36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 4
CONTENTS
Friday, October 15, 1999
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1005
| SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
|
| Resumption of debate on Address in Reply
|
| Ms. Susan Whelan |
1010
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1015
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1020
1025
1030
| amendment to the amendment
|
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
| Mr. Stan Keyes |
1035
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1040
1045
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1050
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
1055
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| OLDER PERSONS
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS
|
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| GASOLINE PRICES
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1100
| WADE MACLAUGHLAN
|
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| ORGAN DONATION
|
| Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| WORLD FOOD DAY
|
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
| FOSTER FAMILIES
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1105
| DYSTONIA AWARENESS WEEK
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| JULIUS NYERERE
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS
|
| Mr. Bill Graham |
| NUCLEAR TEST BAN TREATY
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| ORDRE DU MÉRITE AGRICOLE 1999
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1110
| HONOURABLE ANTONIO LAMER
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| TOBIQUE FIRST NATION
|
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
| JEAN DRAPEAU
|
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| REFUGEES
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| FIRST NATIONS
|
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1115
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1120
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| GM PLANT IN BOISBRIAND
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| AUDIOVISUAL PRODUCTIONS
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1125
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Charlie Power |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| Mr. Charlie Power |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
1130
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
| AIR TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1135
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| EAST TIMOR
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
1140
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Mr. Bob Speller |
| AUDIOVISUAL PRODUCTIONS
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| HEALTH RESEARCH
|
| Mr. Mark Assad |
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
1145
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY
|
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| CRIME PREVENTION
|
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
1150
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| AUDIOVISUAL PRODUCTIONS
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| AUTO PACT
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| GLOBAL POPULATION
|
| Mr. John Finlay |
| Hon. Maria Minna |
1155
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
| AIRLINE INDUSTRY
|
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| TRUCKING INDUSTRY
|
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
1200
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| PUBLIC SERVICE OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Industry
|
| Mr. John Cannis |
| ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1205
| CIVIL INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION
|
| Bill C-4. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| CANADIAN TOURISM COMMISSION ACT
|
| Bill C-5. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS
|
| Bill C-6. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-219. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| CULTURAL GRANTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ACT
|
| Bill C-220. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1210
| PRAIRIE GRAIN ELEVATORS ACT
|
| Bill C-221. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| FIRST NATIONS OMBUDSMAN ACT
|
| Bill C-222. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| WITNESS AND SPOUSAL PROTECTION PROGRAM ACT
|
| Bill C-223. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1215
| SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
|
| Resumption of debate on Address in Reply
|
| Hon. Andy Mitchell |
1220
1225
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1230
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1235
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1240
1245
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1250
1255
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1300
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
1305
1310
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1315
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1320
| Mrs. Carolyn Bennett |
1325
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1330
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1335
1340
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1345
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1350
1355
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1400
1405
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1410
1415
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1420
| Mr. Bill Graham |
1425
| Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 4
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, October 15, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1005
[English]
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
The House resumed from October 14 consideration of the motion
for an address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to
her speech at the opening of the session and of the amendment.
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, continuing
the debate today I would like to talk about health. Our health
depends on safe and healthy food and I would like to remind the
House that the agricultural industry in my riding is one of the
largest in southeastern Canada.
The riding of Essex and the surrounding area has an ideal
growing climate. It is situated on a flat peninsula, jutting
into the United States farther south than northern California.
The growing season is the longest in Canada, averaging 212 days,
with 350,000 acres of rich fertile and relatively flat farmland.
There are 3,000 farms and over 400 acres of greenhouse
production, producing everything from apples and tomatoes to
flowers and cacti.
Farmers provide an annual yield of fruits and vegetables,
legumes and grains totalling over $200 million annually. Today
more than 50 food and beverage processing plants account for over
$1 billion in shipments.
Our farmers take pride in nurturing the soil and producing the
freshest and healthiest produce possible. To assist the farmers
in my riding of Essex and elsewhere we will use the upcoming
World Trade Organization negotiations, including those on
agriculture, to help build a more transparent rules based global
trading system, one that ensures a level playing field, provides
better access to world markets for Canadian companies in all
sectors and respects the needs of Canadians, our culture and the
environment.
I would like to remind the House that agricultural production
and its future is the very soul of this nation. The Liberal
government has been and will continue to be a very strong
supporter of agriculture.
As the throne speech stated, Canada's ability to adopt
innovative environmental practices and technologies will
increasingly be a part of Canada's strength in the 21st century.
Just yesterday Canada's leading automakers announced a new fuel
endorsement program designed to encourage gasoline retailers to
sell fuels that meet strict specifications, including lower
sulphur, positive combustion chamber deposit controls, no heavy
metal additives and enhanced driveability characteristics.
Those retailers who meet these specifications will be able to
obtain a licence to use the automakers' choice logo and
designation. To quote General Motor's president Maureen Kempston
Darkes: “If all vehicles on the road in Canada today could
access automakers' choice gasoline, it would be the equivalent of
eliminating the smog-causing emissions from almost two million
cars and light trucks”.
This will positively affect all Canadians and my constituents by
reducing the already unacceptable levels of air pollution in
Windsor and Essex county.
We will go further. By improving our physical infrastructure
for the 21st century we will not only aid trade and economic
growth, we will ensure that we have clean air and water.
The government will work with other levels of government and the
private sector to reach by the end of the year 2000 an agreement
on a five year plan for improving physical infrastructure in
urban and rural regions across the country. This agreement will
set out shared principles, objectives and fiscal parameters for
all partners to increase their resources directed toward
infrastructure. It will focus on areas such as transport,
tourism, telecommunications, culture, health and safety, and the
environment.
1010
Tourism is a multibillion dollar industry in Windsor and Essex
which attracts day-trippers and vacationers by bridge or tunnel
to an uncrowded, relaxed and safe destination. Tourism accounts
for our fourth largest industry, with 12% of the workforce or
16,300 people employed in accommodations, food service, amusement
and recreation. The Ambassador Bridge is North America's number
one international border crossing, with over 10 million vehicles
per year travelling between our two great nations.
Municipalities in my riding and individual companies have
communicated to me the importance of creating a better highway
system to ensure the safety of our citizens, the efficient
movement of our trades and goods, and to increase the movement of
people to our tourist attractions.
With the millennium approaching, Canada is preparing for the
arrival of the 21st century and its immediate future. We cannot
speak of the future without looking to our children. This
government recognizes that the viability and economic strength of
this nation depend on the opportunities we give our children
today.
If Canada is going to be the place to be in the knowledge based
economy of the 21st century, young Canadians, our leaders and
innovators of tomorrow, must be equipped with state of the art
high tech skills. As well, they must have access to the tools
and educational opportunities which will help them apply their
creative talents and hone their skills. Our goal is to give
today's young generation of Canadians, no matter where they live,
a shot at personal success in the knowledge economy, at a job
with a future that pays well, and at becoming our best and
brightest.
SchoolNet has connected every public school and library in
Canada to the Internet. Canada is the first nation in the world
to accomplish this. The community access program has ensured
that we will have public Internet sites connected in 10,000 rural
and urban areas by the year 2000 and Computers for Schools, whose
goal of providing 250,000 computers for Canadian schools, is 60%
complete.
The throne speech reaffirms that we will build on this strong
foundation and use the world leading high tech infrastructure we
are putting in place, not only to enhance the skills and
opportunities of young Canadians, but also to broaden their
understanding of their fellow Canadians and the Canadian
experience.
Canada is on the right track. The nation's finances have been
restored and we are enjoying the longest economic expansion since
the 1960s with the creation of 1.7 million jobs since we took
office. As the nation's finances have improved, the government
has begun to deliver broad based tax relief totalling $16.5
billion over three years. As the nation's finances continue to
improve, the government will further reduce taxes to increase the
disposable income of Canadians, enhance innovation and risk
taking, and create a more robust economy. In its next budget the
government will set out a multi-year plan for further tax
reductions.
I have had my opportunity to comment on the throne speech and
the vision the government has unveiled to bring our strong nation
into the next millennium. I hope that my constituents will take
the opportunity to give me their views at the prebudget
consultation I will hold at the Essex Civic and Education Centre
on November 9, 1999 at 7.00 p.m. Together we can build a
stronger Canada for the 21st century.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to take a look at some things that have happened since 1993.
In the agricultural industry in my riding and in other parts of
western Canada farmers are piling grain on the ground. Their
bins are full. They have no place to put it. They cannot move
it. About 40% of farmers are considering bankruptcy at this very
moment.
This morning there are about 166,000 out of every million
children who are going to school hungry. They are living in
poverty. That is nearly three times as bad as it was in 1993.
The people on hundreds of reserves in this country are living in
squalor. I have seen it with my own eyes. I know what is there.
We have a fishery problem that is going on now.
It is unbelievable that it would come to this, and all since
1993.
We have first degree cop killers, murderers, walking away from
minimum security institutions. We have killers in minimum
security institutions and this throne speech talks about the
safety of Canadians as a top priority.
When we look at what is going on today and that which has
occurred since 1993, I would suggest to the Canadian people
throughout this land that this entire front row is filled with
incompetent people, including the Prime Minister. How would the
member respond to these tragedies that are happening today, right
before her eyes?
1015
Ms. Susan Whelan: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to
the hon. member, which is hard for me to find right now, the
government has already invested an additional $1.7 billion toward
low income families and children. The member who just spoke
voted against that. He now has the nerve to stand in the House
and talk about poverty and children when he voted against money
going to low income families and to children.
The Prime Minister has led the government and the country to the
lowest unemployment rate in years. Canadians are back to work.
We have new programs in our schools. We are connected to the
Internet with leading edge technology. We are investing in
research. We are attracting the best and brightest to Canada.
Maybe the hon. member should come to the industry committee once
in a while and hear what researchers in Canada have to say about
the opportunities that exist in Canada and what attracts them.
The bottom line is not the dollars. It is where they can go and
what they can do. If members on that side would show up at
committee they would obviously know that. Since they are never
there they cannot say anything about it.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, obviously we have again heard non-answers from a
government member to some very direct questions from my colleague
from Wild Rose.
The member talked about being on track. Someone needs to wake
her up because there has been a derailment. The government is
very off track.
The member mentioned broad based tax relief as though the
government had actually delivered it. She talked about $16.5
billion of tax relief but, surprise, neglected to mention that
the government at the same time has wrung $18 billion out of the
Canadian people in tax increases. We talk about the $16 billion
of tax relief but we do not mention that we have raised and wrung
$18 billion more out of Canadians at the very same time. That is
a net loss and the member has the gall to stand in her place and
defend her government by saying that it has provided broad based
tax relief. How can she do that?
Ms. Susan Whelan: Mr. Speaker, obviously the math on the
other side is a little distorted as usual.
When we go from double digit unemployment to single digit
unemployment we obviously will have more Canadians working. More
Canadians working means more tax dollars. That is why we have
been able to provide $16.5 billion in tax relief and why we made
a very clear announcement in the throne speech.
In case they did not hear me the first time, we very clearly
state in the throne speech that the government will set out a
multi-year plan for further tax reductions. Canadians know that
we have a balanced approach. Canadians supported us in the 1997
election on a balanced approach.
I know it bothers some members on the opposite side to think
that Canadians want social programs at the same time as they want
balance, with debt reduction and tax relief.
Just the other day I had a dinner meeting and by chance two
people there, one from the health care sector and one who makes
substantial amounts of money from a different type of profession,
were at odds on what should happen, but both of them agreed that
we have to support the social programs as much as we have to
provide tax relief.
I very clearly answered the question when I stated that we have
gone from double digit to single digit unemployment.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am glad to be part of the debate this morning. l enjoyed the
throne speech, but the main event for me and I think for many in
the media and others was really the Leader of the Opposition's
reply to the throne speech. I always look forward to his
comments. What a great job he did.
Reflecting on the throne speech, some Liberals seem to believe
that spending money on government programs aimed at children will
help with the challenges that Canadian families face.
Unfortunately, investing in more new federal programs, the latest
code word being investing, is really just more spending and
spending financed by whom? It is financed by parents. It
completely misses the importance of families in their struggles.
