Stay-in-School Scholarship is Dana Vout, a constituent of Niagara Falls, who began her volunteer work with the club in 1990. Dana is now a third year student at Brock University in an honours psychology program and plans to attend teachers college upon graduation. She is the recipient of several other awards and has distinguished herself on several occasions. Moreover, Dana is a dedicated and capable young individual upon whom our community can always depend.
I am sure the House will join me in congratulating and commending Dana for her achievements and in thanking the Boys and Girls Club of Niagara Falls which had the vision to start this worthwhile program.
Veterans WeekMr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is Veterans Week. On Monday, November 11 Canadians will mark a minute of silence for those who gave up their lives for the freedom, democracy and peace we enjoy in this country today. That minute of silence is only a reminder to us all of what many young men and women gave for us in the two world wars and the Korean war.
My father was one of those men. He was a navigator in the RCAF and never returned from the second world war. As a result, I grew up with only a photograph and the stories and memories passed on by my mother to tell me what a wonderful man my father was.
Many of us can only imagine what it was like for those men like my father. Their sacrifice was so great and so meaningful that we must never forget the contributions made during the wars. No words can convey that to anyone.
Therefore, in honour of Veterans Week, I ask that we take the time to remember that November 11 is not a holiday. It is a day to remember those who fought and died for this great country, a country we are all proud of, a country rated as the best in the world.
Crime PreventionMs. Susan Whelan (Essex-Windsor, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, November 1 marks the start of the 1996 national community safety and crime prevention campaign. The theme of this year's campaign sponsored by the Canada Safety Council is "Choices", the choices that we as Canadians make to help prevent crime, especially youth crime.
To make a real dent in youth crime we have to do something about the means of its production. That involves the serious social problems which often underlie criminal behaviour and how society responds to them.
Everything we improve today, every community problem that we can address before it leads to crime will result in building healthier communities later on. Rehabilitation and alternatives to imprisonment are most important components of the solution. These will help young people to get their lives back on track and become productive citizens.
That is why crime prevention is so central to this government's program for balanced and effective criminal justice reform. To succeed in our efforts to prevent crime and find practical solutions, we must not only work in tandem with our partners in the criminal justice system but broaden our partnerships to include communities and neighbourhoods.
I applaud the efforts of the Canada Safety Council and invite all Canadians to learn more about the choices available for responding to youth crime within their own communities.
The DeficitMr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a longtime Canadian foe is on its deathbed. I am speaking of course of the federal deficit.
This government's accomplishments in the area of finance are impressive. We have consistently met and even bettered our deficit targets. When we took office the deficit stood at $42 billion. Through balanced, effective spending cuts, by 1997 we will have reduced the deficit by $33 billion, nearly 80 per cent.
What does this all mean for hard working Canadians? It means lower interest rates. It means they are saving almost $500 annually on a $15,000 car loan. It means saving $3,000 on a one-year $100,000 mortgage. It means the economy is improving and jobs are being created. Most important, it means this government has delivered on its commitment to build a strong framework for jobs and economic growth which Canadians so rightly deserve.
The Diplomatic CorpsMr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on October 30 the periodical Diplomat hosted a luncheon for over fifty members of the diplomatic corps posted in Ottawa, at which they had an opportunity to listen to the Leader of the Official Opposition and to discuss the political situation in Quebec and in Canada, as well as their respective positions in the world.
This was a rare opportunity for diplomats to hear information that is not part of the Canadian government's official line on Quebec. As the Leader of the Official Opposition said, and I quote: "Quebecers have been waiting thirty years for the changes they would like to see and that have been promised them. The many negotiations and the resounding constitutional failures of recent years have made it plain to Quebecers that renewal of the Canadian federation to reflect their aspirations is impossible".
It is most fortunate that there are a large number of members of the Bloc Quebecois in Ottawa, thus giving the international community a better picture of what is really going on in Quebec society.
Liberal PartyMr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the highly respected organization B'nai Brith Canada yesterday released a statement criticizing the Liberal Party's recent attack memo aimed at the Reform Party of Canada. Professor Stephen Scheinberg, the national vice-president, stated: "To call the Reform Party as a whole extreme right is to stretch the meaning of this term beyond recognition. The Reform Party has in the past been very quick to deal with extremists who have tried to infiltrate their ranks. It will be difficult to recognize real extremists if we apply this term to everyone on the right of centre".
A democracy thrives on a robust debate over ideas and principles; a democracy withers when the debate is deliberately warped by those who will use whatever means necessary to attain or retain power. A democratic debate should be a contest of ideas, not a name calling or mud throwing event.
Ideas and principles such as smaller government, private property rights, personal responsibility and lower taxes are not extreme. They are a sensible alternative to our present predicament. When we deliberately misrepresent our opponents' position, we devalue our own.
I call on the government to do the right thing and disavow the words and tactics used in its talking points.
Cbq-Cbc RadioMr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this year CBC is celebrating its 60th anniversary. In my riding of Thunder Bay-Atikokan, CBQ-CBC Radio will be holding an open house today in order to celebrate this historic anniversary.
CBQ has been operating for the past 22 years. It has been reaching into the homes of northwestern Ontario all the way from Kenora to Thunder Bay to Sandy Lake. It has acted as a unifying link between eastern and western Canada and knits together the vast geographic area of northwestern Ontario. It has done this by establishing some very creative and superior programming.
CBC Radio provides Canadians with a unique alternative to commercial radio. Satire, discussion, stories, readings, drama, music and pertinent regional information; pure Canadiana.
Thank you CBC and thank you CBQ for serving Canada so successfully for so many years. Keep up the good work.
NavcanadaMr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, thanks to the exceptional spirit of partnership between representatives of private enterprise and labour, the air traffic navigation and control system is being handed over today to NavCanada.
This new private non-profit corporation, which owes its existence to our government, paid $1.5 billion to take over ownership of Canada's air traffic control system.
The appearance of NavCanada will make possible improved safety in air transportation, since the Department of Transport will now oversee the work of a private enterprise, instead of its own work, as was previously the case.
The 6,200 federal government employees will keep their jobs, but as of this morning are employed by the private sector. This is another fine example of the economic possibilities offered by partnership between private enterprise, workers and the government.
Government SubsidiesMr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, like the swallows' returning signals the coming of spring, so Liberal announcements of subsidies signal the coming of an election and a campaign of vote buying.
There is no rational defence of the subsidies to film makers and Bombardier which were announced recently. Canadian business representatives urged the finance committee to end all subsidies to industry. Huge subsidies to the Atlantic provinces were shown to have hurt rather than helped economic development.
All subsidies hurt the innocent competitors of the beneficiary. To add insult to injury, the subsidies are financed with taxes paid by the competitors. Job creation through a subsidy is matched by jobs lost through taxation.
Subsidies at election time are a Liberal tradition that stinks.

Oral Question Period
Nuclear IndustryMr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, two decisions by the federal government may threaten the
existence of Quebec's nuclear industry. The gradual closing of the office of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited in Montreal and the decision to stop financing the Tokamak project are two decisions by the Liberal government which constitute an attack on a major industrial sector in the Montreal area.
Does the Acting Prime Minister realize that the combined impact of these two decisions on Montreal may permanently undermine the entire nuclear industry in the Montreal area, which has 36 companies specialized in the nuclear sector?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Natural Resources has explained repeatedly in the House, it was decided that the priorities of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited would include not only research and development but also the sales of CANDU reactors.
I believe the hon. member is well aware that many Quebec companies benefit as a result of CANDU sales, and that is the priority of this organization.
Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, Quebec companies could hope to win contracts, and they did, because there was an office of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited in Montreal. The rest is just promises.
However the federal government can do more than just make promises, when it manages to find the $33 million needed to guarantee the survival of the Triumph project in British Columbia.
How do we explain the fact that the government is unable to find the $7 million needed to guarantee the survival of Tokamak in Varennes, which happens to be the most important hi-tech research project in Quebec? Why could the government not find a mere $7 million?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I notice it is not the former science and technology critic asking this question, because he sent me a letter saying he agreed with the government's decision to shore up previous investments in Triumph.
A number of scientists at Quebec universities are doing their research at Triumph and also at CERN in Europe. This is a very important package.
Second, I am really surprised to hear the hon. member say that, as far as research and development is concerned, Tokamak is the most important research centre in Quebec. The hon. member is actually saying that all other research in sectors such as biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, aeronautics and aerospace are less important. And this in spite of the fact that we explained recently in the House that the only hi-tech sector where Canada has a trade surplus is the aerospace sector.
Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, we did not say that we were against the $33 million for the Triumph project. We did not say that.
The minister could look at the blues, in French or in English, and he will see I never said that. He just has a one track mind. I said that if the government was capable of finding $33 million for British Columbia, it should be able to find a mere $7 million for Quebec. I am talking about nuclear energy and the most important hi-tech project in the nuclear sector in Quebec. That is a fact.
I do not understand why the minister does not understand, unless he will not understand-that is another problem, and I am not sure there is a cure.
How can the minister go along with patriating the entire nuclear energy sector to Ontario? And subcontractors will follow. These are major contracts. How can the government patriate all this to Ontario, at a time when economic spinoffs in this sector are starting to materialize?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, I believe the lack of understanding comes from the other side of the House.
Mr. Young: No doubt about it.
John Manley: The hon. member should realize that science and technology produces benefits for all Canadians by creating the research which then creates jobs in commercial applications.
Only recently, we made some very important investments in the Montreal area and elsewhere in Quebec. We invested non only in Canadair, which is very important, but also in Mitel, in Bromont, which is engaged in research or semiconductors. We have invested in biotechnology at the biotechnology institute of the National Research Ccentre in Montreal, to create a kind of incubator that will create jobs in this sector.
There is more to it than just saying: All right, you cut here, but if you did not find the money there, because we have limited funds, so we must establish certain priorities. The priorities in the Montreal area are the pharmaceutical industry, biotechnology and aerospace, and that is the kind of investment we made.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. I imagine it
will greatly reassure the Minister of Industry, since I will be taking the liberty of quoting the Prime Minister of Canada, so I trust both of us will understand the same thing.
On October 22, in Montreal, in a fine speech filled with good intentions, the Prime Minister stated as follows, in connection with the high tech industries: "In the future, the federal government must, and will, help these industries to expand in Montreal." Yet this is far from the situation in reality. Again this week, we learn that the federal government is speeding up the closure of CITI, the Centre for Information Technologies Innovation, in Laval, and has given up on the idea of privatizing it, despite an offer from the private sector, which was made in due form.
Does the minister realize that closing CITI, which had more than 135 high tech jobs two years ago and received some $13 million annually, is not the way for his government to help high tech industries to expand?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, we made the decision to begin by privatizing CITI some years ago, and we negotiated in good faith with MicroCell the possible purchase of the centre.
We have determined that accepting the proposal they made did not represent a good return for us. It must be understood, however, as I have just stated, that priorities need to be determined. Where does the money come from to help Canadair? Where does the money come from to invest in the Institut de biotechnologie?
Sometimes choices have to be made. We have taken what I consider to be wise decisions. If a good proposal for the privatization of CITI could not be found, perhaps that was the best choice.
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, the minister is very skilled at dragging out red herrings by reminding us that the $85 million interest-free loan to Canadair is not just some trifle.
Of the 143 federal research centres in Canada, 23 were located in Quebec. Is he going to realize, finally, that the Liberal government is the one undermining the economy of Montreal, and that CITI, Tokamak and the high tech sectors of Atomic Energy of Canada being moved-in case these have slipped his mind-are blatant examples of their bad faith?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, what astounds me is that, every time the Bloc asks science and technology related questions, they pass themselves off as victims.
The figures, in actual fact, are as follows. They indicate clearly, if the National Capital Region is excluded, as Quebec does for its own figures, that Quebec receives over 27 per cent of science and technology spending. Still more important, moreover, is the efficiency of our spending, since the objective is to create jobs and not just to be theoretically in favour of science. If the objective is to create jobs, we find that 41 per cent of R &amp; D tax credits are claimed by Quebec businesses.