The issues and pressures facing Canadian families are bigger
than a few new spending programs. Everything from fiscal and
economic policy to justice and community safety issues all affect
family units.
High taxes mean fewer family outings and more financial stress.
High CPP premiums translate into a tax on jobs. There is also
bracket creep. Tax inequalities and inequities mean that
families have to consider what effect employment decisions will
have on their tax bill.
1020
A massive underground economy means that families are the
victims of an especially unbalanced tax burden. A confused
health care system means stress and uncertainty about the care of
loved ones.
A low dollar, almost two-thirds of the American dollar, and once
higher than the American dollar, means that families face a
grocery bill and costs for fruits and vegetables higher than ever
before.
Lower productivity means a less vibrant economy, higher long
term and youth unemployment. Youth unemployment is almost twice
the rate of overall unemployment. Many of the jobs young people
get are across the border. The brain drain is a real thing and
it is breaking up families. Oppressive regulations and bloated
bureaucracies stifle the entrepreneurial spirit that is birthed
within the family.
A lax attitude toward crime and criminals and using our
communities as test laboratories for rehabilitating early
parolees makes danger on our streets and violence in the
playground sometimes a reality.
Probably a most significant concern to many in the House is the
political interference and anti-democratic patronage which
weakens the faith of our young people in the system. Special
interest group funding, political slush fund contributions and
other frivolous attitudes toward spending tax dollars encourages
a sort of family tax rage. Children and families are all
affected by these issues.
We have heard the government talk about its concern for children
but I and other members of the House have repeatedly heard it
refuse to deliver even when it had the opportunity to do so. This
is a government that says it is against child pornography, it is
for greater protection from child sex offenders and it is against
family tax discrimination. Let us look at its actions because
that is really the most telling sign.
We have seen, in the country, the courts strike down laws that
make child pornography illegal. We saw 79 Liberal MPs and
senators write a letter to the Prime Minister urging him not to
wait for the appeal of the B.C. decision to be heard but to
immediately act in defence of Canada's children. These Liberal
members recommended that strong new child pornography legislation
be introduced as soon as the House returns. That sounds good. I
and I am sure all the members of my party would have signed that
letter. In fact, they even went on in the letter to encourage
the Prime Minister to consider the use of the notwithstanding
clause to send a clear message that Canada's charter of rights
and freedoms would never again be used to defend sexual abuse of
Canadian children.
Tragically, we have the telling sign. These same Liberals voted
against a motion in the House to do just exactly what their
letter asked for. In February of this year every Liberal MP who
signed this letter, except the four who are now in the frozen
back land of the Liberal Party over there, the Siberia of the
Liberal caucus, voted for the motion. All the others who signed
the letter voted against it calling for the motion for child
pornography laws to be upheld by parliament, not struck down, the
laws shaped by parliament.
Let us talk about another situation. The Liberals had an
opportunity to protect children from convicted sex offenders but
failed. We all know the Liberals waited to prorogue the House
this summer until they could get through Bill C-78. Bill C-78
allowed the government to get its hands on the pension surplus of
public employees but they failed to pass another bill, a
Reform-driven bill, Bill C-69 which protected children from
convicted sex offenders. Bill C-69 was in the Senate before the
pension bill but they overlooked that and went for the money.
They pushed through the pension bill to grab the money and left
our children less protected. If that is not a telling sign of
priorities, I do not know what is. Actions speak louder than
words to Canadians.
Let us look at another one. The Liberals have refused and
failed to end the tax discrimination faced by single income
families with children. We know that in the last federal budget
a typical single earner family with two children, a family of
four with a $45,000 income, pays about $4,900 in personal tax.
The same single income family is paying 136% more than a dual
earner family. That is right out of the budget. However, the
Liberals voted against the motion in the House that addresses tax
discrimination. They said no. The vote was 123 in favour, most
united on this side, and 145 against on that side. This affirms
again that the true vision of the Liberals is a continuation of
their legacy of high taxes and less choice for families.
1025
The Liberal MPs say that they are concerned about pornography
and child pornography. What are they doing about it? Nothing.
We hear that they are concerned about protecting our kids, but
when they had a chance to do something about it they did nothing.
The Liberals talk about caring for and wanting to address tax
discrimination in the country. They had the opportunity but did
not move on it.
What is all this talk about a legacy? We hear them talking
about a legacy. The Prime Minister wants a legacy. The Liberal
member from St. Paul's was quoted in the Hamilton spectator as
saying: “We want something that is a legacy”.
The Liberal member for Don Valley West was quoted as saying:
“When they look back at us 50 years from now what will be the
great thing that we did? Will anyone remember if we gave them
tax cuts? If we are going to be remembered we must do some great
thing, some great national project. What more appropriate thing
for the millennium for our legacy”—he is concerned about his
legacy—“than to do something for our kids”.
This begs the question of what is more important to them, their
legacy or our children. Parents look after the needs of kids
best but it looks like they might also be asked to finance the
Liberals' legacy building project. What a question to ask:
“Will anyone remember if we gave them tax cuts?” Where is the
credibility in all of this when we hear all this talk about a
children's agenda? To me it sounds more like an agenda for
children.
The Liberal member for Sarnia—Lambton was quoted recently. I
have to agree with the member, although I think his career path
in the Liberal Party is going to be severely stilted and
derailed. He fears that the national children's agenda is a code
word for big spending, social engineering and government
meddling. He said: “To me it's all a lot of nonsense. It is
as if having children is unnatural and the state is going to tell
you how to rear your children”. This was said by a Liberal
member and I can agree with him. He is right on.
I have to inform the government that it actually already has a
legacy. The Liberal legacy is one of high tax, of high national
debt, of increasing taxes and of a huge national debt borne by
our children.
Families in Canada are actually aware of the Liberal
government's agenda. They are quite confident that they have the
ability to look after the children. Statistics Canada noted in a
recent study that by far the majority of children living in
Canada are in excellent and very good health according to their
parents.
I do not think parents want interference by the Liberal
government. They want to be left to raise their families as they
see fit. They want a government that will give them less taxes
and less government. They want a government that respects the
natural authority of parents and the choices they are best suited
to make on behalf of their children.
I have a lot more to say but I will leave it for another time.
My number one concern is that families in the country be given
the respect and the freedom to raise their children as they see
fit. I would like to move an amendment.
1030
I move:
That the amendment be amended by inserting after the words
“airline industry”, the words: “and give Canadians some
indication of its vision of Canada's airline industry in the 21st
century”.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the amendment to
the amendment.
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the last
speaker mentioned that parents look after their children best.
Over all I would agree with him except that there are situations
where parents do not always look after the needs of their
children best. It is not because they do not want to but in some
circumstances they cannot.
Does the hon. member think that every parent should be the
teacher of their child or the doctor of their child? As
citizens, as a group, can we not help each other look after our
children? Everything a government does is not necessarily some
sort of nefarious interference with those of us who are raising
our children. In fact we can help each other build a stronger
society by helping relieve the stress of a single person or a
single couple looking after their children exclusively.
Mr. Eric Lowther: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a very
reasonable question. I want to be clear on this particular
point.
I am in no way advocating that as a community and as a nation of
caring people we do not support one another or that we do not
encourage one another in the rearing of our children. What I am
focusing on is the natural authority of parents in their families
to make their decisions. When they want to seek help and when
they want to get advice from their neighbours, their community or
even from their government, that should be a decision left solely
in the hands of the parents to decide.
I am not talking about situations of neglect or abuse where
perhaps there is a legitimate requirement for a government to
have some intervention. We are primarily concerned that public
policy and government policy respect the role of parents to make
the decisions in the best interest of their children. They
should be able to make those choices in a fair way where tax
policies do not discriminate against one choice over another.
There should be a fair and equal playing field for parents to
make the decisions because they are the ones who can best make
the needs assessments of their children.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
just read over the hon. member's amendment to the amendment.
After the words “airline industry” he wants to insert the words
“and give Canadians some indication of its vision of Canada's
airline industry in the 21st century”.
Could the hon. member tell me whether or not he is aware of the
process the government and in fact all parties of the House of
Commons are going through at this very moment?
The transport committee of the House of Commons is an all-party
parliamentary committee. Members of all parties of the House sit
on it. In fact his colleague sits as the critic on the
committee. It has already begun its work. It is the only
committee of the House of Commons to get moving on its work.
1035
Yesterday we had our first meeting. As early as Monday
afternoon we are meeting with an agenda. From all indications
from my colleagues on the committee, as well as the critic for
the member's party, the airline issue is probably the issue the
committee will be seized with immediately.
There will be input from the Standing Committee on Transport in
the form of a report. We all hope that it will be a unanimous
report back to the House of Commons as soon as possible but
within the limitations given us to do the job.
The member indicates that he is looking to the government to
provide vision. There are members on this side of the House who
are concerned. They are bringing their concerns to the attention
of our internal economic development committee chaired by the
member for Stoney Creek, and that will move forward.
Is the hon. member aware of all these different things that are
going on, including the Competition Bureau which will make
representation to the minister by the end of the month in the
form of a report? The Minister of Transport is being seized with
this issue and is getting all this input. I wonder if the member
can acknowledge that all this work is being done.
Mr. Eric Lowther: Mr. Speaker, yes, I am aware of that
work being done. I am also aware there was no mention of the
airline industry in the Speech from the Throne. I am also aware
that this issue was not led by any plan of the Liberal
government. It was led by the industry itself. It had to take
action because there was no vision from the government.
I am not saying it should intrude in that situation, but at the
same time I am saying there is a vacuum over there. There is no
plan. It is trying to cope with the realities of the marketplace
and struggling with how to do it. I am aware of what the hon.
member is pointing out, but we are not seeing any clear direction
from the government at all. It is trying to cope with the
situation.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to enter into the debate on the Speech from the
Throne.
It is quite evident from what was not in the Speech from the
Throne that the government is clearly failing in a number of
areas. At a time when the throne speech is to lay out the
government's priorities in the areas that it needs to pay
attention to, it neglected four of the major issues that are huge
in the country right now. Many people are talking about those
issues and many people are looking to the government for answers.
There was a failure of the Liberal government to acknowledge
those issues or spell them out in any remote detail or even in
any generality.
One of the major four areas is the fishing crisis happening on
our east coast. The government did not talk about that or
mention it in the throne speech. The government did not address
agriculture in that throne speech. That is a major issue for
many hard working Canadians in the agricultural field and it
affects all of us.
It has neglected to talk about the airline industry, as was just
pointed out by my colleague for Calgary Centre. It has failed to
talk about immigration and the crisis happening in the broken
system that became so clearly evident this past summer off the
west coast of Vancouver.
I will focus most of my attention in my speech this morning on
the broken immigration system and the failure of the government
to address the crying need for change in that area. It is woeful
that the government has not taken action. The incidents that
happened this past summer of which all Canadians across the
country are aware have in essence highlighted and shone a beacon
of light on the government's failure in this area.
The immigration system has been broken for a very long time.
Members of the opposition have been talking with the government,
pleading with it for a number of years to change the system. My
colleagues that were here years before I came here made a lot of
proactive positive suggestions to the ministers of immigration,
to the government, to the Prime Minister, and they have not acted
on them. They rebut any idea of change out of hand because it
comes from opposition members or from anybody else. They believe
they have the answers and will do what they want.
1040
With that kind of attitude and that kind of approach to
governing the Liberal government gets itself into the position of
crisis after crisis after crisis because of its inability to be
proactive and its inability to look at positive solutions
suggested by others, even by people in its own caucus. They are
rejected out of hand. As a result of that attitude, that
underlying philosophical approach to governing, the government
neglects its responsibility. That is not acceptable.
Members of the opposition will continue to urge that the
government take action. Failing that, we will work in whatever
way possible to become the government so that we can put in place
proactive positive approaches that solve glaring problems across
the country which the government is not willing to even go near.
I will move into a little more detail about some of points made
about our immigration system. I will quote a piece of
information that came from a report commissioned by the minister
of immigration entitled “Not Just Numbers: A Canadian Framework
for Future Immigration”. This study was put together by some
independent individuals who did a broad based consultation
process, in the government's own words, to find out what needs to
be done. Here is something that was included in the report:
In recent years in Canada, over half of all the asylum-seeking
arrivals at ports of entry had destroyed all identification
documents before being seen by officials—
It goes on to say:
Recent arrivals have mainly come from countries which are stable
enough to provide identification documents. Generally, these
individuals are uncooperative and refuse to provide their names,
their countries of origin, or anything else that might assist the
expeditious processing of their claim. The idea that all such
persons are reluctant to give such details because of
refugee-based fears, or that the persons helping them enter
Canada are latter-day Raoul Wallenbergs, is naive. The
people-smuggling business is now as lucrative as the
international drug trade.
This was in a report submitted to the government, commissioned
by the government and in fact has been lost on the government. It
is another report that has simply been shelved or put away to
gather dust for another day. We can say this because the
government has rejected that notion out of hand as well as many
other proposals which have been put forward. It is a shame that
is its approach to governing.
Immigration department officials in response to the people
smuggling that occurred on the west coast this past summer have
said the following. An Immigration Canada spokesperson named Jim
Redmond has said:
This is not a humanitarian movement; this is almost a slavery
movement. It's hard on the people who are smuggled. It's
organized crime at its worst.
He also said:
There is a good chance we could have more arrivals this year. It
would be naive to say it's all over.
What appears to be happening is that the Liberal government is
hoping the issue will just fade away. If it does nothing long
enough other issues will pop up which will take the attention
away from this glaring failure within its mandate so that it does
not have to act on it. The underlying approach of the government
is if it does not do anything long enough maybe people will
forget about it.
People are not forgetting about it. They are realizing that the
government is failing in the area of addressing the immigration
system. I have sat with my colleagues for two years on the
immigration committee. We have had many good debates. We have
tried to work together. We have had many very heated debates at
times too about the issue because it is a very important one.
We have been able to work co-operatively at times to look at
ideas and solutions. What tends to happen is they get rejected
because they are not approved by the minister, by the prime
minister or by the cabinet. That is a shame too because there
are many things we would like to see happen that are not
happening.
The Reform Party offers a proactive positive approach rather
than this force of negativity of doing nothing offered by the
Liberal government. We have ideas, suggestions and solutions
which have been put forward time and time again. I will mention
a few of them.
We have to move away from the voluntary compliance system within
the immigration system when individuals claim the protection of
Canada. They can come, claim refugees status and then be told to
appear tomorrow or next week at a hearing.
1045
Those who are not true refugees will abuse that and often do.
They disappear and do not go to their hearings. That is a
problem. We need a system that addresses that, a system that has
individuals maintained in an area until it is determined whether
they are really refugees or not.
That process needs to be expedited. It cannot go on for years
and years and years as it currently does. Members know that
refugee cases go on for years. People's lives are in limbo. It
is not fair to them and it is not fair to Canadians.
That process needs to be determined quickly, in a matter of days
and weeks, not months and years. It needs to be done quickly,
and once a decision is made, then it should be acted upon. If the
person is determined not to be a refugee, then they should be
removed from our country post-haste. If a person is determined to
be a refugee, then they should be integrated into our communities
as quickly as possible.
The Liberal government's approach is to leave people's lives in
limbo, to allow people who are not refugees to be here and then
to go after people who are true refugees and deport them. The
system is broken at both ends and this Liberal government is
failing.
The facts are in. The perception across our country is that
this government does not think it is a problem. The Prime
Minister himself said there is nothing wrong with our immigration
laws and there is nothing wrong with our refugee process. He
said that this summer. In light of what is happening on the west
coast, it is unbelievable. It is absolutely shocking that this
government, in the light of information, details and facts from
its own people, fails to act. It is unbelievable.
I urge my colleagues on the government side to apply pressure to
change the system. Failing that, the members of the opposition
will work day after day in this place, in committee and on the
streets of our nation to be proactive and positive. We will make
a commitment here and now that we will change the system not only
within immigration, but within all the other areas outlined in
the Leader of the Opposition's speech for a positive vision for
the future of this country, because it is clear that today in
this land the Liberal government has failed and is visionless.
We will carry the day. We will put in place the positive
solutions that will reshape our country and take our country
ahead for the next generation.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like the hon. member to comment on something I find very
interesting.
There has not been one question or comment on his presentation
from the members opposite. We see members from Vancouver, members
from Toronto, members whose constituents are upset that the
government has taken no action on the issue. Obviously
government members must have been told to keep quiet on this very
serious issue. The Liberals are afraid to tackle difficult
issues and this is a difficult issue.
I would like the member to comment on the government's handling
of this issue, in particular that none of the government members
are willing to ask a question or make a comment on the issue.
Mr. Grant McNally: Mr. Speaker, I can only say in
response to that very good comment from my colleague that it is
clear that the government has no answers.
The member for Vancouver—Kingsway across the way is a member of
the immigration committee. She is simply not offering any
solutions.
Members of the government, ministers of the crown have said very
interesting things. The Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific said
it is sad that Canada's screening process is being abused, and he
is angry because the generosity, the goodwill Canadians have
toward genuine refugees has been abused. That is what he has
said.
An hon. member: Wait until winter.
Mr. Grant McNally: That is right. The minister said wait
until the weather gets bad so the ships stop coming. What kind of
approach is that? That is the government's solution to a very
important issue. It is a do nothing approach, just wait and hope
that people do not notice. Well, people have noticed. If the
Liberals will not change the system, we will work day after day
to sit on that side in order to put in place our proactive
solutions.
1050
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker let me say to
the deputy citizenship critic for the Reform Party that as usual
he has it wrong.
Look at Canada and the success that we have had. As a matter of
fact Canada has been named the best country in the world for the
last six years and it is because of the people we have in this
country. The people in this country were immigrants or refugees
at one point in time.
When the member says he wants to make a determination on refugee
cases in a matter of days or weeks, he is wrong. We cannot have
a judicial system or any system that has any kind of justice that
can make a determination on somebody's life in a day or a week.
This is the problem the Reform Party brings to this House. The
Reform Party has simplistic solutions that are not viable. I do
not want a commandant deciding in a day if somebody gets due
process. It takes some time. Our government is acting
responsibly to combat international smuggling of human beings.
The opposition parties, particularly the Reform Party on this
issue, are like ambulance chasers. They run around looking for a
problem and they point fingers. We are working. It is
succeeding. Members opposite can blow and shout but the reality
is we have a system which we are continuously working on to
improve. It is a very good and a very fair system, one which
will be even better.
Mr. Grant McNally: Mr. Speaker, it is a broken system.
The member is in la-la land. The member sits on the immigration
committee and he talks about simplistic answers. The Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration said wait until winter so the boats
do not come anymore. What about that for a simplistic answer.
That is the suggestion offered by the minister and her mouthpiece
the member for Kitchener—Waterloo.
I was in the member's community. Talking about immigrant
communities, I talked to some of his constituents who said they
gave the member a petition and he lost it. That is the kind of
approach the member takes to constituent work. Now he has no
answers. His government has no answers to this crisis. It is
clear. The facts are in.
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to tell my colleague that our government not only
cares but it also takes action.
Last month the Chinese government invited a small delegation of
three Liberal MPs to go there. We had a very long and detailed
discussion to establish co-operation between China and Canada to
tackle the problem of human smuggling. It is the beginning of
our work on immigration. There are many things we can tell the
House. We not only take on our concerns but members' concerns
are also in our hands. We are trying to solve the problems. We
do not just sit in this House and talk. Talk is too easy. The
government takes action.
Mr. Grant McNally: Mr. Speaker, to simply say something
and say it is true is an interesting concept. Actions speak
louder than words. The member's solution to the immigration
crisis is to make an educational video and send that across the
waters to folks so that they know to please not come because we
are not sure what to do with them when they get here. That is
the member's approach to this crisis.
Rather than work for legislative change with some teeth in it
that will make a change and send a message internationally that
Canada is not an easy mark for those who would abuse our
immigration system, the member and her colleagues sit idly by and
offer solutions such as waiting for winter so the boats stop
coming, or putting together an educational video so that people
stop coming.
Those are their suggestions, rather than using the legislative
powers we have in the House to take action and make a change.
1055
We can work together in the House to make legislative changes to
send a message internationally that Canada will not be an easy
mark for those who choose to abuse our system. We want a
positive system.
A member has shouted out a comment that I am not going to repeat
because it is in contempt. He said it the other day in question
period under his breath. He does not have the intestinal
fortitude to stand in his place and make that accusation because
he knows he would be thrown directly out of this place. He does
not have the guts to stand and deliver; rather he holds his hand
in front of his face and utters scurrilous remarks toward
opposition members.
That is the approach of the government, to run scared, to do
nothing and utter attacks against those who offer positive
proactive solutions for change. Shame on the member and shame on
every one of the Liberal members for standing idly by and doing
nothing once again. That is the Liberal government's approach to
governing. Shame on the Liberal members.
The day will come soon when we will be in the Liberal
government's place making positive proactive solutions to address
the concerns of this nation because the Liberal government simply
refuses to do so.
The Deputy Speaker: I know we could go on with questions
and comments but really the time has expired. Given the
liveliness of the debate for a Friday, perhaps we should move on
to Standing Order 31 Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
OLDER PERSONS
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on October 1, 1999 the Canadian Medical Association joined the
United Nations in celebrating the International Day of Older
Persons which was put in place to recognize the contributions to
society of our older citizens.
Older persons across the country and around the world are an
active and important part of society. As fellow members of
society, it is our duty to ensure these older persons receive the
health care and special services they need and deserve. The
federal government recognizes these needs and is committed to
working with Canadians to continually improve our health care
system.
We must accommodate the changing demands of our aging and
increasing population. The International Day of Older Persons
gave us the opportunity to really look at this important sector
of our population. Older persons have special health care needs
and services which must be made readily available to them.
I would like to applaud the Canadian Medical Association's
efforts during this international day. I urge Canadians to work
together with each other and with the government to ensure our
older persons are well taken care of.
* * *
GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to speak on behalf of many Canadians in my riding of
Nanaimo—Cowichan and across the country who are concerned about
the introduction of genetically engineered foods to the
marketplace.
While everyone is interested in ensuring that the world's food
supply grows and that the hunger pangs of children and indeed all
people disappear, there are many who share concern about the
safety of genetically engineered foods. There are too many
outstanding issues and too many questions of what if. These
questions require full answers.
The safety of our food supply cannot and must not fall into
question. We must learn from past failures, such as the testing
of our blood supply, and ensure the public that the same mistakes
will not be made again. We must take time now to ensure that the
safety of these foods is without question.
I have currently submitted a private member's bill to be drafted
that calls for further investigation into the regulations
concerning genetically engineered foods and their mandatory
labelling. Until this process is complete, I believe that the
questions will remain unanswered. In the near future I will be
asking for support of this bill by the members of the House.
* * *
GASOLINE PRICES
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
was a huge jump in the price of gas in Ontario this summer. In
addition, the major oil companies continue to jerk around gas
prices and Canadians to maximize their profits.
I know the price of crude oil has gone up, but that in no way
explains current high gas prices. Some say that more than seven
cents of the new price is excess profits for the corporations. I
urge the government to initiate another inquiry into the lack of
competition in gas pricing in Ontario. I believe the virtual
elimination of small retailers has produced a monopoly in the
province.
I also urge the government to persuade the Government of Ontario
to use the threat of gas price regulation, which is clearly in
the jurisdiction of Queen's Park, to pressure the oil companies
to change their ways.
* * *
1100
WADE MACLAUGHLAN
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
congratulate a fellow islander, Mr. Wade MacLaughlan, on his
recent appointment as the President of the University of Prince
Edward Island.
Mr. MacLaughlan was installed as the fifth president and vice
chancellor of UPEI on October 3. He was chosen from among the
country's leading academics for, among other things, his solid
record in university administration with the University of New
Brunswick.
Mr. MacLaughlan holds several degrees, including a Master of Law
from Yale University. His passionate commitment to the island,
outstanding experience in university administration and wealth of
connections to the community will help strengthen UPEI.
In Mr. MacLaughlan's address he called on governments to
reinvest more generously in the university and expressed his
heartfelt desire to reverse the brain drain. He said: “We have
to be leaders in planning for and implementing the brain gain”.