This tells me that our investments in the sectors I have noted: pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, aerospace, are more effective in Quebec, because they have created businesses capable of claiming tax credits. This is a strong sector in Quebec. They need to see themselves as winners, not losers.
EthicsMr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when the people of Canada turfed the previous Conservative government in 1993 they did so because they wanted to trust their government again. Some voted Liberal because of the red book promises which headlined: "Honesty and integrity in our political institutions must be restored". It seems that the implementation of the red book promises has been directed more to improving damage control procedures than to actually insisting on integrity among ministers.
Because of his close association with the Prime Minister, even the ethics counsellor is viewed as part of the damage control team.
Will the Prime Minister set the ethics counsellor free so that he can do the job Canadians expect him to do for them instead of merely being another mouthpiece of the Prime Minister and his government?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the ethics counsellor is doing the job expected of him by Canadians. This is clear by the rulings he has issued and the overall manner in which he is carrying out his work.
At the same time, the Prime Minister has made it clear that he is the one who has to take ultimate responsibility for his ministers and he is also doing that. This is a further sign of the high priority he puts on ethics and integrity.
Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, in all of my years of teaching I did not allow my students to mark their own exams. This government has marked itself and claims that the appointment of the independent ethics counsellor has been achieved, and yet we observe that the ethics counsellor receives his instructions from the Prime Minister and answers to the Prime Minister.
What is the Liberal working definition of the word independent?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, it is very clear from the way the ethics counsellor does his work that he is operating independently, using his own good judgment.
The comment of the Reform spokesman is an unfair and unjustified reflection on the good work done by the ethics counsellor.
That is why when the Canadian people mark the Reform Party in the next election it will be marked as a complete failure and the hon. member will be back attempting to teach.
Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it very clear that we are not here attacking either the person or the work of the ethics counsellor. We are challenging the conditions under which he must try to do his work.
No one knows this government's standards of ethical conduct. The ministers should know them, but it seems they do not. Canadians in general and even ordinary MPs in the House do not know them because they are kept a secret. The standards which are upheld change from day to day. It is like taking a measurement with a rubber ruler.
Can the Prime Minister please explain why he is afraid of divulging the standards that he expects from his ministers?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has made it very clear that because of his views on integrity and the high priority he places on it that he feels that no one can take a higher degree of responsibility than he. He has conveyed his rules and standards to his ministers. He is ready as Prime Minister to be accountable to the Canadian people. I would think that when it comes to using a rubber ruler, if the hon. member continues with these questions the Canadian people will take him to the office and use a rubber ruler on him in the next election.
ZaireStéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. As the fighting between the Tutsi rebels and the Zairian army continues today around the Goma airport, the humanitarian workers in that city are getting ready to evacuate to avoid being caught in the middle. Some ten Canadian aid workers, including five Quebecers, were to be evacuated in a land convoy to a safer location.
Can the Acting Prime Minister give us an update on the current situation in Zaire and tell this House if humanitarian workers from Canada and Quebec are currently safe?
Hon. Raymond Chan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are seven Canadians in the national humanitarian organizations in that region.
Given the rapid deterioration of the situation, plans are being implemented for their evacuation. The Department of Foreign Affairs is closely monitoring the situation to ensure that all efforts are being made to ensure their protection.
Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, there is cause for alarm as the centre of Goma is now being pounded by mortar and gun fire. As a result, foreign nationals have been confined to their hotels.
Can the Acting Prime Minister or the Secretary of State tell us what orders the Department of Foreign Affairs has issued regarding the Quebecers and Canadians working over there, and what measures it has actually planned to help these workers in case they are unable to leave the battle zone?
Raymond Chan: Mr. Speaker, the seven Canadians I talked about are in the Goma region. As I indicated earlier, we are preparing plans for the evacuation of those Canadians. We are monitoring the situation very closely.
EthicsMr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the only way the ethics counsellor of Canada can be independent is if he reports to Parliament. That is number one.
Number two, the guidelines for the ethics counsellor to administer must be made public so they have credibility.
My question for the Prime Minister is why are they not made public so that they can stand the test of the public and determine whether cabinet ministers are ethical in their actions?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister treats these guidelines as confidential advice from him to his ministers.
The important thing is that the Prime Minister considers himself ultimately accountable to Parliament and to the Canadian people
for the conduct of his ministers. If we are concerned about parliamentary procedure, then surely what the Prime Minister is doing is totally consistent with the highest standards of parliamentary procedure, namely the accountability of the Prime Minister to Parliament and through Parliament ultimately to the Canadian people.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in light of the minister's answer, can the minister explain, in terms of the ethics guidelines that allow a minister of the crown to make a deposit on a fur coat and go on to charge thousands of dollars of expenses on a government credit card, how that is ethical? It is not based on whether there is reimbursement or not. Could the minister explain that kind of unethical conduct in a cabinet of this country?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, I refer my hon. friend to the findings of the ethics counsellor on this matter. He confirmed his earlier ruling through a further review of the matter.
I also refer my hon. friend to the very complete and forthright statement of the Secretary of State for Youth. I think this provides a complete and satisfactory answer to my hon. friend's question.
The Canadian Armed ForcesJean H. Leroux: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. The President of the Treasury Board has decided to turn a blind eye to the benefits granted General Boyle. However, specific sections of the Privacy Act clearly provide that the benefits paid to General Boyle on a discretionary basis must be made public and the public interest requires the minister to mention any other benefit granted.
In 1994, the information commissioner said, regarding a similar case involving the golden handshake paid to the Governor of the Bank of Canada, that the rule was simple: whenever anyone gets a gift paid by taxpayers, the public has the right to know about it. Given that the Bank of Canada had to disclose the benefits paid to its governor, why is the minister still trying to circumvent all the rules and hide this information from the public?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we also have lawyers who give us the best possible interpretation of the act. The interpretation is that General Boyle is entitled to the same benefits, the same pension and the same protection of personal information as other officers, public servants and people covered by the act.
In this case, the entitlements and amounts to which a person is eligible are considered to be personal information whose disclosure is prohibited under the Privacy Act.
Jean H. Leroux: Mr. Speaker, back in 1994, no government minister talked about a gift. It is the information commissioner who told us that and we agree: it was a gift to the governor. Unless I am mistaken, the government, regardless of the act, the precedents, the public opinion and the interest of Canadians, is interested only in hiding at any cost the amount of the golden handshake that taxpayers had to pay, following General Boyle's gaffes.
Does the Minister of Defence realize that, by continuing against all logic to hide this information from the public, just after taking over his new responsibilities, he is perpetuating the lack of transparency displayed by his predecessor and condoning the secrecy that is poisoning the armed forces?
Marcel Massé: Mr. Speaker, the terms and conditions relating to the departure of governor in council appointees are a Treasury Board responsibility, which is why I am answering these questions. Obviously, if the hon. member does not agree with the interpretation given by our legal officers, he can go to the information commissioner.
As for us, we feel that General Boyle faithfully served his country and that he is entitled to the same protection as any other Canadian, under the Privacy Act.
Tobacco LegislationMr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Health advised the Canadian people not to vote for the Liberal Party unless it brought tobacco legislation into the House. He also said that he would bring forth legislation when he is good and ready.
While the minister dithers, 40,000 Canadians die of smoking related illnesses every year.
I ask the government how many more Canadians have to die from smoking related illnesses before it brings legislation into the House?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, needless to say, the Minister of Health is working with due diligence to ensure that a new piece of legislation will be brought forward. As he said yesterday, he will introduce it when it is ready.
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, let us look at an example of due diligence.
Last March the Minister of Health promised legislation forthwith; forthwith twice last June, twice last month. The hon. member who just spoke promised a year and a half ago that legislation would be coming forthwith and that she would do anything to stop Canadian children from smoking.
While the government is dithering about the issue, 250,000 children take up smoking every single year.
I ask the government, for the sake of the children of this country, when is it going to bring tobacco legislation to the House?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, the government is working actively to complete the legislation, to have it ready for Parliament.
We do have to make sure it is consistent with the rulings of the Supreme Court. I hope the concern expressed by the hon. member, which we share, will be confirmed when the legislation comes forward by the full and active support of the Reform Party.
That will be the test because we intend to bring it forward as soon as we can in light of the challenges we have in having the right kind of legislation.
Labour RelationsMr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour.
Following an incident that took place in 1995 during a labour dispute involving Ogilvie Mills in Lachine, a strikebreaker was found guilty of assaulting a striking worker and leaving him with a permanently disabled wrist.
So as to avoid other violent incidents during labour disputes covered by the Canada Labour Code, will the minister admit that the federal government should follow the lead of Quebec and of British Columbia and pass antiscab legislation?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for almost a year now, under my direction and that of my predecessor, consultations have been held throughout the country. I will have the honour, next Monday, of tabling in this House amendments to part I of the Labour Code. I therefore invite the member to examine them Monday.
Antoine Dubé: Mr. Speaker, since it has always been said that this would not be included in the labour code, I have trouble understanding the minister's reply. Are we to understand him to be saying that the use of scabs does not aggravate labour disputes and that antiscab legislation would not help to establish and maintain civilized negotiations?
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the Sims committee has made recommendations. There was departmental consultation. The bill will be tabled Monday, and the question of regulations affecting replacement workers will be covered in the bill. I there ask the member to be patient, and he, along with all members and all Canadians, will be able to examine it Monday. And we will have an opportunity to debate in this House how the government plans to resolve this important issue.
Auto IndustryMrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Automobile airbags were designed to save lives. However, statistics indicate that people are being injured and killed by these same safety devices. Children in particular are at risk.
What action is the minister taking to ensure that airbags save lives, not jeopardize them?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Nepean for the best question of the day so far.
Some six weeks ago, I wrote to the auto industry on the urgent need to improve airbag performance. I am very pleased to report to her and to the House that the auto makers have responded positively and constructively. They announced this morning in Washington that from now on airbags will be depowered.
I would like to thank the hon. member for her question. It allows me to say, Mr. Speaker-you, I know, are a parent of young children-that it is tremendously important to have seat belts done up, the children in the back seat and to make sure that we cut down on this dreadful toll of over 3,300 Canadian lives lost annually in automobile accidents.
FisheriesMr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government says that it cares about coastal communities but let us look at the record.
The Liberals have cut back funds to search and rescue, fisheries surveillance and enforcement, TAGS benefits and fish hatcheries in British Columbia.
The Liberals have hurt coastal communities, not helped them. They say that taxpayers cannot afford these services any more, but they say that taxpayers can afford an $87 million corporate handout to Bombardier.
Why is the Prime Minister more concerned with the corporate welfare of multibillion dollar companies than the welfare and safety of our coastal communities?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the undertone and the assumptions behind the question are really not correct.
However, for the hon. member's benefit and for the benefit of the House and the coastal communities, I will tell the hon. member what we have done. We have put together a salmon revitalization plan that has resulted in record returns in the Skeena River, where he is from, and the Fraser River, where it is double what was expected.
The government has signed an unprecedented memorandum of understanding with the British Columbia government, a province that he represents, for the roles and responsibilities in the fisheries and an impact analysis on the very coastal communities that he says this government does not care about.
Not only do we care about the coastal communities, we have made a commitment. I will reiterate that commitment in the House today to ensure that they are looked after.
Mike Scott: Mr. Speaker, when the fisheries minister for Canada suggests that the Fraser had a record return this year, I wonder what he is smoking.
The legacy of the government is broken promise after broken promise. Outraged fishermen will not forget how the Prime Minister preferred to cut coast guard services from B.C. to the Gaspé to the east coast to pay for million dollar grants to rich corporations. Take from the poor and give to the rich, that is the Liberal way.
If the coastal communities of the Gaspé had given $170,000 to the Liberals in political donations would they have had their coast guard services cut?