Indeed, UPEI will be the place to be as we turn the century.
Congratulations to Wade, his family and all islanders.
* * *
ORGAN DONATION
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am sure it will surprise many to learn that Canada has
one of the lowest organ donations rates in the world.
Last spring the Minister of Health asked the Standing Committee
on Health to examine this very important issue and to make
recommendations about ways to improve Canada's regretful donation
rates.
The committee tabled its report in April and I am pleased to
inform the House that the Minister of Health tabled the
government's response to that report with the clerk earlier
today.
I am also pleased to note that when Canada's health ministers
met last month in Charlottetown they agreed to establish a
council on organ and tissue donation and transplantation in
Canada. This will give Canada a co-ordinated, comprehensive and
integrated donation and transplantation strategy across the
country. The council's business plan will be reviewed in
November.
It is my hope that these efforts will go a long way to improving
Canada's organ donation rate.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
had the privilege over the past two years of working with some of
the most extraordinary Canadians I have ever met.
First and foremost is a lady by the name of Leona Freed. Ms.
Freed has built the First Nation's Accountability Coalition in an
effort to restore hope to those feeling hopelessness at the hands
of chiefs and councils on their reserves. In a single year the
FNAC has grown to include coalitions from B.C., Alberta,
Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick.
Leona Freed is one of the most committed people I have ever met.
I know she will not stop until there is true accountability on
all 600-plus reserves across this nation.
I must also recognize people like Yolande Redcalf, Greg
Twoyoungmen, Rita King, Edwin One Owl, Roy Littlechief, Mike
Calder, Laura Deedza and Debbie Neepoose, just to name a few.
Each of these people have selflessly contributed to the fight for
a better life for future generations.
As I move to a new portfolio I wish all aboriginal people well
and I want them to know that I will never forget the experiences
we have had together.
* * *
WORLD FOOD DAY
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Saturday,
October 16 has been designated World Food Day.
At the world food summit in Rome in November 1996 Canada joined
186 other nations to endorse the summit's goal, which is to
reduce the number of undernourished people by half by the year
2015. Canada's action plan for food security, launched by the
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food on World Food Day last
year, is the result of that commitment.
As a major exporter of food and related products and expertise,
and as one of the largest donors of food aid, Canada has made
some very valuable contributions to world food security.
Fighting food insecurity is a collective effort by government,
by civil society, by business and by communities. It is also an
individual effort from all of us. On behalf of the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food and myself I encourage everyone to
demonstrate their concern by contributing a food donation to
their local food bank.
This year's theme is “Youth Against Hunger”. This is a good
time to remind Canada's young people of the positive role they
can play in the fight against worldwide hunger and in the
achievement of food security for all.
* * *
[Translation]
FOSTER FAMILIES
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
we forget and all too often minimize the contribution made by
foster families in our society. In Quebec, the third week of
October is set aside to officially honour foster families.
I therefore take this opportunity to pay tribute to the
extraordinary support foster families provide in our society.
They look after children and adolescents providing the support,
protection and training these young people
really need, and this help is not negligible, because the
Fédération des familles d'accueil du Québec alone represents
nearly 3,250 families.
We therefore honour foster families for their invaluable
contribution to society. On behalf of the members of the Bloc
Quebecois, I would like to thank them and congratulate them on
their unending efforts on behalf of our young people.
* * *
1105
[English]
DYSTONIA AWARENESS WEEK
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
past week, October 10 to 17, was designated Dystonia Awareness
Week.
Dystonia is an illness characterized by involuntary spasms and
muscle contractions. This condition results in abnormal
movements and posture and can affect various body parts like the
eyes, neck and limbs.
Dystonia is often diagnosed as another ailment like arthritis or
stress. To date there is no known cause or cure, but efforts
have been made to change that. The Dystonia Medical Research
Foundation offers support to sufferers through patient advocacy,
public awareness, professional education and fundraising for
research.
[Translation]
I invite my colleagues to join with me in congratulating the
many volunteers with the Dystonia Medical Research Foundation.
We offer them our best wishes for a successful campaign.
* * *
[English]
JULIUS NYERERE
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday one of the most visionary and illustrious sons of
Africa passed away. Julius Nyerere, the former president of
Tanzania, who was one of the leading figures in Africa's struggle
for independence in its post-colonial era, lost his battle with
leukemia.
As a former citizen of Tanzania I can attest to his greatness.
While I disagreed with his economic and political philosophy, he
commanded a high degree of respect from all Tanzanians, Africans
and other citizens of the world. He was respected because his
citizens came first.
Throughout Tanzania and Africa he was best known as
Mwalimu, which means a teacher in Kiswahili. After his
retirement he continued to play an advisory role in Tanzanian and
regional politics. The world looked upon him to play a role in
carving a bright future for Africa.
To Mwalimu's family, the government and people of Tanzania
we would like to express our profound sympathy. I end by saying:
Kwahir Mwalimu.
* * *
[Translation]
DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am sure that all members of the House will want to join with me
in congratulating Doctors Without Borders on their nomination
for the Nobel Prize this year.
[English]
Doctors Without Borders represents for most of us the best of
what has developed in the latter part of this troubled century.
It is an international NGO, formed originally in France, which is
now throughout the world, including Canada. It provides the
opportunity for doctors to serve their fellow human beings across
the globe, often at great risk to themselves and in places such
as Kosovo, East Timor and remote corners of Asia and Africa.
As we go into the 21st century the world is changing and borders
are losing their significance. Doctors Without Borders is
leading the way in breaking down those borders in the name of
humanitarian principles which respond to the way in which
Canadians see the world.
We all rejoice in their recognition by the Nobel committee and
wish them well in their important work.
* * *
NUCLEAR TEST BAN TREATY
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the New Democratic Party of Canada and its members of parliament
join with the Canadian government, the prime ministers of the
United Kingdom, Germany and France and many others around the
world, including of course millions of Americans and President
Clinton, in regretting the tragic, stupid, shortsighted and
dangerous decision of the American Senate in rejecting the
comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty.
If some day the world is destroyed because of a nuclear war,
those who are left, if there are any, may look back on this week
as a negative turning point in the struggle to rid the world of
nuclear weapons.
A senate dominated by right wingers decided to trust in their
nuclear chariots and their determination to take on all comers in
a possible nuclear war instead of encouraging and building a
world in which nuclear non-proliferation and abolition of nuclear
weapons is seen as the way ahead.
Perhaps the Republicans should check the historical record to
see what eventually happens to empires which trust more in their
weapons than in the will of God for a just, peaceful and
non-nuclear world.
* * *
[Translation]
ORDRE DU MÉRITE AGRICOLE 1999
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on September
30, Quebec announced the winners of the Ordre du mérite agricole
1999 contest, thus giving recognition to the work of the
agricultural producers, artists of the land, who have been
feeding Quebec since its beginnings.
The purpose of this competition is to recognize excellence and
it has long been a part of the Quebec farm scene. This was its
110th edition.
Among the winners chosen from 132 agricultural enterprises were:
the Lajoie and Sons farm of Saint-Bruno, Lac Saint-Jean; the
Rodrigue and Brothers farm, of Saint-Anaclet-de-Lessard; the
Sim-Nord farm of Saint-Edmond-des-Plaines; the Marc-A. Turcotte farm
of Val-Brillant; the Viel farm of Saint-Alexandre-de-Kamouraska; the
Carol and Alain Perron farm of La Baie; the egg producers Les
Oeufs d'or of Val d'Or, the nursery La Pépinière Aiken of
Rouyn-Noranda and the Pétri farm of Saint-André-de-Kamouraska.
1110
Today I would like to draw attention to the excellence and
expertise of these agricultural professionals, and to wish a
continued long life to the Ordre du mérite agricole competition.
* * *
HONOURABLE ANTONIO LAMER
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this past August 21, the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court announced his resignation in the following words “Having
heard 1,317 cases on the Supreme Court and written reasons in
345 of them, I have decided to hang up my robes early in the
next millennium”.
Called to the Bar of Quebec in 1957, Antonio Lamer practiced
criminal law until his appointment to the Quebec Superior Court
on December 19, 1969. In 1978, he was appointed to the Quebec
Court of Appeal. Two years later he was appointed to the
Supreme Court of Canada, and became Chief Justice of Canada on
July 1, 1990.
Mr. Lamer has had an impressive career and the people of Canada
wish him the best in his future endeavours.
* * *
[English]
TOBIQUE FIRST NATION
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
members of the Tobique First Nation are fed up. The department
of Indian affairs transfers $13 million annually to the Tobique
band council, yet the council has recently run up a $10 million
deficit. Over the past year many band members have met with me
to show how the council's mismanagement and the department's lack
of accountability have prevented band members from realizing the
benefits of tax dollars.
Last year the band had to suspend medical services and lay off
their nurse. At the same time, councillors voted to raise their
own pay to $1,000 per week. Cheques worth $152,000 were written
without invoices, authorization or approval. The council has
violated every one of the remedial management plans it has signed
with the department.
We must have self-government, but government money has to go
toward solving the serious social problems at Tobique instead of
to band politicians and accountants. The members of the Tobique
First Nation and I call upon the minister to appoint a third
party administrator for Tobique so we can get the band back on
its financial feet and help this community thrive.
* * *
[Translation]
JEAN DRAPEAU
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this past August 17, the people of Quebec paid a final warm
tribute to Jean Drapeau, mayor of Montreal for 29 years.
No one could remain indifferent to this man of action. One
could oppose him or support him, but never ignore him.
Jean Drapeau was a man of ideas, with dreams of bettering
Montreal. He was successful in creating pride in his city,
through such concrete accomplishments as Expo and the métro.
The memory of this humanist and man of action will remain
forever in the contemporary history of Quebec.
Thank you, Mr. Drapeau, for your great contribution to building
the international renown of Montreal.
* * *
[English]
REFUGEES
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, more
than 10 years ago the Tory MP at the time, Chuck Cook, called a
meeting to discuss immigration at the 800 person capacity
Centennial Theatre in North Vancouver. So many people came to
express their dissatisfaction with Canada's sloppy refugee
processing system that hundreds had to be turned away at the
door.
Within a couple of years of that meeting Chuck Cook was
privately telling voters in North Vancouver that the only way to
get the laws changed would be to vote Reform in the next
election.
How right he was. More than 10 years later, even though the
solicitor general's department has now confirmed that Canada's
sloppy immigration system has turned us into a haven for
organized crime, absolutely nothing has been done to address
these problems. The present minister sends out meaningless form
letters to the concerned Canadians who are contacting her on this
issue, and Chuck Cook's truth of 10 years ago remains the truth
today. The only way the system will ever be changed is when
people vote Reform.
* * *
FIRST NATIONS
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the supreme
court decision in the Marshall case demonstrates the negligence
of the department of Indian affairs. The minister initiated
“Gathering Strength—Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan” which was
supposed to be a new relationship with first nations. The
government would negotiate, not litigate.
Now we face old tensions and anger just because this government
forces first nations into the courts and refuses to negotiate.
There should never be a question of honouring a treaty. The
government makes sure we all abide by the NAFTA and the WTO, but
it has ignored agreements signed with the first nations. If the
government continues to force the first nations all the way to
the supreme court we will face more upheaval rather than the
peace and friendship the treaties were meant to bring.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, Chantal
Hébert's column “Political dance on native rights” is only
partially correct. She correctly states that eastern political
parties are walking on eggshells but she fails to recognize why.
1115
My colleague from West Nova and myself as the member of
parliament for South Shore understand the fragility of the
licensed lobster fishery based on conservation. The reason this
industry is lucrative is that lobster fishers have adopted
licences, carapace sizes, trap limits and an inhospitable winter
season to assure a quality product for domestic and export
markets.
This year one lobster fisherman in LFA 35 has been lost at sea.
We can all see that the cost of being in the industry is
extremely high. The real story is that the political parties do
not understand this issue. The Liberals have no plan to resolve
this crisis. The Reform misled fishers into falsely believing
that the decision can be struck down. The NDP has completely
turned its back on eastern Canada.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
FISHERIES
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government needs to move quickly if it hopes to relieve tensions
in New Brunswick and to prevent similar conflicts from happening
in other parts of the country.