Fred Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that the hon. member is not in trouble with his constituents. He is from Skeena and if he checks the blues he will see that I said it was the Skeena River that had the record run. He said Fraser and I just wanted to make sure the hon. member does not get in trouble with his constituents.
As we speak, a three member team, one from the British Columbia government, one from the federal government and an independent analyst is going around listening to what the coastal communities have to say. They have made an interim report on which we will act.
Consumer ProtectionAndré Caron: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister.
In the report of the Standing Committee on Finance tabled yesterday, the Liberal members recommended establishing a federal consumer protection bureau.
Since according to the White Paper, the government is in favour of reducing overlap and duplication in regulations that apply to the financial services sector in Canada, how does the Acting Prime Minister react to this recommendation from the Liberal committee, which would have the effect of creating further overlap and duplication?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the report was received very favourably by the government. A tremendous jobs was done by the finance committee, as you know, whose members represent all the political parties here in this House.
As far as the consumer is concerned, there is no doubt that we are all very concerned about the fact that, in many cases, the consumer feels he is not being treated fairly by the financial institutions. It is therefore our intention to look at the report and examine it very carefully.
André Caron: Mr. Speaker, the Globe and Mail reports that this bureau would require only about 20 hours' work per week to deal with all of Canada, in other words, half the workload of a single civil servant. How can the federal government justify this additional intrusion in an area which in any case is the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces? Does the government want to give the impression that it protects its citizens, although it is obvious that this bureau will be useless?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows perfectly well that both, and in many cases all three levels of government will have to work together. But he is also aware that a committee of this House has the right to draft a report, to conduct investigations and to examine what it believes is important, and it is the government's responsibility to respond to the committee. We intend to do so at the appropriate time.
Research And DevelopmentMr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the most recent broken red book promises are in the area of research and development and jobs, particularly projects at Chalk River, Ontario and Pinawa, Manitoba. The internationally recognized cyclotron facility at Chalk River, TASCC, could be closed due to a lack of funds and the future of the Whiteshell Laboratory
in Manitoba remains in doubt while the government ignores its task force recommendation to privatize the facility.
Is the natural resources minister going to do anything to ensure these research initiatives and jobs remain in Canada?
Fred Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised this question last week. An adequate answer was given by the Minister of Natural Resources.
I appreciate the respect the hon. member has in the House but he knows we are still talking about that. He knows we have had to cut back. Reform Party members talk about smaller government. I wonder what they would do if they were in our position.
Bob Ringma: Mr. Speaker, I have a specific suggestion for what we would do if we were in the Liberal's position.
The U.S. Brookhaven Institute is in a position to pick up jobs that Spar Aerospace would otherwise give to the cyclotron in Chalk River. The same situation exists for Whiteshell where our scientists are leaving for the United States due to inaction on the part of the government.
I have this specific suggestion for the minister. Would the minister use $3 million of the $40 million in refund that is coming from the European Space Agency to keep the Chalk River facility open and start the process of privatizing Whiteshell as was called for in the task force report?
Fred Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, if we were to follow the budget of the Reform Party, which is not a platform but a springboard into the swimming pool of disaster, there would not be any atomic energy in Canada or the world.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The EconomyMs. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The minister recently appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance to present his 1996 fiscal and economic update. Now that the minister is working on the 1997 budget, can he tell the House how Canadians can get involved and have their views represented in the content of the next budget?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, the member's question is very timely as we are now going into the prebudget mode.
As she knows, the prime focus for national consultation will be the House of Commons finance committee which has already had five weeks of hearings here in Ottawa and next week is to embark on the national consultation. The committee will be going from coast to coast to coast.
At the same time, there are other vehicles. We have invited Canadians to write to us directly. I will be meeting with individual groups. Because I am aware of the hon. member's interest, I would like to highlight the ability of individual members of Parliament to hold forums in their ridings. In past years those forums have proved to be of enormous benefit.
The main focus, which I am sure the hon. member is driving at, is that we have made the budget process open and transparent. That is one of the reasons we have been so successful in our budgets.
National DefenceMr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
Since his appointment, the new defence minister has kept rather mum about his intentions regarding plans for major purchases of military equipment. As we know, his predecessor had not ruled out buying new submarines and wanted to equip the next class of shipborne helicopters for anti-submarine warfare.
When is the minister going to make public his intentions regarding plans for major purchases of military equipment, and will he once and for all drop the idea of spending several hundreds of millions of dollars on submarines of dubious usefulness?
Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, Canada's role with regard to defence, not only its own, but in terms of its well known responsibilities towards its allies, requires that we proceed with extreme caution when deciding to purchase military equipment.
We are not ruling out anything, but I can assure my colleague that we do not intend to spend billions or hundreds of millions of dollars without taking into account all criteria that have a bearing on such a decision. I hope to come to a decision on the purchase of some of the elements the member mentioned in a not too distant future.
Maurice Godin: Mr. Speaker, will the minister commit to having a debate in the House of Commons on his purchasing plans so that the urgency and usefulness of such purchases be publicly discussed, in view of our financial priorities and means?
Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, one of the wonderful things about Parliament is that all decisions made have to be accounted for to all of our peers.
The policies of the Government of Canada with respect to national defence, I think, have been articulated. They have been the result of unprecedented consultations. We have had the white paper and the joint parliamentary reports. We have had debates on our participation in various military activities around the world.
We will continue to function in an open and transparent way, always trying to balance the needs of domestic and international security with our capacity to pay the bills.
Canada PostBill Gilmour: Mr. Speaker, the Canada Post mandate review recommends that Canada Post be made subject to the Freedom of Information Act and to annual audits by the auditor general. To date the minister responsible has ignored these recommendations.
Canadians have a stake in how their crown corporations are run. They have a right to know what is going on and the Radwanski report makes it clear that Canadians have legitimate concerns regarding Canada Post.
My question is for the minister responsible for Canada Post. The Liberal government promised Canadians more open and transparent government. Will the minister deliver on that promise and make Canada Post open and transparent by making it subject to the Freedom of Information Act and to the scrutiny of the auditor general?
Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post is a very valuable corporation. It belongs to the people of Canada, but it also has a commercial mandate and, as such, one must respect commercial confidences.
That being said, I have asked Canada Post to look at establishing a plan to ensure that it operates with the most openness and transparency possible.
Canadian Broadcasting CorporationMr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Acting Prime Minister.
This week CBC Radio is celebrating 60 years of service. Especially in remote areas, it is a vital link that holds our country together. For example, CBQ in Thunder Bay serves half the province of Ontario.
Despite all the rosy promises in the red book about stable multi-year financing for the CBC, when will the government deliver on one of its most important commitments to the Canadian people? What is the future of the CBC and stations like CBQ with the Liberal government?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage has consistently spoken about the government's commitment to the CBC.
Let us not forget that the government continues to fund the CBC to the tune of almost $1 billion. There is $200 million which is going into a production fund and $100 million of that will be used by the CBC for specific programming which will enable local communities to produce Canadian programming, especially in British Columbia.
Interprovincial TradeMr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the industry minister.
With one breath the government and the minister say they are committed to removing barriers to interprovincial trade. With the next breath the finance minister announces his GST harmonization plan, which in the words of the Retail Council of Canada "divides the Canadian economy into two separate entities".
If the industry minister is committed to removing interprovincial trade barriers, as he says he is, why is he supporting the finance minister's harmonization plan which is, in itself, a barrier which will hurt Atlantic Canadians?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, of course I support, without reservation, everything the finance minister does. I want him to know that.
I would also say that the issue of interprovincial trade barriers is a very important one. In fact what has been accomplished in Atlantic Canada is a demonstration of what could happen with the kind of co-operation we are trying to achieve. Instead of it being a barrier to interprovincial commerce, that there are rates that differ across these provincial barriers, what we have got there is the opportunity with a harmonized system to give consumers exactly what they want, which is the ability to go to the cash register and know that they are paying the price that they saw ticketed on the counter.
What we face in interprovincial trade barriers, as the hon. member knows, is very often the result of provincial governments exercising their constitutionally valid powers to favour businesses or citizens within their own jurisdiction without having a broader view of what could be done if they were to take down the barriers.
I hope he will join with us in supporting our efforts to encourage the provincial governments to operate on a consensus basis once and for all to create a truly harmonized federal national market in Canada.
Presence In GalleryThe Deputy Speaker: I wish to draw the attention of members to the presence in our gallery of Mrs. Kaba Saran Daraba, Minister of Social Affairs and the Promotion of Women and Children in Guinea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Point Of OrderMr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my point of order references are citation 64 of Beauchesne, reflections on members, and citation 417 which refers to replies to oral questions by ministers.
During question period the government House leader made what I call verbal physical threats to my colleague from Elk Island by the use of what he calls a rubber ruler. I think that provokes debate. I would appreciate asking the hon. government House leader to withdraw that threat from the floor.
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend should have been listening more carefully. The reference to the rubber ruler was made in the first place by his colleague the former school teacher.
I did not threaten to use the rubber ruler on my hon. friend. I said simply that the Canadian public in the next election was going to do it in a figurative and symbolic way. If this offends my hon. friend, I would be happy to withdraw the reference, but I cannot speak for what the Canadian people will ultimately do.
The Deputy Speaker: I think the Chair should rule that as a point of humour, rather than a point of order. The hon. member for Elk Island on the same point of humour.
Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, since I was named I would like to simply say I thought that Liberal S and M meant smoke and mirrors.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response To PetitionsMr. Morris Bodnar (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Minister of Western Economic Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages the government's response to 15 petitions.
Committees Of The HouseMr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the third report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade on Bill C-61, an act to implement the Canada-Israel free trade agreement.
PetitionsMrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36. This course of action is undertaken on behalf of constituents and concerned parents across the country for the safety of their children in an effort to create a national pedophile registry.
The petitioners I represent are concerned about making our streets safer for our children. They are opposed to the current status quo in the screening of pedophiles within the community.
The petitioners pray that a federally implemented pedophile registry be established in order to help better protect our children.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present on behalf of the constituents of Lethbridge.
The first petition, which bears 86 signatures, calls upon Parliament to refrain from implementing a tax on health and dental benefits and to put on hold any future consideration of such a tax until a complete review of the tax system and how it impacts on the health of Canadians has been undertaken.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the second petition bears 100 signatures.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament enact Bill C-205 introduced by the hon. member for Scarborough West so as to provide in Canadian law that no criminal profits from committing a crime.
Gary Pillitteri: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition sent in recently by members of my constituency of Niagara Falls.
This petition is certified correct in form and content. It calls on the House of Commons and Parliament to ask the Canadian government to renegotiate the tax treaty with the United States and give consideration to enacting a tax credit refund to those who are now being taxed under the treaty. The existing tax treaty reduces the social benefits received by retired Canadian citizens in the United States.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present today.
The first comes from Pickering, Ontario. The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that our police and firefighters place their lives at risk on a daily basis as they serve the emergency needs of all Canadians. They also state that in many cases the families are often left without sufficient financial means to meet their obligations.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to establish a public safety officers compensation fund to receive gifts and bequests for the benefit of families of police officers and firefighters who are killed in the line of duty.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, the second petition comes from Newmarket, Ontario.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value to our society.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families who choose to provide care in the home for preschool children, the chronically ill, the aged or the disabled.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, the final petition comes from Williams Lake, B.C.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that the consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health problems or impair one's ability and specifically that fetal alcohol syndrome or other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to enact legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the containers of all alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers and others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.
Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure of submitting two petitions which bear 400 signatures from citizens of the Outaouais region, in the federal riding of Verchères, within the greater Montreal region in Quebec.
The petitioners call on the Parliament to take all the necessary measures in order to abolish the Senate. This request is supported by several arguments such as the fact the Senate members are not elected and are not accountable for their actions; the operating budget of the Senate of $43 million a year; its refusal to account to the House of Commons committee for the funds it receives; the Senate's failure to fulfil its mandate as far as regional representation is concerned; its duplication of the work of elected members of the House of Commons and finally, the need to modernize the parliamentary institutions.
Leon Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table two petitions on behalf of people in the constituency of Vegreville, both dealing with the same subject.
They say that whereas the law now allows criminals to profit from the sale of videos, books and the use of 1-900 numbers, the petitioners would like the House to immediately enact Bill C-205 so that convicted criminals would no longer be allowed to profit from their crimes.
Questions On The Order PaperMorris Bodnar: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion, the amendment and the amendment to the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: I must inform the hon. member that he still has eight minutes left to deliver his speech.
André Caron: Mr. Speaker, before I was interrupted by the question period, I was making a parallel between the throne speech and the budget speech. I was outlining some elements of rhetoric, still believing that the budget speech is intended to update, clarify and give shape to the throne speech. I will then continue, in my presentation, to refer to the budget speech.
The Minister of Finance claims in his speech to ensure our financial future. He says that to us with a straight face. Given our current situation and also the fact that we are in a world where the economy is open, where major changes are occurring rapidly, I think it may be somewhat pretentious for the finance minister to say that he will ensure our financial future. Perhaps we would have preferred to hear him say that he would do his best to ensure that Canadians can benefit from the development of the world economy, without giving too many assurances that he cannot pay, as I believe to be the case.
I noted in the budget speech and also a little in the throne speech that many things are muddled up. The finance minister is playing over several years, 1994-95, 1995-96, and goes back to 1993-94 for some statistics. He even goes up to 1999. For all the issues relating to the deficit, the figure goes from 3 to 2 per cent, but it is 2 per cent in 1999. We see that the finance minister muddles many things up.
He muddles up concepts of financial needs, he adds numbers and talks about the GDP, the past one and the future one. After reading all of this, we get the impression that the minister knows what he is talking about and that we have no other choice but to trust him, because it is sometimes hard to check the debt levels and the financial requirements that he mentions for 1999. What can we do but trust him.
I think the Minister of Finance is not really sure that everyone trusts him, which is why he has laid down some principles. The throne speech, for example, contains a number of principles, which the previous speaker, the hon. member for Shefford, listed. First, the Minister of Finance said his mea culpa. He stated that governments are responsible for the deficit. This is very interesting coming from a Liberal minister whose party has been in office for 36 or 38 years over the past 50 years. He was probably talking about the Conservatives, and forgot about the Trudeau years.
The minister also talked about jobs and growth, just like the governor general. This is all fine, except that the average citizens and the economists have now realized that job creation does not necessarily keep pace with growth, and this is a very serious problem. I am not blaming the Minister of Finance for not having the solution to this problem. If he had the solution, Ministers of Finance from around the world would be in meetings in Ottawa, right here, right now.
The minister talked about a frugal, trimmed down government. It is all well and good to say that the government is too big and involved in too many things. Maybe what we should say is that the government has been mismanaging some of these areas. However, the fact that the government is withdrawing from some areas might cause problems in the years to come.
The Minister of Finance even implied that some government operations may not be efficient. I think everybody knows that some government operations probably need to be reviewed. Like in any other area, when we keep doing the same thing, even though it is a good thing, we become inefficient because their is no innovation. It is high time the minister decided to innovate in the area of finance, as the governor general asked us to be more innovative and creative in the throne speech.
In terms of principles, the finance minister talked about justice and compassion, as did the governor general. It is with a tear in his eye and his heart on his sleeve that the minister then proceeded to make his budget speech.
But I noticed that he did not talk about money right away. He lingered on the perspectives. He used a new trick, which I have seen different finance ministers use in several provinces. They go as far ahead as 1997, 1998, 1999. They confuse people. We think we no longer have debts, but they are talking about 1999 or 2000 or 2002.
In a way, these budgets become what I would call crystal ball budgets prepared by people who try to predict the future, but when we read newspapers from previous years, we can see that most finance ministers, as well as economists from the major banks and from the academic world, were wrong in their predictions. Some have received the Nobel prize in economics, but we notice that it is often given to people who have worked in the field for a very long time. That minimizes the risk of error.
The finance minister mentioned two urgent needs. I am talking about the throne speech and I keep referring to the finance minister because I was under the impression that the throne speech was supposed to state certain principles, to tell us where we are headed as a country, and that, since we are in the economic age, the
finance minister was supposed to provide us with the solutions, to translate into reality the general directions outlined by the governor general.
We heard about the need to increase revenues and to cut expenditures. Of course, the official opposition agrees with these objectives. Regarding the need to increase revenues, we might perhaps have expected the minister to announce a reform of our tax system, but he talked about tax equity instead. Then he went on to talk about the banks, about the progressive tax, and said a few words about tax loopholes. He talked about family trusts, but that was before we learned that $2 billion was taken out of Canada before Christmas without any taxes being paid on it.
The minister did not talk about keeping the surplus in the unemployment insurance fund, which has become the employment insurance fund. Of course he knew that a reform was forthcoming, that the fund was growing and that he needed that money. But he never told us how he would increase the revenues without raising taxes. I think that, today, a minister of finance who would propose raising taxes directly, rather than indirectly, by asking taxpayers to make a certain contribution would be severely criticized rather than congratulated.
As for expenditure reduction, cuts are never mentioned and the role of the government is never openly questioned, although its role is under review and things are changing. Basically, a throne speech or a speech by the finance minister are always optimistic and little concerned with issues.
Last weekend, I heard a reporter put this question to the President of the Treasury Board: "Sir, are there problems in Canada?" The minister was flabbergasted. In Canada as a whole, in Quebec or in my own area of Chicoutimi-Jonquière, there is still a huge unemployment problem.
Unemployment rates are 9.9 per cent in Canada, 12.6 per cent in Quebec, and a staggering 14.6 per cent in Chicoutimi-Jonquière. Thus I would say that the throne speech as the budget speech are only rhetoric, claptrap and fine words that lead to naught. It has been six months since they were delivered,-the figures I have mentioned were for September 1996-and Canadians are still unemployed. Both these speeches propose no solution to put Canadians and Quebecers back to work.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member, following his comments today, the same question that I asked prior to question period of one of his colleagues.
During the so-called economic summit Premier Bouchard recently held on the economy of Quebec it was revealed in the local media that experts hired by Premier Bouchard to research the issues surrounding the economy, the job rate, the brain drain and other problems afflicting Quebec currently reportedly advised him the problem is with the separatists and the uncertainty created by the separatist movement.
In light of this I asked his colleague if he would be prepared to support the Reform subamendment that says this is the problem with jobs and the economy in Montreal. It is created and caused by the separatist movement and the uncertainty that flows from that and not by any other things in the economy. Would the hon. member support the subamendment put forward by the Reform Party?
André Caron: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question, because it gives me an opportunity to answer those who blame Quebec's economic problems on the fact that the national debate remains unresolved.
I should point out that the issue of Quebec sovereignty has been around for many years, if not decades. If we look at the economic fluctuations, we can see that these cycles do not always follow Quebecers' fluctuating interest in giving themselves a country.
In the 1980 referendum, Quebec sovereignists were clearly defeated with 60 per cent of the people voting no and 40 per cent yes. People looked at this 20 per cent gap and thought the battle was over. They thought the sovereignist movement would not recover.
The sovereignist movement did have trouble throughout the 1980s until the Meech Lake accord was rejected in 1990 after many people in Quebec-I was not among them-tried once again to negotiate a new alliance with Canada.
If Quebec's economic problems are indeed linked to political uncertainty, how come there was no economic boom in Quebec in the 1980s? We did not have a boom in Quebec. What we had, beginning in 1981-82 was a major economic crisis. That was followed by the election of a Liberal government, headed by Mr. Bourassa, which should have led to great things, because what we were essentially saying to financial markets was: "Quebecers said No in 1980, they elected a government that was clearly federalist". There should have been an investment boom in Quebec. But there was not.
This means that Quebec's problems are not directly related to the political environment. Perhaps there is a link, but perhaps there is not. It depends. Economists will tell us one thing, others will tell us something else, and in the field of economy, even if it is a science taught in our universities, the accuracy of forecasts and the various theories still often leaves a lot to be desired.
I do not think that a close examination of Quebec's economy and politics over the last 15 years justifies saying that Quebec's current disastrous economic situation is, in some ways, related to the
political climate, which is in terrible shape according to my colleague from the Reform Party.
Maurizio Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for St. Catharines. I will use the next ten minutes to meet two objectives. I will prove that Canada is on the right track and then I will go on to illustrate that there are ten reasons to believe in a brighter future in Canada.
October 25 marked three years since our Liberal government took office. A tremendous amount of change has taken place since then. Over 650,000 new jobs have been created. The deficit has decreased. The crime rate has dropped. People are paying less for their mortgages. Small businesses are exploring more and more emerging global markets. The United Nations pegged Canada as the best country in which to live. Those are a few of the reasons I believe Canada is on the right track.
Our fiscal house is indeed in order. By 1998-99 the deficit will have been cut to $9 billion. That is a reduction of $33 billion or 80 per cent in five years. A recent OECD report stated that Canada will rank first among G-7 countries in employment growth both in the years 1996 and 1997.
What are these ten reasons to believe in a brighter future? First, the unemployment rate has gone down from 11.1 per cent in October 1993 to approximately 9.9 per cent in October 1996. This figure is still a bit high, but when we consider that we are going through global restructuring here at home and abroad it is very positive.
That we have been able to exceed our deficit reduction target is also quite impressive. I stated the statistics earlier, but I also want to make sure Canadians understand that the deficit has been reduced through spending cuts, not tax increases. By 1998-99 program spending will be at its lowest level since 1949-50.
Canada, as I said earlier, is expected to rank first in economic growth among G-7 countries. In part that is because of our deficit reduction action. There is no question that has increased investor confidence in our country and improved the overall economic environment.
Over the past three years Canada's inflation rate has been the second lowest among G-7 countries and among the lowest in the industrialized world.
Short term interest rates have declined 4.5 per cent since early 1995. That means that someone renewing a $100,000 mortgage for one year will save over $3,000 annually.
Also we are blessed to have youth who are the most educated and technologically advanced generation in our country's history. With a strong entrepreneurial spirit and a very positive eye on technology, Canada's young people are ready to face the challenges of the new economy. We are doing our share to ensure they can compete in the global marketplace.
Since April 1994 over 760,000 young people have taken advantage of federal government programs and services. Locally, in my riding, over 13,000 young people have accessed federal programming.
There have been recent amendments to Canada student loans. The government has realized that the provinces, universities and community colleges have increased tuition.
We feel it is our responsibility to respond to those changes. It is for this reason that we have increased Canada student loans allocation by $2.5 billion over the next five years. That accounts for approximately a 57 per cent increase at a time when the government is, like many governments throughout the world, dealing with the deficit and the debt.
We have also increased government funding associated with youth employment services by $315 million. That means that we are clearly not only stating in our speeches that young people are a priority but we are acting on it.
Another issue related to building the type of economic infrastructure required to remain globally competitive is technology and how this government is helping in this technological revolution.
Through technology partnerships Canada, the federal government is providing approximately $250 million to lever additional investment from the private sector and strategic technology sectors.
Strategis, Industry Canada's web site and one of the largest Internet sites in the world, is a business oriented data base of connections and opportunities.
We have also increased support to the Business Development Bank. That will result in an additional $350 million in bank loans to growing knowledge based, export oriented businesses.
We have also modernized Canada's social security net. I have personally been involved in this. The new employment insurance system will provide results that will help people get back to work. We have measures such as the wage subsidies, income supplements, self-employment assistance, skill and loans grants that will help unemployed Canadians re-enter the workforce, not to mention the new seniors' benefit. It will fully protect low and modest income Canadians.
Those receiving the guaranteed income supplement will get $120 more per year. Seventy-five per cent of single seniors and couples will receive the same or higher benefits. Nine out of ten
seniors, women, will receive increased benefits under the new system.