The government has an obligation to all its citizens, not just
to select groups. It cannot allow the courts to draw racial
boundaries through Canada's natural resources.
We have only two days left. Why will not the government
petition the supreme court not to overturn the decision but to
stay the decision and then ask for clarification of this Marshall
decision?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not see why the Reform Party is again using the
term race. Frankly that is not the way to approach this matter.
We have to approach it on the basis that we are working together
to find solutions which are fair to all concerned.
Why do we not have the support of the Reform Party in this
direction rather their using the term race in this matter?
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
because the government has failed to act we are forced to use the
word race. By not petitioning the court it is ensuring that we
will have a race based fishery in the future. Most Canadians
want equality of all citizens and groups.
While both groups of fishermen have rights, both native and
non-native fishermen, by not petitioning the court, by not asking
for clarification, it is ensuring that one group of fishermen has
superior rights over another. That is not right.
What gives the government the right to unilaterally quash the
principle of equality? Both groups of fishermen have rights. Why
not ask the court for clarification on that point?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the supreme court came down with
a judgment on September 17, 1999. We as the government respect
the treaty right and we will live within the spirit of that
judgment.
We have to make clear this is a right by law that the courts
have recognized, a contract. This is a contract and a treaty. We
respect that. The crown should respect the promises that it made
whether they were made yesterday or whether they were made 240
years ago. We will ensure that we live with that.
Today I am happy to announce that I will be appointing a federal
representative to start the talks immediately on a long term
arrangement to deal with this issue.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
problem is about to get bigger. Some native leaders now claim
that the Marshall decision gives them the right to harvest timber
without a licence. Others claim that they now have mineral
rights. If the minister does not think that is true, he just has
to look at what has been going on in British Columbia all summer.
I expect the minister may wish that this problem would go away.
He only has two days left. I would urge him to petition the
court. Why will not the government ask the supreme court to stay
the ruling, not overturn it, ask for clarification of its
meaning, tell all fishermen that their livelihoods will be
protected and establish a fisheries policy that has equality as
its cornerstone?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what is really important today is
that we will have a federal representative who will talk to
aboriginal and non-aboriginal groups and sit down to make sure we
look at the long term arrangement in the fisheries area.
In terms of the broader issues, my colleague, the Indian affairs
minister, is working very hard so that we can also deal with the
broader issues that go beyond the fisheries as well.
We are making excellent progress. Why will not that party
support that progress? Why will it not support aboriginal people
and work with us instead of always trying to tear down what we
are trying to build up?
* * *
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are outraged by the government's unwillingness to
uphold the law against child pornography. I have already
submitted 150,000 signatures on petitions calling for the
government to uphold the law. Today I will present another
150,000.
That is more than a quarter of a million people who have
demonstrated their outrage against the government. Yet the
justice minister refuses to budge. Children agenda my foot.
How many more concerned Canadians will it take for this
government to protect our kids?
1120
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows and
as I think everyone on this side of the House is well aware, the
government is committed to children and committed to a national
children's agenda, unlike our hon. friends on the other side who
are in the business of gunning programs that help families and
children in the country.
In relation to the issue of child pornography let me say that
our friends on the other side are scaremongers. They suggest
there are no pornography laws in force in the country. It is
against the law to produce child pornography, to distribute it,
to sell it, and to import it. I would ask the Reform Party, as
opposed to—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, but the hon. minister's
time has expired.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
300,000 Canadians have signed petitions. They are not
scaremongers. They are calling on the government to act.
The government talks about caring for children, but on October
13 the Calgary Herald reported that the Alberta Court of
Appeal ruled that a man convicted of possession of child
pornography would be allowed to base part of his appeal on the
B.C. court decision. This situation is getting more and more out
of control while the government congratulates itself about a we
love children throne speech.
Why is the government being led by nine judges, rather than—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again the hon. member chooses
to distort the facts. He refers to the Alberta case. What he
fails to accentuate is that the accused person was convicted in
that situation. Convictions for possession of pornography are
taking place all over the country. Police investigations
continue. Charges are being laid.
I have made it absolutely plain that we will respect the rule of
law. We are intervening in support of the attorney general of
British Columbia. We are intervening in support of other
attorneys general and other interested groups that work with
children. We are—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis.
* * *
[Translation]
GM PLANT IN BOISBRIAND
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Industry seems determined not to support the
Government of Quebec's efforts to modernize the automobile
industry in Quebec.
Does the minister realize that, by not backing Minister Landry's
proposal, he is standing in the way of a plan that, on the one
hand, will further the policy of developing new technologies in
Quebec and, on the other, will make it possible to train a
workforce specialized in this sector and keep it in Quebec?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will not repeat what my
colleague, the Minister of Industry, said, because I might not
be as eloquent. What he said was that the Quebec government is
jumping the gun. Together, we have decided to form a
partnership so as to help GM's Boisbriand division.
At this point, I think that everyone agrees that the most
important thing is to help the Boisbriand plant find a new
model. This was the focus of discussions. My colleague and I
also participated in the study done by the survival committee,
and we went to Detroit.
We are available and will continue to support employees of GM's
Boisbriand plant.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, more
speechifying from the government, but we have nothing concrete
to show for it. The minister says that the plan is
irresponsible and poorly thought out, but the federal government
is hardly close to the action.
Does Quebec's plan bother the federal government so much that it
is prepared to sacrifice Boisbriand for the 14 plants in
Ontario?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Quebec's plan does not
necessarily bother the federal government, but it should bother
Quebec taxpayers.
At this stage, the important thing is to come up with a new
model. It is well known that if we can, as a partnership, come
up with a new model, the odds are good that GM will not need
government assistance, given what happened in the other
provinces. But now that the Government of Quebec has tipped its
hand, there will obviously be no turning back, should a new
model later be found. The $360 million is already on the table
and probably ill-advisedly.
* * *
AUDIOVISUAL PRODUCTIONS
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
this morning the Journal de Montréal reports that the Montreal
urban community police department just completed an
investigation on a production company that allegedly falsified
the identity of some screen writers and unduly benefited from
federal tax credits.
The newspaper adds that the production company has also been the
target of an RCMP investigation.
1125
My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Can the
minister assure us that she will do her utmost to shed light on
this issue, even if some people close to the Liberal party might
be directly involved?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I myself found out about the investigation this
morning. I believe the investigation is still going on and we
should let the police do its job.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
since the minister presumably made some checks, can she confirm
that the production company CINAR, which is a contributor to the
Liberal Party of Canada and which is headed by Micheline
Charest, who is said to have organized a fundraising evening for
the Liberal Party of Canada that was attended by the Prime
Minister, is not the target of this investigation?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I did not have any discussions with anyone about the
investigation, because it is a police investigation. I respect
that and I do not get involved in police matters.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the minister of agriculture.
Yesterday the minister told his counterparts in Manitoba and
Saskatchewan that they had to put up some money for the farm
crisis themselves. That is like asking the farmers to pay for
their own crisis as R.B. Bennett did in the 1930s.
The minister knows that in Saskatchewan there is a joint
position of all parties in the farm groups asking for an
additional $1 billion in emergency farm aid now, on top of what
they already have from last year under AIDA.
Will the minister be forthcoming with that money since he took
money out of the programs by eliminating the Crow a few years
ago? How much money will come back to the farmers on the
prairies?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I did have a very frank and candid
discussion with the ministers from Saskatchewan and Manitoba
yesterday.
As they already know agriculture is a shared jurisdiction. The
safety net support to agriculture for the last numbers of years
has been shared 60:40. Provinces can contribute in that way.
They can also contribute in other ways as was demonstrated
yesterday by the province of Alberta.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the minister is obviously not listening. I have a
letter from a 14 year old girl in Carragana, Saskatchewan. She
is saying that nobody in parliament is listening to her on the
farm crisis.
I wonder if the minister could answer my question directly as to
whether or not there will be an extra $1 billion going to hard
pressed farmers on the prairies. This is the worse farm crisis
we have had since the 1930s. Could the minister answer that
question directly? Would he screw up his courage and come out to
the prairies to see for himself the severity of the crisis?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have been out to the prairies and I
have seen it for myself. I have farmed for a number of years and
I know the stress the producers are going through.
In answer to the specific question, is there another $1 billion
for the province of Saskatchewan on top of the programs and the
money that are already there, no.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, we
welcome the news that the federal government would appoint a
federal negotiator in the Atlantic fisheries crisis.
It is indeed regrettable that the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans can no longer be directly involved in negotiations to
settle a fisheries management dispute. Would the minister agree
that the appointment of the negotiator was necessary only because
he and his senior bureaucrats have lost all credibility with the
people involved?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is total rubbish. We have
been working very hard. We have had both a short term and a long
term plan.
I know Mr. James MacKenzie who is from Nova Scotia will do an
excellent job to make sure we sit down, get all the parties
together, and have a long term arrangement.
Meanwhile we have a regulatory fishery out there. We are
ensuring that we have interim agreements, but this should not
reflect on our long term arrangement. That is why Mr. MacKenzie
has been asked. I am very happy that someone of his calibre has
accepted this position.
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, it
is not total rubbish. It is total chaos which the minister has
created.
On Monday, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister
of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will be meeting with
native leaders in Ottawa. The fact that the meeting is taking
place in Ottawa is just another slap in the face to Atlantic
Canadians.
We would like to know why the ministers are hiding away in
Ottawa. Why can they not go to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and
meet these people where the problem really is?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have been to Atlantic Canada
before the hon. member even knew the issue existed.
1130
I met with all the commercial groups. I met with the aboriginal
groups. We have been working with them. We will be willing to
meet with them. We now have a federal representative who will
start working on the long term arrangement which is really the
important part. It is extremely important that we sit down to
ensure that the aboriginal communities can exercise their treaty
rights for the benefit of their members. We are going to
continue to do that.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I talked
to the immigration officials in B.C. and they informed me that
only four of the 600 Chinese migrants have gone through their
initial IRB hearings. Do the math. At this rate the initial
hearings of the 600 Chinese migrants will not be completed until
2034.
The minister assured Canadians that extra resources would be
dedicated to expedite the process. Is this the minister's idea
of expedience?
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us be
very clear on this question. The government has acted and is
acting to expedite the process. Let me further inform the
member. He knows that the issue we are dealing with is an
international one which involves the smuggling of human beings.
The member knows that this country is one of the leaders in the
fight internationally. The member knows that but he is trying to
exploit it.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, even
if the minister manages to get the initial hearings completed in
a year, the appeals process will take years. These people will
spend a significant portion of their lives in detention camps set
up by the government. I find this to be unacceptable. Further,
every Canadian knows that the longer the process takes, the more
it is going to cost taxpayers.
I want the minister to tell Canadians how much it is going to
cost taxpayers to complete this process.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us be
very clear for the Reform Party. This government is acting
expeditiously. In a speech in the House a few minutes ago before
question period a Reform member said that if the Reform Party
were the government it would deal with the issue in days or a
matter of weeks. We know that we cannot have justice in a day or
a matter of weeks unless we have adjudicators of a commandant
form and we are not going to have them.
* * *
[Translation]
AIR TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the
Onex affair, one of the minister's conditions is Canadian
control of the future air carrier.
The present Canadian International Airlines-American Airlines
agreement gives American veto power in any major decisions,
including a potential merger with Air Canada.
The law limits foreign control of a Canadian carrier to no more
than 25%. By blocking any Air Canada offer, American has de
facto control over Canadian International Airlines.
Can we trust the minister to respect these five conditions, when
he is not even ensuring respect of the present legislation?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yes, the Canadian Transportation Agency is mandated to
examine the conditional agreement accepted by Air Canada's
shareholders. And I have no doubts that the agency will protect
the interests of Canadians, and that it will protect the
Canadian industry so that it will be operated by Canadians in
Canada.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
according to the minister, if section 47 was applied, it was
because time was of the essence, since Canadian International
Airlines was on the verge of bankruptcy.
Yet the presidents of Canadian International Airlines, American
Airlines and Onex all say that Canadian International Airlines
will not be going bankrupt in the near future. Who is telling
the truth?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there have been no changes in the arguments that led
the government to invoke section 47.