Going back to the issue of economics and global trade, the international trade strategy of this government is opening doors to greater opportunities. Team Canada trade missions to China, India, Pakistan, Malaysia and Latin American have brought home approximately $20 billion of new business deals for Canada's firms. When we think about it, every $1 billion of new exports protects or provides approximately 11,000 jobs for Canadians.
The Canada infrastructure program is a $6 billion cost shared program between the municipalities, the provinces and the federal government. This initiative has been quite successful because it deals with local priorities. It really speaks to the issue of when we pool resources as a government we can achieve great things locally.
Over 80,000 to 100,000 jobs have been created as a result of this program. We have not forgotten that there is something in this country that we all cherish as Canadians, that in many ways is identified quite clearly with our country. It is the issue of health care.
There is no question, based on the budgetary measures we have taken as a federal government, based on the excellent work done by the Minister of Health, that we are and we will continue to uphold the Canada Health Act ensuring that the system remains accessible, comprehensive, portable, universal and publicly administered.
I think I have clearly outlined to the viewers and members on both sides of this House that Canada is on the right track. I have clearly outlined 10 reasons why Canadians ought to believe in a brighter future not only for themselves but for future generations. We are certainly better off than we were four or five years ago. Our country is more optimistic about the future. Consumer and business confidence is up. The future looks bright.
I leave Canadians with one fundamental question. Is there any other country they would like to live in?
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to speak to the House today. I thank the member for York North for his excellent review of this government's three years in office. He clearly enunciated the youth and infrastructure programs which he has been greatly involved in. I welcome back the member for Jonquière. It is good to see his smiling face in the House and I am sure we can work together on many items.
I will talk about science and technology. A commitment was made in the throne speech to create enduring jobs for Canadians in the economy of the 21st century where investment in knowledge and technology is very essential. The government will establish guiding principles to improve the effectiveness and focus of the federal science and technology effort.
In particular, the throne speech spelled out that the government will make specific proposals to support technological development in the aerospace industry, in environmental technologies and in critical enabling technologies such as biotechnology. Further measures will be taken to promote technology diffusion, including the launch of the Canadian technology network.
The government has promised to support technology innovation by providing a predictable policy and regulatory framework for the information highway. The government has promised to continue expansion of SchoolNet access and community access programs. Thus Canadians, particularly those in rural communities, will be able to use technology to increase their knowledge, their access to each other and to the rest of the world.
On March 11 the Minister of Industry and the Secretary of State for Science, Research and Development released the new technology proposal. The new technology strategy echoes a number of elements in the red book, for example, the importance of partnerships and the role of science and technology in increasing productivity, growth and the standard of living.
The strategy adds a new element to the Liberal government's commitments, the importance of getting our house in order and better managing the federal government's science and technology activities. To that end an advisory council has been appointed for science and technology as promised. It will report directly to cabinet and the Prime Minister. This became effective on July 5.
We have delivered on the promise to define the core of the federal government's science and technology activities. The required federal departments must publish annual outlook documents on science and technology for scrutiny and review by Parliament. We will implement new human resources policies so that science and technology professionals can be more effective in managing and delivering on the federal commitment to science and technology in the workplace. We have directed the federal departments of science and technology to co-ordinate with their provincial and territorial counterparts so we can work together on all these items.
I had the opportunity to meet with some some of the appointees to the advisory council that will report to the Prime Minister and to cabinet. It was great to see that we had people from across the country: André Caillé, president and chief executive officer of Hydro Quebec; Pierre Fortier, chairman of the board and senior partner of Innovitech Incorporated; Martha Piper, vice-president, research and external affairs, the University of Alberta; Michael Smith, Peter Wall distinguished professor of biotechnology, the University of British Columbia; Jacquelyn Thayer Scott, president and vice-chancellor of the University College of Cape Breton.
Those are only a few of the 12 great advisers we have. They are excellent advisers from coast to coast.
I take the comments of the auditor general very much to heart, to understand that the auditor general is always looking for areas to advise the government of where improvements can be made, and continued improvement in this day and age is really what counts to reach higher levels.
A recent letter to the industry committee, to which all of the parties of this House belong, stated: "There is a tremendous challenge ahead. We believe that four ingredients are now essential to the successful implementation of the strategy and the framework: persistent leadership at all levels of government, from ministers to scientists; results oriented, time framed implementation plans; a clear accounting for results; and parliamentary oversight on progress in implementing the strategy and the framework". This is exactly what this government has put into place.
In the industry committee where all parties are involved we are looking at the critical industries and technologies that will create opportunities for the Canadian economy in the next century. We must look ahead five, ten, fifteen years, dream of what it is going to be like in 2010, 2020 and then try to make that a reality of the future.
What is the role of government in promoting emerging technologies? Where do we fit as a government? Where do we not fit as a government? What are the things we should do and should not do? What impediments stand the in way of emerging technologies? Which government programs create the greatest barriers to economic growth? What can the government do to lessen the burden on innovative firms? What steps should be taken to promote a climate that encourages science, technology and entrepreneurship? How well are Canadian institutions meeting the skills and needs of high technology industries?
Today there are many job openings in the high tech field, thousands of openings that cannot be filled by Canadians because we are lagging behind the training and the requirements for the industries that are developing very quickly where they need scientists. How can Parliament ensure that the government follows the result oriented science and technology strategy? How can Parliament organize itself to ensure full governmental accountability for science and technology? What sort of data should be collected to monitor progress of science and technology? As I mentioned earlier, science and technology is something we must think of in terms of the future, five, ten, fifteen, twenty years. It is not something we can start and stop. It is something we must continually plan.
I have had the opportunity to travel this country to be involved in some seven of nine workshops on this subject, recently touring the NRC and CML Technologies, Jetform and Vitana, which very
kindly showed us their facilities this past week. It was also interesting to visit and discuss the roles that each plays in research and development and to see leading edge technologies in action, leading edge technologies just ready to be put into the business sector.
CML Technologies explained how air traffic control products could be developed and sold in the highly competitive North American market and win large contracts such as the one it wants in metropolitan Chicago where it has beat out Motorola, which is almost like David beating Goliath.
Jetform told us about how it has become the world leader in office forms, the software required, with an impressive 78 per cent annual growth and with first quarter world sales of over $15 million.
Vitana demonstrated its Shapegrabber, 3-D imaging package based on NRC technology, which has been adapted for its clients in forestry, mining, tire production and industrial assembly. We have many great firms that we are working with to discuss how science and technology should be rolled out in the future.
I would be remiss if I did not mention a Canadian controlled company, Newbridge, which works with many affiliates. It has come to our committee and many committees to talk about how Canadians can make things happen in science and technology.
Yes, there have been recommendations and that is what we are looking for. We are looking for better means to make things happen. We want a competitive and stable environment for R and D. We want to improve access to markets and capital. We want a financial risk sharing of R and D and rapid deployment.
May I conclude by saying that what was said in the throne speech is being delivered every week and every month by this government to make things happen in a just and timely way just like we promised.
Herb Grubel: Mr. Speaker, since February, this session of Parliament has delivered exactly what the throne speech promised in the fields of economics and finance, nothing. Policy is on auto pilot with the Prime Minister regularly issuing reassuring messages that he is in control and that no corrections are needed.
The country's biggest problem, the deficit, has been dealt with by benign neglect. Sure, the numbers have improved but mainly through downloading $6 billion on to the provinces a year earlier. There has also been an economic recovery in the United States which spilled over into Canada through increased demand for exports. As a result, spending on unemployment insurance benefits
has dropped by $5 billion. There is not much credit to the government here.
With tax rates set at very high levels, the export stimulated growth has resulted in higher revenues of $25 billion which exactly matches the reduction in the bottom line of the deficit. The much advertised spending cuts on the outer rim of bureaucracy have been very minor. More are slated to come but not for another year. In other words, the much vaunted deficit reduction has been achieved by taking more money away from Canadians through higher tax revenue.
Canadians who want a smaller government in Ottawa and less bureaucracy wrapping them in red tape even when it is not Christmas, will not be pleased by the reduction of less than $1 billion a year when that total government spending is $150 billion, $50 billion on interest alone.
Now the Prime Minister has announced that there will be no more cuts to government spending. The Ottawa leviathan will stay the same size for at least the next two years, by the end of which we can expect higher tax revenue of about $7 billion a year to have eliminated the deficit.
Hurray, then the Liberals will be free to get back to what they are best at: feeding the Ottawa monster. The Prime Minister already has promised to use the higher tax revenue for more spending at the rate of $7 billion a year. The Deputy Prime Minister is licking her chops as she anticipates and already promises money to some of the unlimited number of good causes that she attracts in whatever portfolio she is in.
Of course, Canadians know the flip side of this kind of policy. They feel it in their pocketbooks. Their family income has dropped by $3,000 a year after taxes, primarily because of increased tax revenue since this government came into power.
Then of course there is the biggest red book promise of jobs, jobs, jobs. How many jobs have been created? Just enough to employ the growth in workers, those coming out of high school and those who have immigrated to Canada. The fact is that nearly 1.5 million Canadians are still looking for work. Many more have indicated they are so discouraged that they have stopped looking and many more millions are working only part time.
Let us look at the government's commitments for the future. Over two years, $7 billion more in revenue for each year will go to the elimination of the deficit. Thereafter, increases in revenue are promised to be used for increased spending. That means if the government gets elected again, the pattern they have been on will produce another $3,000 reduction in family income because that is exactly what happened in the preceding four years. All the revenue increases from these rates of taxation has gone into feeding the monster government here in Ottawa.
It is not very encouraging for the people of Canada. I recommend that they look at an alternative which is laid out clearly in the document called Fresh Start for Reform. Under this program the leviathan will be tamed. We will cut another approximately $10 billion out of government spending, not from transfers to provinces. In fact, we will restore some of these transfers that were cut earlier. It will not come out of transfers to people nor out of transfers to the provinces for social programs.
It will come out of programs that should be cut, ones we hear about in the finance committee and from people to whom we talk. Let me list a few. There is overlap in the delivery of services between the federal and provincial governments. There are huge bureaucracies such as the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Department of the Environment, the Department of Industry, the Department of Labour. There is a whole list of departments where the provinces have been saying: "You are making life too tough for us". Business is asking: "Why do we have to fill in the same information that we have just delivered to the provincial governments? Why do we also have to give it to the federal government?"
On my shelf I have the Nielsen task force report. Mr. Speaker, you were here when this was produced. It has gathered dust. It indicates that billions can be saved through the elimination of overlap and duplication. That was 15 years ago. This government has not taken the hint. Not only would it reduce the leviathan, but it would also save money and make it better and easier for business to succeed.
Other expenditure cuts involve special interest group funding. A report was released recently which indicated that Canadians through an objective survey have indicated that multiculturalism is not working. Why do we insist on feeding that monstrous bureaucracy and all those activities? Reform is not against multicultural activities. We are against having them financed by the federal government.
Reform has proposed a large number of other cuts. For example, the elimination of the industrial subsidies that are now being given to business. Last week in the finance committee business representatives said: "Please government, get rid of all of the subsidies to business and lower the taxes". That is exactly what Reform is proposing to do.
What would Reform do with the surplus that would be growing and continue to grow? We would target tax cuts primarily at the reduction of barriers to the efficient operation of labour markets.
Whole books are written about this and why our unemployment rate is so high. New thinking is required in that field.
Reform would deliberately bias the fiscal structure in support of the maintenance, growth and strength of families rather than the current system which deliberately favours the splitting up of families so people can go to work and send their children to child care. People who stay at home, fathers and mothers, deserve that same support. Reform would have broad based cuts that would remove several hundred thousand poor people completely from all tax rolls.
Canadians now have a clear alternative. On the one side, a promise of a government that will keep the size of Ottawa and the bureaucracy where it is right now; use increased tax revenue to eliminate the deficit and then go on its merry old way, spending the increases in tax revenue that comes thereafter. Reform offers an alternative. It offers the elimination of the deficit through growth, some more reduction in the size of government and revenue increases thereafter used to give money back where it came from, the people of Canada.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to my hon. colleague's comments. Could he elaborate more on the Reform subamendment and how it deals with the question: What is the real situation as it pertains to the economic outlook for Montreal and Quebec?
I have endeavoured twice today to ask that question of two hon. members from the Bloc Quebecois. Both have declined to properly address the question that separatism is the real culprit when it comes to the uncertainty that it creates for the economic climate of Quebec.
Herb Grubel: Mr. Speaker, last Friday I spent two hours with a group of highly concerned citizens who met at the McGill faculty club. They were discussing possible steps that might be taken to create a renaissance in the city of Montreal.
These were people who have spent all their professional and business working lives in Quebec and Montreal. They have seen this wonderful Canadian city go from one of the most prominent, rapidly growing, charming and great cities of North America into a tailspin that makes them extremely sad. They all acknowledge the root cause. What they were trying to do was to say: What can we do to reassure the world to come back to Montreal even though this threat exists?
Unfortunately, I did not have much good advice for them. I talked about my experiences with countries that have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, such as Singapore, Hong Kong and other of the Asian tigers. They rejected the view that the separatist government, if it comes into power, would model itself after those countries because of its great commitment to social democratic values meddling in the economy. That is not reassuring for any of the potential businesses that might consider moving to Montreal.
The insight I gained is that it is not just the idea there might be separation with all of the uncertainties surrounding it. There is also the added problem that all of the pronouncements we have heard until quite recently from Mr. Bouchard are that we will continue to have huge government spending on all kinds of worthy projects which are preventing the growth of the economy and the restoration of confidence.
I do not know the answers. I would say to my colleague there is no doubt that the threat of separation, plus the prospect of what might happen after separation by a very left wing government, carries the primary responsibility for the sad decline of the city of Montreal from one of the great cities in North America to a city with a sick economy.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I gave my first speech in the House on January 20, 1994 during the debate on the speech from the throne. I am disappointed that after two and a half years and two throne speeches little has changed.
Back then I expressed the views I had heard from people in the Wetaskiwin riding during a year of campaigning. They were concerned about the economic future of Canada. They were worried about the kind of Canada their children and their grandchildren would inherit. Over the Thanksgiving break I heard the same concerns repeated time and again by my constituents.
Before tackling the 1996 throne speech however, I would like to take a few moments to look back over the last two and a half years at the expectations and the realities of the 1994 throne speech.
The first throne speech promised that MPs pensions would be reformed but hopes for meaningful change were dashed when the Liberal caucus troughers would only accept minor alterations to their gold plated MP pension plans. The Reform Party MPs who anticipated fair retirement packages had their hopes dashed as well, so we opted out.
The ongoing unity debate and the continued growth of the national debt over the last two and a half years exposed this government as inefficient and ineffective.
The litany of broken election promises and forgotten pronouncements of two throne speeches are signalling an end to this government's honeymoon.
The 1996 throne speech commits the government to "promote a proper climate for economic growth and jobs". The government promises to do this by modernizing part I of the Canada Labour Code dealing with labour relations, an area not substantially changed in the last 20 years.
The workplace of the 1990s is very different from that of the 1970s. Restructuring and downsizing are the new realities. The government, instead of responding to the new challenges in a
positive and progressive manner, reverted to that old Liberal standby, a half million dollar study.
Studies do not put gas in the tank or pay the mortgage. Employers can no longer guarantee lifelong jobs to employees. Workers want the government to provide an environment where labour and management can focus their attention on the task at hand without the threat of a strike or lockout.
Last year when the Minister of Labour appointed a task force to review part I of the labour code, I hoped that the recommendations would include a mechanism for solving disputes. In the last 20 years Parliament has legislated an end to 19 work stoppages, including three in the last two years in the transportation and grain handling sectors. The combined costs of the west coast ports dispute and the railway strike/lock-out are estimated to be in the $4 billion range. Yet the task force failed to seize the opportunity and recommend measures that would ensure Canadian products reach their markets.
I recommended final offer selection arbitration to the task force as a mechanism to effectively and permanently resolve labour disputes that fall under federal jurisdiction. The industrial inquiry commission into west coast ports supported my position. Final offer selection arbitration gives labour and management the tools to resolve their differences. It does not favour one side over the other and it eliminates government interference in the negotiations. It puts the onus on both sides to reach an agreement and can be used equally by labour and management.
If the government is serious about improving industrial relations, minimizing conflict and bringing greater stability to federally regulated sectors, labour and management must be provided with a permanent, just, and effective dispute settlement mechanism. Now that the minister has had an opportunity to reflect on the report and compare it to the recommendations from the industrial inquiry on west coast ports, I expect that he will recognize the benefits of final offer arbitration and will make it a focal a point in the code.
Canadians have always been a step ahead of the old line governments. On October 25, 1993 voters showed that they wanted change. They tossed out the Tories believing that the Liberals had the people and the plan for the 1990s. What did they get? They got more of the same.
My colleague the member for Beaver River put it quite succinctly when she said that the Liberals find it very difficult to take a firm stand on anything except of course fences. After putting up with three years of fence sitting, Canadians are demanding decisive leadership.
My constituents told me that they want immediate action on the economy. They want tax relief now so that job creation can occur.
What have three years of Liberal rule brought Canadians? Since coming to power the Liberals have raised taxes 31 times. As a result of these tax increases the government will collect $25 billion in extra revenue by 1997. We know now what their debt reduction strategy is.
Even when the government reaches its target or if it reaches the target of 2 per cent of GDP or $17 billion, $70 million a day, $70 billion annually will have been added to our debt. If the debt increases at the rate that it has been, it will be $615 billion by 1997-98, an increase of $107 billion since the Liberals took office in 1993.
As long as the government continues to spend more than it collects in revenues it has to keep borrowing to meet its commitments. The interest on that borrowed money will be a whopping $50 billion this year alone. When that $50 billion is added to the $600 billion that we owe already, it is a double whammy for Canadians. That is $48 billion or $50 billion that will not be available for health care and social programs.
The Minister of Finance has to balance the budget by 1997-98. I suspect that he would like to balance the budget but I believe that his task is made even more difficult because of his prime ministerial aspirations. Unfortunately for him, his current boss does not realize the seriousness of the problem.
The Prime Minister acknowledges that "of course we have a debt but we can pay off our interest; we have no problem at all". Canadians know, even if the Prime Minister and his cabinet do not, that if you borrow money to pay the interest on loans and credit cards, you put yourself deeper and deeper into debt. Somehow the Prime Minister has missed this very basic reality of finance.
Only when there is an end to deficit financing will Canadians find the hope alluded to in the throne speech. When deficit financing ends, the Minister of Finance will be able to follow Reform's fresh start lead and ensure that future budget surpluses will be used to reduce taxes and to lower the debt.
Had the Liberals adopted the common sense suggestions made in Reform's taxpayers budget released last year, Canadians would be on the way to budget surplus, investor confidence, job growth and social program securities this year. Instead, the Liberals are extending the pain with no prospect of gain, to the point that their fiscal policy is not just being called unsustainable any more but immoral.
Canadians are willing to take the bitter medicine now if there is tax relief in sight. An aggressive attack on the deficit and a commitment to eliminating it by the year 1997-98 will be accepted
by taxpayers who do not want to leave a legacy of debt and deficit to their children. We simply cannot continue to borrow against our children's futures.
Studies show that if the Liberal trend of taxation is allowed to continue, children born today will pay 32 per cent of their life income in taxes. Future generations will be even worse off. They will have to pay an estimated 65 per cent of their earnings in taxes, thanks to the inability of today's government to come to grips with the debt and deficit.
After years of inept governments, Canadians are ready to take their future into their own hands. They recognize that the Canada pension plan and OAS programs cannot be counted on to finance their golden years. Canadians want control over their retirement savings to ensure that those golden years are not tarnished. Canadians do not want the government to impose higher taxes to prop up programs when their future viability is questionable. Canadians can look after themselves but only if the government curbs its appetite for taxes.
When the government embarks on a plan to make the Canada pension plan sustainable for future generations as proposed in the throne speech, it must completely revamp the program and not simply increase the premiums and raise the age of eligibility.
There are solutions to the problems we face. We need new ideas and a government that is not afraid to change. 1970s solutions are not applicable in the 1990s.
On October 17 the Reform Party took another unprecedented step and released a fresh start election campaign. Our plan will reduce the size of government. It will provide tax relief. It will make families a Canadian priority. It will make our streets safer and it will repair our social safety net.
I have appreciated the opportunity to speak on the throne speech today.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to participate in the throne speech debate today.
The throne speech develops themes and initiatives that will guide the government in its actions for the coming period. In reviewing the throne speech, it reflects some of the values that we have in Canada.
Canada for the third year in a row has been recognized by the United Nations as being the best country in the world in which to live. This is a great honour. It also is reflective of the underlying values and supports Canada provides to all Canadians. It is a value system that distinguishes Canadians.
Recently the CBC had a special in which it interviewed Canadians across the country and tried to define what it is to be Canadian. It found that it was very difficult to find a simple definition of Canadian. In reflecting on that, it appears to me that what really defines Canada is that it is indefinable. We are a very diverse society. From coast to coast to coast we are very diverse in our cultural backgrounds, in our basic systems of operation.
One only has to look at Quebec itself. Quebec is a delightful province with a tremendous history and culture. It is a province which has been the subject matter of much debate over the years, yet most Canadians who have visited Quebec know what a lovely province it is, just as every other province in the country is.
It is clear when one goes to Quebec that it is the guardian of the French language, culture and laws. It has a distinctiveness. In fact, it is something to be cherished and protected by Canada. In my own mind, Canadians own a little piece of every part of this country. You, Mr. Speaker, own a little part of B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, all of the provinces from sea to sea to sea. As the taxpayers of the country, we invest in Canada. Through our various levels of government, we make sure that the value system that we have developed over the years is available to all Canadians.
What a wonderful country we have that we can travel from province to province to enjoy the diversity that every province has to offer. If I have a need I can receive health care in any province in Canada, not because I have money but because I have that health care need.
I could move to another province and have the same rights, privileges and freedoms as anyone who was born and raised there. That is the diversity of Canada and what makes it the best country in the world in which to live.
I want to concentrate a little bit on the theme of credibility and integrity in government. Since becoming a member of Parliament in 1993, I have become more exposed than I ever was before to the public reaction to people who are in political life. There is no question that over the last 25 years there has been this attitude toward people in politics which is really, quite frankly, discomforting.
The day before I was elected I was a community member with a family. I was involved very actively in the community. The day after the election I did not change. In fact I think I was elected, like most members here, because I had demonstrated a knowledge and sensitivity to my community and the ability to do a very important job on behalf of my constituents and on behalf of Canadians.
When I came here and started a constituency office it was very interesting to find that people would all of a sudden start calling as if the election was still going on and start being critical and treating me as if all of a sudden I was one of them.
I understand the partisan emotions that people have but once the election is over I wish that those who want to continue to fight election campaigns after an election would take into account the
fact that all hon. members of Parliament have a responsibility first to their constituents.
In my constituency office I am blessed to have excellent staff. There are Irene, Joan and Lyanne. When I am not able to be in the office they are there working on my behalf to make sure that my constituents get the service they need when they need it. If they have to speak to me I know my staff will make sure I find out at the earliest convenience so that I can personally address the needs of my constituents.
We have an excellent opportunity to provide service. I know all members work very hard to keep that service level within the constituency offices so that Canadians are properly served and informed about the government's programs and services and also to get the assistance that they need when they are not sure or have some questions or doubt about the applicability of certain things within their jurisdictions or within the jurisdictions of the Government of Canada.
We have another office in Ottawa with other staff. I have Nancy, and today Trudi is taking care of my office. We have people who are always contacting members of Parliament who really need to let them know what the issues are as they see them and try to determine whether or not those members of Parliament can give them some perspective of where we are coming from and how we can work together to see how we can make legislation work better within Canada.