I believe the hon. member has raised a good question but, with
all due respect, I suggest he raise it with Mr. Benson during
the transport committee meetings if he wants the right answer.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today we have found out that there is no new money for
western Canadian farmers who got nothing from AIDA.
The minister of agriculture has been quoted in the Western
Producer as saying that government could help farmers by
offering retraining for a new career. Does he not realize that
the average age of farmers in Saskatchewan is 59? What career
does he think is appropriate for a 59 year old farmer who has
lost everything? Follow his path and take up politics?
1135
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government has shown very clearly
that we care for Canadian farmers to a greater extent than the
party across the floor. We put in $900 million last December and
in February this year.
During the summer we made changes to the NISA program to make
another $121 million available to Canadian farmers. We have
encouraged them to use those programs. We have made changes to
the crop insurance program. We have made changes to the AIDA
program which we said we would continue to look at. We are
continuing to work in those directions.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as an emergency assistance program, AIDA has been a
cruel joke. After almost a year of Liberal fiddling, only a
fraction of allocated funds has trickled down to desperate
prairie farmers. The minister said that money is on the table.
Money on the table is not in farmers' pockets. The worst feature
of the program is that to qualify, a farmer has to have three
profitable years immediately prior to 1998.
My question for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is why
was AIDA crafted to avoid paying anything to those farmers most
in need?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think it is sad that the hon. member
said that $900 million from the federal government and $600
million from the provincial government is a cruel joke. It is a
significant sum of money.
I can assure the hon. member that all of that money will be
spent to assist Canadian farmers.
* * *
[Translation]
EAST TIMOR
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Six weeks after the referendum in East Timor, no Canadian
soldiers have yet joined the implementation force on the ground.
Our soldiers are still waiting for their inoculations, which
they were late receiving, to take effect.
How does the Deputy Prime Minister explain such a delay, when
the Minister of Foreign Affairs himself was warned by NGOs
returning from East Timor that there would be a blood bath? He
was warned as early as February 22. How does he explain the
delay?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all we do have troops in East
Timor. In fact, the air crews in the Hercules have flown some 40
missions. They have taken troops. They have taken humanitarian
aid. They have been going in and out of East Timor. They have
had one of the highest levels of use of transport aircraft of any
of the allied countries involved.
Second, HMCS Protector will again bring more supplies. It
will be docking shortly and will be in full service. Today our
troops in Valcartier are on their way to East Timor. They will
be training with the New Zealanders and going in at the same time
as the New Zealanders.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, that is all
very fine and well but, in the throne speech, the government
said that Canada has the expertise to protect people from
threats to their rights, their safety and their lives.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister think that Canada's slowness to
act is consistent with the policy of human safety advanced by
the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the United Nations?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the only reason the ground troops have
not been in there earlier is because of the need for inoculation
from a very deadly disease. Would the hon. member have us send
our troops in and risk their lives? No, we would not do that.
We want to make sure they are properly protected to be of service
to the people of East Timor.
The Australians are very anxious for us to get there. We are
getting there just as quickly as we can. We will get there at
the same time as the New Zealanders and they are right next door.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Alberta government recognized the worst farm crisis
in Canada since the Great Depression by announcing a $100 million
emergency farm program.
Canadian farmers are suffering from circumstances far beyond
their control, such as foreign export subsidies, but what is the
Liberal government's response? A disaster income program whose
criteria are so tough that farmers cannot access the money. I
suggest that is the real disaster, the government's program.
What will it take for the minister to wake up and realize that
farmers are in a very serious crisis?
1140
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we know a number of farmers are having
very stressful financial times presently. That is why we put the
program in place. As I said a few minutes ago, the criteria will
trigger all of the $900 million of federal money and the $600
million of the 60:40 split of the money we announced earlier this
year.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, here is
another example of how western farmers are getting the shaft from
the government. Western cattle producers facing a 6% tariff from
the Americans spent their own money to travel to the U.S. to
hammer out proposals to end the dispute. But the trade and
agriculture ministers refuse to listen and do nothing to defend
the farmers.
Will the the minister act immediately to implement the ranchers'
solutions which they hammered out to end this discrimination
tariff?
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
should know that when the decision came down it was a win for
Canada. We won a lot of this decision and the hon. member should
be happy with that.
Before we sat down and before we put forward the Canadian
position on this, we talked to the groups, the industry and the
provinces to make sure the position being put forward by the
Government of Canada was best reflective of their views. We will
continue to do that.
* * *
[Translation]
AUDIOVISUAL PRODUCTIONS
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the minister just told us she did not contact the police. Can
she also confirm that no member of her staff or her department
was in touch with police forces involved in the investigation
into the Montreal production company?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I read in the newspaper that Canadian Audio-Visual
Certification Office officials are meeting with Revenue Canada,
next Thursday. So I presume public servants have been in touch
with the police.
* * *
HEALTH RESEARCH
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Health.
The government recently made some interesting announcements in
the area of research. I am thinking in particular of the
Canadian institutes of health research mentioned in the budget,
and of the announcement made yesterday by the Prime Minister
concerning university chairs.
Could the minister give us an example of funding for university
research?
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Gatineau
for his interesting question.
Over the coming weeks and months, we will have the opportunity
to discuss the issues of research chairs and institutes of
health research.
At this point, I would like to remind the House that, last
month, the Minister of Health and his colleague, the Minister of
National Revenue, announced an $11.7 million subsidy for health
research to the Université de Montréal. That money will be used
to conduct research on AIDS, cancer and ethical issues relating
to genetic changes.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are saying that taxes are far
too high. Cheryl in Burlington wrote to the Minister of Finance
this summer and said: “As a stay at home mother of four small
children the tax system is unfair. We are penalized because we
believe that we are best to care for our children, not daycare”.
When will tax discrimination which puts purchased daycare over
parent care end?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is obviously not aware of the national
child tax benefit by which the government put untold millions of
dollars into the hands of families. It was precisely for middle
income families. We do recognize the costs incurred by those who
have to raise children. Children are the future of our country.
The real issue is why the Reform opposed the national child tax
benefit. That is the main issue.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the finance minister has it wrong again.
He did not answer the question.
Another taxpayer, Don from Ta Ta Creek, also wrote the minister.
He said: “Your policy of high taxation is virtually killing
small business. I would like to invest and expand my business
but because of heavy tax I have decided to sell out and move”.
1145
How is any entrepreneur going to be persuaded to invest in the
country when the tax burden is literally breaking the back of
small business?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again the hon. member ought to check his facts. The
fact is we have cut unemployment insurance premiums by $4
billion. That affects small business immediately. We have put
money into the small business loans program. We had a team
Canada mission helping small business export across the country.
The fact is that the government recognizes that small business
is the major job creator in the country and we have supported it
to the hilt.
I will go back. The hon. member says that I do not answer
questions. Why did he not answer the question on why the Reform
Party opposed the national child tax benefit?
* * *
CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the new
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency is having a big party November
1. It is going to have to work really hard to collect the cash
for this party because this tax party will cost $1.4 million.
Where will the money come from: our pensioners or all the
northerners who have been so heavily audited recently? What can
possibly justify this $1.4 million tax party?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and
Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the
Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously the amount
referred to by the hon. member is wrong.
I will tell the member one more time that the November 1 event
will launch the new Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. We feel
it is worth proceeding with some celebration because, together
with our employees and our unions, we are working toward having
an agency that will be more client oriented. As a government, we
are proud of this agency.
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
government will not honour pay equity. It will not honour child
care. It will not even provide housing. There is a farm crisis.
We have first nations people in the country who go hungry. They
get $51 a month for food for them and their children, and there
is going to be this huge party.
Will this new tax agency do what it wants, when it wants with
our money?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and
Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the
Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe the Speech
from the Throne has stated quite eloquently what the government
has done and what it will do in the near future.
With regard to the new Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, I told
the member that we are very proud of what we are doing. This
agency will provide much better services to the population. We
are providing good services now but we want to do much better in
the near future.
* * *
STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
a week before the first meeting of the transport committee, the
National Post and the the Globe and Mail reported
that the Minister of Transport had selected the member for
Hamilton West to be elected as the new chair of the committee,
even though there had not been a meeting. Yesterday, right on
schedule, all the Liberal members on the committee voted just
like the minister predicted they would.
Will the minister commit to respect the committee system and
honour the system not preordained—
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that while the question
may be of interest it does not fall within the administrative
competence of the government. It is out of order.
Does the hon. member have a supplementary question?
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr.
Speaker, you are probably right, it is out of order because the
minister is supposed to stay out of committee affairs. Committees
are supposed to answer to parliament but the minister preordained
the vote in a committee meeting.
I am asking the minister to commit to never doing that again,
allow the committee to do its work—
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that the hon. member is
in as much trouble with his supplementary as he was with the one
that he admitted was out of order at the beginning.
The hon. member for St. Paul's.
* * *
CRIME PREVENTION
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice.
On Tuesday the Speech from the Throne said the government would
work with Canadians to ensure that our communities continue to be
safe.
Could the minister tell us what initiatives the government has
taken to help communities deal with crime?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this gives me the opportunity
to share with the House the remarkable success of a program that
we on this side of the House are very proud of. That is, of
course, our crime prevention strategy.
We on this side of the House believe that one only delivers real
public safety and security through an integrated approach to the
issue of crime, unlike the hon. members in the Reform Party who
seem to believe in simply putting more people in jail for longer.
On this side of the House we believe in working in communities,
with communities in partnership to address the root cause of
crime.
* * *
1150
TAXATION
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, further on high taxes, in a letter to the Minister of
Finance, Clinton from Dartmouth wrote, “I'm part of the working
poor. Instead of creating useless programs, do me a real favour
and give me some real tax relief. P.S. I want more than just a
couple of hundred bucks. And get rid of bracket creep while you
are at it”.
Does the Minister of Finance hear Canadians? Will he tell us
and Clinton how the total final tax bill will be reduced this
year?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Yes, Mr.
Speaker, approximately $4 billion this year, $16.5 billion over
the next three years, the most significant tax cuts the country
has seen in over a decade. That is the answer.
* * *
[Translation]
AUDIOVISUAL PRODUCTIONS
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is again for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Can the minister confirm whether or not members of her political
staff in her office have contacted the police forces involved in
the investigations on a production company from Montreal?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, no one from my office gets involved in a police
investigation.
* * *
[English]
AUTO PACT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister who is one of the
few members of parliament who was here when the auto pact came
into being. He was probably here as well when parliament and
Canadians were assured that the auto pact would not be endangered
by the WTO.
Given the number of jobs that are threatened by the WTO
decision, many in his home city of Windsor, what does the
government plan to do to safeguard the auto pact and the tens of
thousands of jobs that are associated with that managed trade?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased the hon. member has recognized what Liberal
governments have done over the years to build the auto industry.
This endorsement by the NDP will be listened to carefully by
people in Windsor and other automotive cities.
I assure the hon. member that we are looking very carefully at
the interim ruling which has been received in confidence. We will
be making our representations to the WTO with respect to what
should be in any final ruling and we will act in our
responsibilities as we always have to protect the interests of
Canadian workers—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Richmond—Arthabaska.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, with
things as they are in Quebec at this time, the scenario of a
third referendum seems rather vague, despite the continuity of
the Liberal government' s hard line.
Now a number of people are contemplating a new type of scenario,
which could comprise a referendum on the new offers Quebec might
make to Canada.
My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Is the minister going to prepare a plan A and/or plan B for this
new scenario, and is he open to such an exercise originating
with Quebec?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the Progressive
Conservative intergovernmental relations critic for his
question.
I believe that when such issues are at stake, it is
very important for us to limit to a minimum any disagreement
between the parties that believe in Canada.
The hon. member has certainly realized that a referendum is not
necessary in order to improve Canada, to improve our highly
decentralized federation. He has certainly realized that
Quebecers, like all Canadians, do not want to be thrown into the
upheaval of a referendum and he knows that, if ever there was a
government that would have no credibility for this type of
initiative, it is the present separatist government.