Many of these people are lobbyists on behalf of specific industries or business groups or social or political causes. Members of Parliament have a tremendous challenge to sort out special interest groups that deal in their own interests rather than in the interests of the broad base of Canadians which we as members of Parliament represent.
Each member of Parliament belongs to a political party. Each party has a caucus structure which allows members to convey the input of constituents. Members receive input from constituents from meetings, from phone calls or letters or from general encounters. As we work throughout our constituencies and attend many events, people talk to us. They tell us what is on their minds, when they like something or when they do not like something. That is what the job is all about.
As a member of Parliament I can bring that information back to Ottawa. I can go to my regional caucus and let my caucus colleagues know what people are saying. I can ask them about their people to see if we have consensus. We often find there is consensus within our own regional areas. There are similar problems. Our ridings are very close. We have this opportunity through the communications mechanism of the caucus to let that message trickle up to the next level.
The regional information goes to a provincial caucus. The chair of our regional caucus makes a report at the provincial caucus of the areas in which the members had consensus. On top of that, all members of that caucus-in my case the Ontario caucus-have the opportunity to further emphasize the issues that are most important to their constituents. I work hard at it.
After that level we look for consensus again. It goes to the national caucus level where all the members of Parliament of a particular party get together and find out how all the regions of the country feel about the challenges that face them. We want to find some balance, some priorization of the issues that face Canadians at large.
Every member of Parliament in my caucus has an opportunity to stand up in his or her place before the Prime Minister, before all the cabinet ministers, before all of their colleagues to say "in my riding this issue is important and this is why".
The point is Canadians should know that members of Parliament, even those not in the cabinet who do not have high profile positions, have an extremely important job to do and a very good opportunity to raise issues in their caucuses right up to the level of the leader of their party or the Prime Minister.
Further, legislative policy development is a very important aspect of a member of Parliament's job. We do this work within the theme of trying to enhance the credibility and the integrity of the profession of being an hon. member of Parliament.
Members of Parliament have many issues that are of particular importance to them. Through the mechanisms of this place we have an opportunity to raise petitions on behalf of our constituents, to make statements in this place on behalf of issues or on behalf of constituents who let us know what really concerns them.
We also have an opportunity to present motions in this place and propose changes to government legislation. I had one. We had a resolution on Bill C-41 which allowed me to raise a motion to change the law so that abusers of spouses or children will get stiffer penalties under the laws of Canada. That passed in this place, and I am very proud that I had an opportunity to participate in the development of a piece of legislation of the Government of Canada.
That did not come out of the air. Nobody told me to do it. It came because I was involved in my community before I was elected. I was involved with Interim Place, our shelter for battered women. I knew what a terrible problem this was to our society. The problem has always been there. I saw this opportunity.
I know all members of Parliament from their own backgrounds and experiences have the opportunity to bring up their life experiences so they can help to shape and craft legislation in the best interests of all Canadians.
I have spent a lot of time talking about family issues. I think for the last three years I have been giving the same petition "that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value to our society". And it goes on to say that we need some tax reform because families are very important.
I have given many speeches in this place in which I have used lines such as: If the family was strong, the deficit would be gone. I have used other lines like: Strong families make a strong country. We have to invest in our children and invest in our families. These themes are coming through, I know they are.
Even though my bill on splitting income between spouses did not get the confidence of the House, I know that when we introduce new legislation on employment insurance there will be wage subsidies for parents who have parental leave so they can come back into the workforce when they have taken care of their responsibility of caring for their children.
I also know that the legislation includes training allowances so that those people who have taken the time to provide direct parental care will have the opportunity to get their skills back into shape and can properly take their role in society, working and being as good as they can be in the employment sector.
I also spent some time working on the underground economy. I spent six months studying it in Canada and the U.S. I put forward a private member's motion in this place which prescribed a program to address the underground economy. All members of the House who spoke supported the motion. In fact, it passed and was then taken by the then Minister of National Revenue and with departmental officials, a seven point program was developed to address the issues related to the underground economy.
Last June the new Minister of National Revenue rose in this place and thanked me, saying that as a result of that seven point program that she could announce that they had assessed over $1 billion of additional taxes which were unbudgeted because of problems in the underground economy. That is the kind of thing that happens in this place which make me excited about this job, because I know there are opportunities to make good things happen if you can only continue to earn respect within your own caucus and in the House to garner support for issues that you feel are very important.
Members in this place will also know that I have spent a lot of time on the responsible use of alcohol. They know that I got unanimous consent of all parties on December 7, 1995, supporting health warning labels on the containers of alcoholic beverages. That has been stuck in committee. I am afraid that it may stay there and when the next election comes it will still be there and will die. I did not give up. I continue to work on it and it is continually being studied as part of the review of Canada's national drug strategy.
As a result of my research I did into the problems associated with alcohol misuse, I started to put together a program which is now called "Drink Smart Canada". Drink Smart Canada today is a national public awareness campaign on the responsible use of alcohol. There are over 8,000 posters circulating across Canada, over 120 municipalities have passed resolutions in their chambers endorsing Drink Smart. The Canadian Police Association and the Association of Canadian Chiefs of Police are the honorary patrons. We have a toll free number and we receive several calls every day from people who want more information and who want to participate.
On November 7 there will be a special forum of national groups and organizations that are going to come together to help to kick off the remaining strategy of the Drink Smart Canada campaign.
I did not have to do these things, but I sensed from the support I received from all parties in the House on the health warning labels on the containers of alcoholic beverages that members in this place wanted to make sure that the issues associated with alcohol did not die. The members here are wondering what are those issues. Those issues are: 50 per cent of family violence; 65 per cent of child abuse; 1 in 6 family breakdowns; 45 per cent of automobile collisions; 30 per cent of suicides; 45 per cent of fires; 50 per cent of hospital emergencies. These are all directly or indirectly due to alcohol misuse. It costs Canadians $15 billion a year and 19,000 people die each year as a result of the irresponsible use of alcohol. This is an important issue and I am prepared to fight for it, to work hard and to make sure that the issues are before Canadians.
I have talked a lot about fetal alcohol syndrome. Fetal alcohol syndrome is the problems associated with alcohol consumption during pregnancy. Five per cent of birth defects are caused by alcohol consumption during pregnancy. It costs Canadians $2.7 billion a year to deal with the problems associated with FAS, additional health care costs, social program costs, criminal justice costs and lost productivity in our society; due to a child who is yet to be born. It is a 100 per cent preventable tragedy.
In 1992 the Standing Committee on Health prepared a report on FAS, the 100 per cent preventable tragedy. The report recommended health warning labels on the containers of alcoholic beverages so that we could alert Canadians of the risks associated with consuming alcohol during pregnancy.
From those examples Canadians probably have a reasonable idea that members of Parliament, even those not in cabinet, have an important role to play in this place. We have an important role to support the themes articulated in the throne speech, to improve the integrity and the credibility of people who change their lives to come to this place to represent constituents and represent all Canadians.
Politics is really a team sport. There are several teams but by and large I know members of Parliament in this place in their hearts come here to do a good job for their constituents, and to do what they can to shape and to craft important legislation that will make sure that Canada continues to be the best country in the world.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I am almost certain that I rose to my feet a split second before my hon. colleague from North Vancouver.
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. member. We have 10 minutes and each member can have five minutes.
Ted White: Mr. Speaker, that was such an enthralling speech I could have sworn I saw you dozing off for a moment there.
I would like to question the member on two particular issues. He rambled on at great length about the wonderful health care system we have and how universal it is.
The first question deals with the province of Quebec, which refuses to properly reimburse other provinces for the health care given to its citizens when they use the health services of other provinces. The present health minister, when he was in opposition, regularly complained about that in this House and said the Liberal government would do something about it. Then on the TV program "Ottawa Inside Out" just a few months ago he suddenly says it is not at the top of the priority list anymore. Yet he was more than happy to punish Alberta and B.C. for trying to find alternative ways to fund their health care systems. Why is the Minister of Health now ignoring the serious violation of the Canada Health Act by Quebec?
The second question deals with waiting lists. Can he please explain why the Liberal government has given the entrepreneur of the year award to a company in Winnipeg that provides waiting list insurance for Canadians so that they can go to the United States for medical services when they have to wait too long in Canada?
Finally, what does he have to say to one of my constituents, Mrs. Gawenda, who waited nine months for an operation in Vancouver that should have been done within weeks? She ended up going to Seattle and paying $15,000 of her own money to have it done. The doctors down there said what sort of a country would have allowed a person to go nine months waiting for an operation that should have been done in three weeks.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I think the premise of the member's question has to do with the issues surrounding what happened in Alberta and B.C. What happened there was they were operating a two tier health care system-
Ted White: Quebec is the issue.
Paul Szabo: I will address Quebec in a moment, if the member would give me an opportunity to respond. It took several months. The health minister of the day gave several months for Alberta to change the situation so that Canadians could get health care not because they had money but because they were sick.
With regard to the Quebec situation, the rules guiding the provinces from the federal level are contained in the Canada Health Act. The five principles of the Canada Health Act are portability, accessibility, universality, comprehensiveness and publicly funded. The government, through the Canada health and social transfer, transfers the moneys. If there are problems there the rules are in place to deal with them and the provinces will surely have to comply with the spirit and in fact the law of the Canada Health Act.
With regard to waiting lists, that is a provincial jurisdiction. I do, however, understand that people have to wait. I spent nine years on the board of the Mississauga hospital and five years as treasurer. I know that the tremendous shift to an ambulatory philosophy toward providing health care has made sure that hospitals even when they downsize actually are serving more patients than they used to more efficiently. They are more cost effective.
There are certain things they cannot do on demand. Any business has to respond to fiscal realities. I do not think that in this case the member has convinced me that his constituent is not getting appropriate health care.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask the hon. member a question following, as my colleague says, his riveting presentation. We can certainly tell there is an election coming when politicians become so full of themselves.
Earlier the hon. Minister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie made a presentation in this House. He talked about what he viewed as the Reform Party inconsistency in our policies.
I point out from Hansard page 5561, October 22, 1996 that in response to a question about the announcement of a grant of $11 million to Viet Nam and the concern expressed by an hon. member
during that question about human rights abuses in Viet Nam, the hon. minister replied that the Canadian government should not use economic pressure to resolve a situation concerning human rights. That is what he said basically, that he did not believe that.
Later on the same day the same minister in response to a question about the situation in Afghanistan and the concern expressed there for human rights replied: "The Canadian government is extremely concerned about human rights not being respected, in particular women's rights, in Afghanistan. That is why we have suspended all Canadians funds for local initiatives until further notice".
We talk about inconsistencies. Unfortunately there was not time for me to put this question directly to him, but I will put it to his hon. colleague because he does represent the Liberal government. This minister is saying in connection with Viet Nam that no, we cannot tie human rights to economic aid and yet with Afghanistan we do prevent economic aid because of human rights abuses.
I am wondering, as are the people of Canada, which is it?
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that I clarify one thing for members of the House and for Canadians.
As a backbench member of Parliament I do not speak on behalf of the minister and I do not speak on behalf of the Liberal Party. I am part of a team, but I have no authority and no way to represent the position of the government.
Notwithstanding that, I am familiar with the issues which the member has raised and I will give him my personal input, which is what my job is.
The member will well know that human rights issues are very important to Canada. The social values that we have in this country have meant that every time international situations arise Canadians look to Canada to provide leadership where possible. The member must surely know that with a population of just about 30 million people it is very difficult to go to China and say "I am the Prime Minister of Canada. I represent 30 million people and you should stop doing what you are doing". The premier of China would say "I am the premier of China and I represent one billion people".
Canada has a role to play in terms of its model. We supported our UN allies with the embargoes on South Africa. We supported our allies in the Afghanistan situation. However, we are not singing from a linear song sheet.