* * *
[English]
GLOBAL POPULATION
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this past
week the world welcomed its sixth billionth citizen. By year
2050 the world's population will be 8.9 billion. Our global
ecosystems and economies cannot continue to support this growing
population forever.
My question is for the Minister of International Cooperation.
What is the government doing to help alleviate problems
associated with global population?
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as members know, almost all of the
population growth is taking place in developing countries,
aggravating the issues of poverty and social tensions in those
areas.
1155
However, much of CIDA's programming is devoted to supporting
women in developing countries, including their quality of life,
as well as targeting funding for reproductive health programming.
I would also like to point out that we do a great deal of work
with girl child education. In fact, if 1,000 girls were given
the opportunity to go to school for one extra year only, it would
save 60 children.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
so much for another Liberal infomercial.
The Liberal government has clearly failed to fix the broken
immigration system. This week we learned that some of the
ringleaders of the west coast people smuggling ships will not be
prosecuted. The minister assured Canadians that people smugglers
would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
This is an important question and hopefully a junior secretary
will not get up to answer it. Why has the government gone back
on its word to prosecute these people smuggling criminals?
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me thank
the assistant critic for the Reform Party on immigration for the
question.
Let me further say to to the member that our values as a
government in dealing with the very serious problem of people
smuggling are not the same as the Reform Party's values. We
believe in the charter of rights and freedoms. It does not.
* * *
AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Transport has admitted that he is letting corporate
shareholders decide the future of the Canadian airline industry.
Instead of showing leadership, he is sitting in his office
waiting for Gerry Schwartz to give him a call to tell him what to
do. This is a shameful abdication of his duty in a vital part of
Canada's infrastructure.
Will the minister do his duty and table specific conditions for
an airline merger before the Air Canada shareholders' meeting, or
is he going to wait until after the meeting when Gerry gives him
a call and tells him what to do?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is true that we are waiting for the shareholders
of Air Canada to pronounce upon various proposals that either
come along or will come along.
The market will decide on the corporate structuring, but the
market alone will not decide on air policy for Canadians.
The members of the House, the Senate and the government will
decide what is in the public interest and what conditions have to
be put on any agreement that comes forward. That is a way that
airline policy will be guaranteed for all Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
TRUCKING INDUSTRY
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, problems in
the trucking industry have been in the news a lot lately.
We know that nearly 80% of trucking movement is interprovincial,
meaning that it comes under federal jurisdiction. We also know
that the National Transportation Act will be deregulated in
January 2000.
My question is for the Minister of Transport. Will he tell us
what his plans are for eliminating the chaos in the trucking
industry?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, how
interesting that the Bloc Quebecois wants the federal government
to interfere.
What I can say is that appeals from truckers are already before
the CLRB. We must wait for the board's decisions.
* * *
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs did not really answer my
question.
What we want to know is how open the government would be to any
change that might come from the regions or provinces,
specifically from Quebec.
What plan A or plan B would it introduce if a region, or a
province or provinces, held a referendum on major changes within
the federation?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the question is too hypothetical to answer.
All that can be said is that, with respect to the present
Government of Quebec, Premier Bouchard said during the last
election campaign that he was not in the business of renewing
federalism. This statement was repeated yesterday by Quebec's
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
The Government of Quebec therefore has no credibility on this
score. In any event, Quebecers, like all Canadians, do not want
a referendum. I therefore expect governments to listen to
Quebecers as they would listen to all Canadians.
* * *
1200
[English]
JUSTICE
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, a recent survey of 450 Canadian judges found that 80% of
them are so skeptical about the way conditional sentences are
handled that they are leery of handing them out. Many cited
inadequate supervision for the offenders as their main concern.
If criminals cannot be supervised, public safety cannot be
assured.
When will the justice minister change the sentencing laws to
ensure that violent criminals are ineligible for conditional
sentences?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said on a number of
occasions in this House, five cases were heard by the Supreme
Court of Canada on this very issue some months ago. We are now
awaiting the decision of the supreme court. I have made it plain
that after the decision of the supreme court is rendered, if
changes are required to the conditional sentencing laws in this
country, they will be made.
I am also awaiting the report of the justice committee in
relation to conditional sentencing.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to a commitment I made
to the House some time ago and pursuant to Standing Order 32(2),
I am pleased to table, in both official languages, guidelines
for preparing government responses to the House of Commons
committee reports.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages,
the 1998-1999 report of the Department of National Defence and
Canadian Forces Ombudsman.
* * *
[English]
PUBLIC SERVICE OF CANADA
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the pleasure to table, in
both official languages, a copy of the employment statistics
for the federal public service for the period April 1, 1998 to
March 31, 1999.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
INDUSTRY
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109,
I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the
government response to the 18th report of the House of Commons
Standing Committee on Industry, entitled “The Year 2000 Problem:
Will Canada Be Ready?”
* * *
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order
in council appointments recently made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are
deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of
which is attached.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's responses to 12
petitions.
* * *
1205
CIVIL INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION
ACT
Hon. Don Boudria (for the Minister of Industry) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-4, an act to implement the Agreement
among the Government of Canada, Governments of Member States of
the European Space Agency, the Government of Japan, the
Government of the Russian Federation, and the Government of the
United States of America concerning Co-operation on the Civil
International Space Station and to make related amendments to
other acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADIAN TOURISM COMMISSION ACT
Hon. Don Boudria (for the Minister of Industry) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-5, an act to establish the Canadian
Tourism Commission.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS
ACT
Hon. Don Boudria (for the Minister of Industry) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-6, an act to support and promote
electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is
collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances, by
providing for the use of electronic means to communicate or
record information or transactions and by amending the Canada
Evidence Act, the Statutory Instruments Act and the Statute
Revision Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, this bill is in the same form as
Bill C-54 from the first session of this parliament and in
accordance with the special order of the House of October 14,
1999 I request that it be reinstated at the same stage that it
had reached at the time of prorogation.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair is satisfied that the bill
is in the same state as the previous bill, as indicated by the
government House leader and, accordingly, the bill stands in the
same position it would have been at the time of prorogation of
the last session.
(Bill deemed read the second time, referred to a committee,
reported with amendments)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-219, an act to amend the Criminal Code (breaking
and entering).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise on behalf
of the constituents of Calgary East to introduce my private
member's bill in the House today.
The bill would establish a minimum two year sentence for second
or subsequent convictions for the break and enter of dwelling
houses. Canadians view the crime of break and enter as more than
just a property crime. They view it as a crime against the
person.
It is my hope that this private member's bill will receive
support from my colleagues so we can effectively address this
national problem.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CULTURAL GRANTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ACT
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-220, an act to require that in the advertising
and at the opening of a cultural project supported by public
money a public acknowledgement be made of the grant and the
percentage of the total cost that the grant represents.
He said: Mr. Speaker, again it is my pleasure to rise on behalf
of the constituents of Calgary East to introduce my private
member's bill in the House today.
This bill calls for more accountability and transparency in how
government spends taxpayer money. This bill will require the
recipients of the grants of public funds for cultural projects to
acknowledge that a grant has been made. It would also require
recipients to specify the percentage of the total cost that the
grant represents at the time the program is announced or
advertised and opened to the public.
1210
I believe it is only fair that Canadians be informed of their
investments in these projects.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PRAIRIE GRAIN ELEVATORS ACT
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-221, an act respecting the transfer
of grain elevators located in a prairie province and the
discontinuance of their operation.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to require
persons who operate grain elevators located in a prairie province
and who plan to discontinue operating any of these elevators to
provide potential buyers with an opportunity to purchase them.
This would place the grain companies on an equal footing with
railway companies and make them jump through the same hoops that
railway companies must jump through when they abandon a rail
line.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
FIRST NATIONS OMBUDSMAN ACT
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-222, an act to establish the office of first
nations ombudsman to investigate complaints relating to
administrative and communication problems between members of
first nations communities and their first nation and between
first nations, allegations of improper financial administration
and allegations of electoral irregularities.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the aboriginal grassroots
people from across the country who have worked so hard over the
last two years to try to bring accountability to their reserves,
I am pleased to introduce this bill at their suggestion.
I am also pleased to hear that the new minister has supported
the idea of accountability being very high on his priority list.
I am looking forward to strong support for this bill for the
benefit of our grassroots natives who are suffering a great deal
on our reserves.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
WITNESS AND SPOUSAL PROTECTION PROGRAM ACT
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-223, an act to amend the Witness
Protection Program Act and to make a related and consequential
amendment to another act (protection of spouses whose life is in
danger).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reintroduce my private
member's bill that I call the new identities act.
Each year in Canada hundreds of women and children live in fear
for their lives. Many women go into hiding, leaving behind their
jobs, families and friends in order to cover their trail to hide
from an abusive, violent spouse. Unfortunately, many are found
and beaten, and some are even killed.
If passed, this bill will serve to formally protect those
persons whose lives are in danger by bringing them into the
witness protection system.
This summer I contacted over 500 shelters and organizations
across Canada for their input on this bill. In return I received
an incredible amount of support, constructive suggestions and,
most importantly, the horrific stories that necessitate this
bill.
We as parliamentarians must address the crisis of domestic
violence and through the new identities program provide an escape
for threatened individuals who have nowhere else to turn.
I hope that members on all sides of the House will give this
bill the non-partisan support it deserves.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1215
[English]
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
The House resumed consideration of the motion for an address to
Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her speech at the
opening of the session, of the amendment and of the amendment to
the amendment.
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Rural
Development)(Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern
Ontario), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this
opportunity to respond to the vision set out by the government in
its Speech from the Throne. I particularly want to expand on
what that vision means for rural and remote Canada.
This is a very exciting time in the history of our country. The
Speech from the Throne is the last for this millennium and lays
out the government's vision as we move into an exciting era of
the 21st century. By investing our resources in focused ways, we
intend to make sure that we have an infrastructure in place that
will further the well-being of all Canadians. This includes not
only the physical infrastructure so crucial to the renewal and
development of rural communities, but also investments in
children and youth, in innovation, in further tax relief and debt
reduction, in health and in the environment.
Our agenda will create opportunity and prosperity for Canadians
no matter where they live. One of every three Canadians lives
outside a major centre, whether it is a small community near an
urban centre or a more remote community, be it a farming town, a
forestry or mining community, or one based on tourism or
manufacturing. The government recognizes the special
circumstances of rural Canadians and it specifically addressed
rural Canada in its Speech from the Throne.
We know that rural Canadians have faced numerous challenges.
Like all Canadians they have faced those challenges with
ingenuity and an inspiring commitment to their families and their
communities. Hailing as I do from a rural area of central and
northern Ontario, I have seen firsthand the dynamism of our rural
areas, our towns, our villages and the entrepreneurialism and
energy of those who live there.
The Speech from the Throne has clearly laid out the direction in
which the government intends to go in the coming months. This
direction applies very much to rural Canada.
The government continues to believe that vibrant communities and
a sustainable resource base are the foundations for a strong
rural Canada. It is a rural Canada where residents have access
to the tools, information and skills they need to make informed
decisions and to take full advantage of opportunities for
personal and community development. It is a rural Canada where
citizens have access to science and technology, infrastructure
and services to be full partners in Canada's knowledge based
economy and society.
As the throne speech said, we know that technology can open new
doors to all Canadians, tearing down the old barriers of distance
or access and allowing rural as well as urban communities to
compete globally. We have made a commitment to encourage the
development and adaptation of new technologies, recognizing that
they hold the promise of greater economic stability for rural
communities traditionally dominated by single industries like
mining, fishing, forestry, or agriculture. In other words,
investments in new technologies are a critical tool in the bid to
strengthen rural communities and enable them to break out of the
cyclical economies. We will make those investments.
The government has also committed to work with its partners in
other levels of government, in the private sector, in the
voluntary sector and with citizens in general to build a better
quality of life for Canadians everywhere. As the Speech from the
Throne indicated, this includes rural Canadians.
I would like to point out that my appointment as Secretary of
State for Rural Development is in itself a strong signal of the
importance the government attaches to rural Canada. The purpose
of creating a separate additional Secretary of State for Rural
Development is to bolster and reinforce the government's focus on
rural Canada. I am deeply honoured to serve in that position.