For example, let us look at the Cuba situation. Canada does not support the U.S. position on Cuba. Canada's position appears to be, very clearly, that the best way to change human rights abuses in Cuba is for Canadians to be there, to be doing business there and to have some input and show Cubans how we can work together to make the world a safer place.
The point is do not look for a simple solution to the complex problems of the world. Every situation has different circumstances. Canada will play its role as it always has.
Mike Scott: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the member's intervention I am reminded of the immortal words of Forest Gump: "Blah, blah, blah, blah". That is all I have to say about that.
Throne speeches are an opportunity for the government to chart a course and lay out its plans for the country, for the people and for the government for the ensuing months.
Different kinds of thrones often produce different results. I am afraid that the Canadian people have received a vastly inferior product with this throne speech.
Let us examine the facts. The government talked about all the wonderful things it was going to do for Canada. It talked about all the wonderful things it was going to do for the coastal communities of Canada, for example. The reality is vastly different.
The government has made vicious cuts to essential services such as the coast guard, search and rescue, fish hatcheries and light stations, to name a few, in the pursuit of saving a small amount of money in comparison to total government spending.
In the case of fish hatcheries we are talking about $3 million to $4 million a year. In the case of light stations we are talking about $3 million a year. In the case of the coast guard we are talking about $7 million a year. That is the coast guard; not for aids to navigation, but search and rescue. Those are coast guard services that actually are there to prevent the loss of Canadian human life, mariners and fishermen on the high seas.
We are told that these services have to be cut. We cannot afford them any more. The government just does not have the money.
We agree that this country has a serious deficit and debt problem. However, we say that the places where the government ought to cut last is where the government is actually delivering a service in the field to Canadians.
I have told people in my riding that if they want to find out where the DFO office is in Ottawa, they should fly to Ottawa, take a cab, drive around the downtown core and when they find the nicest, biggest, shiniest ivory tower, get out of the cab and walk over to the front door. I guarantee they have just found the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
The building is full from the top to the bottom with bureaucrats. A whole floor is dedicated to communications. What is meant by communications? They are talking about spin doctors. The whole floor is designed to sell the minister's decisions to the Canadian people. That is what the government considers to be an essential service. It is not the coast guard boats that are out there to save and preserve Canadian lives during problems, storms and so on. No, that is not an essential service.
The government uses the throne speech in a despicable way. It tries to convince Canadians that it is actually concerned about their welfare. In reality it is more concerned about its own welfare and places that as a much higher priority than any of the other priorities it has.
Let us examine for a minute the fact that after all these cuts the Government of Canada turns around and gives an $87 million no interest loan to its corporate buddies over at Bombardier. If the people at Bombardier wanted my money as a taxpayer, could they not ask me for it? Could they not knock on my door and say: "We would like to have some money. We need to do some R and D. You are a Canadian citizen and we think you should contribute to this cause". They could but they do not. Do you know why they do not? Because I would tell them to go play in the traffic. I would tell them they do not need my money because they have $6 billion in assets. They are making millions of dollars in profits and there are Canadians who do need my money. I would tell them to get lost.
However, Bombardier does not have to come to me or to the taxpayers of Canada to get permission to steal my money. No, it comes to the government and gets permission to coerce money out of me and all of the other taxpayers across this country to support its corporate objectives.
When I was first elected and came here I was absolutely dumbfounded one day when I opened the Financial Post and read that the government had made a $60 million U.S. loan for the construction of an aluminum smelter in South Africa. Think about this for a minute. Canada is one of the leading producers of aluminum in the world. There are 10 smelters in Quebec. There is one world class smelter in my riding in Kitimat, British Columbia. Not only the company, but the people who work in those companies are all contributing to the tax base here. The government does not ask them: ``Do you think we should send $60 million to South Africa to build an aluminum smelter down there?'' No, it does not ask anyone; it just says it is doing it.
And what is SNC-Lavalin? Just another corporate buddy of the Liberal government. It is another corporation which happens to make hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations to the Liberal Party.
When we look at the record of this government and consider its approach to issues, it does not take very long to come to the conclusion that the Liberal government will put the priorities and the interests of Canadians behind its own political interests every time out of the starting gate. Frankly, it is starting to really annoy me and a lot of other Canadians.
The Liberal red book is a Liberal dead book. The speech from the throne is nothing more than a pompous, self-inflated statement designed to mislead Canadians and has no real intent to serve their interests.
Bill Gilmour: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to finally address the throne speech. Only in the Canadian system could we be addressing a speech where all the goals and finances were established six months ago. In fact, half the programs have already been spent.
I will address my area as critic which is public works which deals with a number of areas within government and with government contracts.
One of the first areas we dealt with in the government operations committee was the Senate. The finances of the Senate can come before our committee. I moved a resolution to have one of the Senate financial people come before our committee to explain how the Senate was going to spend its $40 million allocation plus another $11 million in expenses. It went through this House. It was the first time in Canadian history I might add that the Senate was asked to come before a committee to account for its expenses. Guess what? The people from the Senate did not show up. They felt that they did not have to. This brings us to the crux of the Canadian system.
Here we have a group of senators-I will call them a double U Senate, unelected and unaccountable-refusing to come before this House to justify their expenses. That is absolutely wrong. This is why we need a triple E Senate, elected, effective and equal. A lot of the legislation that went through this House-the GST is a good example, and gun control-would not have gone through if there had been an elected Senate, an effective Senate.
It happens in the United States and the Australian governments. They have Senates that work. Unfortunately we do not. It is fundamental to our system that this government right across the board voted to give the Senate its allocation of $40 million plus $11 million in expenses without questioning where it was going to spend that money.
Another area within public works is contracts. My colleague from Skeena commented on Bombardier. Why in heaven should Bombardier receive millions of dollars? It is one of the most profitable corporations in Canada yet it went to the Liberal government and got that money. Why? Because it donated $174,000 over the past three years to the Liberal Party.
Another one is the mine sweeper contract that went finally to SNC-Lavalin. This is a $35 million contract. Halifax Shipyards submitted the lowest bid and the best technical bid. It was the outfit that was recommended by the Department of National Defence but did Halifax Shipyards get that contract? No. It went to SNC-Lavalin in Quebec which is a very large Liberal supporter.
Is this the kind of government Canadians want? Canadians want a straight up, level playing field so that when contracts are given out, they are given out to the best possible competitor. That does not happen. I have seen contracts that have been rewritten. A contract on the east coast is written one way and when the contract goes to a west coast firm, the contract is rewritten so that the west coast firm cannot compete. That is absolutely wrong.
There has to be a level playing field in all contracts. That simply is not happening right now. The government is playing favourites like Bombardier, like SNC-Lavalin. This is clearly the old style politics. This is the Mulroney style politics. We know what happened to the Mulroney gang. The same thing is going to happen to this gang because Canadians simply will not put up with it.
We are in a debt and deficit hole. We need to spend our money wisely. We Canadians do not really like paying our taxes, but if we paid our taxes knowing full well that they were going to go to the right cause with efficiency, with economy, Canadians would be quite happy to come forward with their taxes. Right now they have absolutely no confidence in this government when it comes to spending their money. This will change come the next election.
Another area within public works is Canada Post. What has happened to our postal system? Over the past 10 or 12 years we cannot get a letter across a city in the same day or between cities in two days and anywhere in the country in three days. That is what the Radwanski report is saying. This should be the goal of Canada Post. Get of the courier business. Get out of Purolator Courier and get out of the ad mail business.
I will describe exactly what has happened in Canada Post. Canada Post owns half of Purolator. It is the biggest player in the courier business. By allowing Canada Post to falter, not to be able to get a letter across town for 45 cents, we then have to go to Purolator and pay $9 to get it across town. This is really good business, is it not? But they are playing with Canadian tax dollars. Canada Post absolutely refuses to show the cross-subsidization that is happening, where the 45-cent stamp is going. It undercuts ad mail. It undercuts it so that it is then the best player in town. It undercuts Purolator so that the other players, the private sector, are at a disadvantage.
Canada Post has to get out of that altogether and get back to its real mandate of efficient and economical delivery of mail. That is what the Reform Party believes. Canada Post should have the mandate to get back to the basics. If it cannot do that after being given a perfect chance, then the Reform Party will consider privatizing it. If that is the only way we can get mail delivered in this country, then we will do it.
The United States and Australia have similar distances, similar problems within their postal systems yet they can do it. Why can Canada Post not do it? Canada Post cannot do it because it is embroiled in trying to get into the public sector, which is absolutely wrong.
Canada Post has forgotten its absolute beginning mandate and this is where the Radwanski report is absolutely bang on. Allow Canada Post to be opened to access to information. Allow the auditor general into Canada Post to deal with it. Right now we cannot get any information from Canada Post on its finances or on what is going on. This is absolutely wrong.
In summary in the contract area and in the big corporate areas such as Canada Post and CMHC, the government has a dismal record. We must get government out of the faces of Canadians, get back to the basics and have contracts awarded on a real, effective, level playing field. In that way Canadians will be getting the best bang for their buck.
Bonnie Brown: Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on the speeches from the previous two speakers who shared their time.
Ted White: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I stood for questions and comments. Is that not permitted now?
The Deputy Speaker: Yes, it is questions and comments. This Speaker always recognizes a member from a party other than the one which gave an intervention.
Bonnie Brown: Mr. Speaker, I would particularly like to compliment the first speaker of the two. He made it very clear to us and described in detail the needs of some of his constituents in the coastal communities of British Columbia.
As a member who comes from Ontario who has had brief visits to British Columbia it is good for me to hear a member from that part of the world describe these things in great detail. In so doing he is educating all of us in our responsibilities. The member had the wisdom to put price tags on some of the things his people at home needed. I found that description an honest presentation of the needs of the people of British Columbia. It was in stark contrast to the criticism that followed on the government's movements with Bombardier and the criticism of SNC Lavalin.
The member and the speaker previous to him implied that the government's dealings with Bombardier and SNC Lavalin were related only to politics. They failed to recognize that those two corporations are tremendous Canadian companies. As the Minister of Industry said the other day, the Government of Canada is backing a winner in the world of aerospace when it backs Bombardier and all governments around the world lucky enough to have aerospace industries provide subsidies to them.
In SNC Lavalin we have one of the greatest engineering companies in the world. It is highly regarded by its colleagues in the private sector because it is leading the charge of the Canadian private sector into the markets of China which is where some of our subsequent wealth in future years will come from. Therefore we should be encouraging that company, not berating it in the House of Commons.
Both previous speakers accused the governing party of old style politics. I suggest they have given a demonstration of old style politics. They have come to Ottawa to say this is what I need to take back home and do not give anything to anybody else who is not from my community or my province or my region. That is the kind of regionalism that is divisive.
It is perfectly legitimate to express the needs of your communities. That is what I want to hear. But I do not want to hear criticisms of other communities, other corporations, other provinces that are doing the same thing in order to build the federation as a whole. That is old style politics, coming to Ottawa and asking what can I grab, what can I take home?
My questions to those speakers are: What are they bringing to the federation? Which shared Canadian values are-
The Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired because only five minutes are allowed. Only the member for Comox-Alberni may reply since there has already been a question period for the member for Skeena.
Bill Gilmour: Mr. Speaker, the member said that we only come to this area to grab something for our own province. I would point out that three provinces are have provinces. One of them is British Columbia. We are very much at the bottom of the stick when it comes to receiving from the other end.
All we are asking for is a level playing field with equal give and take. British Columbians are tired of give, give, give. As my colleague for Skeena said, in the coastal communities it has been lighthouses, coast guard, fisheries. It is an on and on list of abandoning British Columbian coastal communities. This is not the
way a government should be operating, particularly toward a province like British Columbia that contributes more in transfer payments than it gets.
The Deputy Speaker: There being no further speakers and it being approximately 2 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the subamendment and the amendment now before the House.
Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the amendment to the amendment.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order adopted, the division stands deferred until Tuesday, November 5, 1996, at 5.30 p.m.
It being 2 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday at11 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 2.04 p.m.)