In my new role I plan to lead the government's efforts in
improving the quality of life for Canadians who live in rural and
remote Canada. I intend to work with my colleagues on both sides
of the House. Most important, I intend to work with individual
Canadians to ensure that we take a co-ordinated approach to rural
Canada and that we work together for common priorities which have
been identified by rural Canadians themselves.
In the months ahead I will be concentrating on three particular
areas.
First is the rural lens. This is essentially a way of making
sure the potential impact on rural Canada is taken into
consideration before federal policy decisions are made.
Second is to help Canadians who live outside our cities have
better access to all the resources that are available to them.
That means making sure they know what programs and services are
out there, as well as making sure they are able to use them.
1220
The third area I will be focusing on is the task of turning our
strong commitments into specific tangible actions that truly help
rural citizens.
As I have said, rural Canadians face many challenges, a number
of them quite similar from community to community, for example,
the challenges presented by distance from markets, low population
density and the cyclical nature of resource based industries.
Depending on where one lives in rural Canada, whether it is a
remote Newfoundland outport, a small rural municipality in
Saskatchewan, or a community in the far north, circumstances and
cultures can also be quite different.
The Government of Canada is committed to reflecting those
differences and those realities in our policy decisions. In
adopting the principle of the rural lens, cabinet has made a
commitment to ensure that the challenges and priorities of rural
Canadians are understood and taken into account, both in current
initiatives and in long term planning. As Secretary of State for
Rural Development, I look forward to the opportunity to work with
my cabinet colleagues in applying the rural lens.
This brings me back to my second priority which is to improve
the communications and information flow between the government
and rural citizens. As well as sharpening our focus on rural
concerns within the government, it is also critically important
that we do more to let rural Canadians know what assistance or
programming is already available. We have made a good start.
This year for example, our departments and agencies worked
together to provide information on programs and services for
rural Canadians in a booklet that went out to two and a half
million households in rural and remote Canada.
We also need to inform rural Canadians about the progress being
made toward meeting their priorities. One key way of doing this
is by producing an annual report which measures our achievements
in dealing with rural issues and challenges. Not only is the
government committed to helping rural Canadians, it also expects
to be held accountable for doing so. Early next year I will
table this report in parliament, thereby providing an opportunity
both for my colleagues in the House of Commons and for all
Canadians to engage in a public discussion on how we chart the
future of rural Canada.
Developing rural Canada and assisting rural Canadians will be a
transparent process, one that is bottom up and not top down
driven. That is why at the end of April I will host a national
rural conference inviting individual rural Canadians from across
Canada to come to Magog in the province of Quebec. The conference
will promote and showcase rural Canada. More than that it will
be an opportunity to discuss our successes, our challenges, our
vision, and most important the specific actions we need to take
to ensure the future of rural Canada.
The third area I want to talk about and the most important part
of what I am charged to do relates to specific actions to be
taken to bring about tangible developments and improvements for
rural Canadians.
The direction set out in the Speech from the Throne will guide
us as we work to deliver the results in rural Canada. Rural
communities will be involved in drafting a five year plan for
improving physical infrastructure. They will also be key
partners in our efforts to make Canada a nation that is highly
connected through the information highway so that rural citizens
have ready access to the education, technology, skills and other
tools that will allow them to share in the country's wealth and
opportunities.
Our focus must now shift from process to results to take the
steps necessary to develop action items into specific
deliverables in rural Canada and make concrete progress on the
priorities of rural Canadians.
In some cases this may simply mean bringing together different
departments that do similar programs to focus resources in one
area. In other cases we may need something new in addition to
what is already being undertaken. For example, Health Canada
through the office of rural health is taking the lead on the
development of a rural health strategy to ensure that Canadians
in rural and remote areas have access to quality health care. In
another initiative a number of service Canada projects are being
tried out in rural areas as a possible way to improve access to
government programs and services.
Before closing I would like to mention that I wear another hat,
that of Secretary of State for Federal Economic Development
Initiative in Northern Ontario, more commonly known as the FedNor
program. That brings with it a responsibility for community
futures which plays a role in providing access to capital and
facilitating business development for rural Canadians.
1225
The community futures development corporations are administered
by four different entities within the federal government: three
regional development agencies, plus Industry Canada. The program
works very well. It is an excellent example of one community
level program which works across several different agencies, yet
is very rurally focused.
Over the next few weeks I will be discussing with my ministerial
colleagues other co-operative initiatives that involve their
departments or agencies. Those initiatives will be directly
targeted at the priorities set forward in the Speech from the
Throne, and the federal framework for action in rural Canada
which rural Canadians themselves helped to write and helped to
develop.
The Speech from the Throne lays out a vision and opportunity for
prosperity for Canadians. It is my personal commitment to ensure
that rural Canadians are equal partners in that vision, that they
have the technologies, the tools and the infrastructure to build
a better quality of life for their chosen communities.
Rural Canada is the foundation on which a large part of our
economic wealth is built. It is a place of great energy and
great ingenuity. It is our past, it is our present and it is our
future. It is a way of life, a way of unique traditions and a
specific social structure. Most important, rural Canada is home.
It is home to my family and other members' families. It is home
to our friends, it is home to my constituents and it is home to
nine million Canadians. It is a place with a great future. This
government is working to make sure that that future for rural
Canadians is as bright as possible.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Madam Speaker, my
question for the minister is a very simple one. He speaks of the
nine million Canadians who live in rural Canada. I think he has
tried very gallantly to revise the biggest single omission in the
throne speech and that is the fact that there was no mention of
agriculture.
I represent the riding of Kings—Hants which has 50% of the
agriculture output for the province of Nova Scotia. The fact is
that many of the farm aid programs currently do not meet the
needs of farmers either in my riding or in western Canada. The
AIDA and NISA programs simply do not meet their needs. Some of
those programs are based on 70% of the last three years'
earnings. In my riding the last three years have been disastrous
due to the drought. Of course, 70% of nothing is nothing. For
farmers who are facing this crisis and bankruptcy there was
absolutely nothing in the throne speech.
The minister speaks about rural issues. One of the most pivotal
and important issues for rural Canadians is agriculture and food
output. The throne speech did not address that.
The minister did not speak of the seasonal workers in Atlantic
Canada and my riding. Seasonal workers have been devastated by
the EI reforms and the cuts by the Liberal government. Many
seasonal workers who did work periodically and who did contribute
and participate in the economy are now forced on provincial
social assistance. They have gone from working seasonally to not
working at all. That is a significant concern.
The minister did not speak of the concentration in the food
distribution business which increasingly is forcing producers to
effectively deal with one or two major purchasers. It is denying
the producers any ability to control price or have any control
over their own business affairs. The minister does not address
that.
The minister spoke at length about e-commerce, the growth in the
high tech sector and the importance of connectedness in terms of
technology in rural communities. I share with him in his
optimism that in the long term these may play a role.
However, does he really believe that the government's focus on
e-commerce and on Internet connectedness for rural communities is
going to help? Does he really believe in the short term that a
50 year old farmer who is facing bankruptcy is going to be turned
into a computer programmer or a high tech worker and suddenly
will be transported back from the edge of the abyss of poverty,
despair and into some new e-world of prosperity and future
potential?
1230
I believe he is being very naive and that the government is
being very cold-hearted in turning its back on rural Canada and
particularly on the agricultural sector, both in the west, in
Ontario and in the east.
Hon. Andy Mitchell: Madam Speaker, part of what we see
here, from the comments made by the hon. member who represents
the Tory Party, is a good example of how its inability to deal
with two separate issues at the same time led to an
administration in the country from 1984 to 1993 that resulted in
record deficits, increased unemployment and lower economic
growth.
The reality is that we are dealing with all the issues that the
hon. member mentioned. He talked about nothing being done in
terms of the farm income prices.
Let me make it very clear for the hon. member, who seems to have
missed it, and for other hon. members in the House and obviously
for Canadians, that there was $900 million, when combined with
provincial contributions of another $600 million, meant there was
a $1.5 billion package to assist Canadian farmers through an
income crisis they are experiencing right now. That work is
ongoing and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has
indicated his willingness to continue to work with his provincial
counterparts, with the industry and with others to do the things
that are necessary to help.
Beyond just simply helping in the income crisis, as important as
that is, we must also ensure the long term viability of rural
Canada. That is what the hon. member and his party have missed.
We cannot just simply deal with the issues of the day, although
we must and it is important. We must also ensure the long term
viability of rural Canada and rural Canadians.
We must make sure that there is a future for rural Canadians. We
must make sure there is a future for our children so that they
can choose to live in rural Canada. It means more than simply
identifying or dealing with one specific industry. It means more
than just simply identifying with any one specific problem. It
means dealing with the broad issues that face rural Canadians. It
means understanding that rural Canada has separate challenges and
separate needs and to respond to them.
That is what the government committed to do in the throne
speech. As the minister responsible, I will attempt to ensure
that those commitments come to reality and fruition.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Madam Speaker, I have listened carefully to the speech by
the new Secretary of State for Rural Development, and I wish him
good luck, despite my belief that the federal government has no
business whatsoever interfering in this area.
I would invite him to speak to the Minister of Human Resources
Development. With his responsibility for rural areas he is
surely aware that, since employment insurance reform, there has
been a serious problem that has to do with the rule of
intensity.
Seasonal workers are penalized by the deduction of 1% of their
benefits every time they have used 20 weeks of employment
insurance, which means that after three years, instead of
receiving 55% of potential benefits, they will receive 50%.
Yesterday, the Minister of Human Resources Development gave an
interview to a Moncton newspaper. She thinks that the rule of
intensity must not be done away with, nor the period of benefits
extended, because that is no solution. More employment must be
created, and seasonal employment must be enabled to last longer.
I say to the secretary of state and to the minister “Why not do
both at the same time?” When they state that the industry's
season must be lengthened, it is as if they were telling people
“You are not working longer because you do not want to.” The
Secretary of State for Rural Development must surely know, and I
hope he agrees with that view, that there is no one in Canada
who does not want to work. This is not a situation where,
contrary to what the Prime Minister said in the past, the
unemployed are beer drinkers. That has been demonstrated. There
are no more cheaters among the unemployed than there are in
multinationals or elsewhere. Generally speaking, people do want
to work.
It is not by hitting them on the head or by imposing
unacceptable rules regarding minimum income that things will
change.
In rural areas, when a person works 15 or 20 weeks, if that
person does not collect enough benefits, even if he or she has a
job, even if he or she is among those who worked during the
year, that person will still get poor because we do not have a
good employment insurance program.
1235
So, will the Secretary of State for Rural Development make
representations to the Minister of Human Resources Development
to have that situation changed, and is he not deeply upset that
the throne speech says nothing on this issue?
It is important for the secretary of state to get the
bureaucracy moving and force the government to stop viewing the
employment insurance program strictly as a surplus generating
scheme; this could have a positive impact in an area of federal
jurisdiction. The EI system is also a tool for economic
stabilization.
Will the secretary of state do that in the years to come?
[English]
Hon. Andy Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity
as the chair of the natural resources committee to author a
report called “Think Rural” which outlined many of the issues
in rural Canada. Even though the hon. member was not a member of
that committee, he took the time, effort and energy to provide
input into the development of that report. He is committed to
his rural area.
In terms of the issues in HRDC, I know that he and the minister
have had debates in the House and that they continue to have
discussions. The member forgets to talk about the other parts of
the HRDC regime. He forgets to talk about active measures and
all the other labour market adjustment type of initiatives that
are undertaken by HRDC and which certainly help rural areas.
I had the opportunity not too long ago to travel to his part of
the country. Their concern was not particularly over
jurisdiction. There was not a concern over nationalism in
Quebec. There was a concern about improving the quality of life
of rural Canadians no matter where they live. That is what I am
trying to, that is what the government is trying to do and that
is what we will accomplish. We will improve the quality of life
for all rural Canadians.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Madam Speaker, I, like some of my other colleagues,
will begin by pointing out to Canadians and to the members of the
House an issue that was not addressed in the Speech from the
Throne: the state of Canada's airline industry.
We were all inundated over the summer months with positions both
for and against changes in the airline industry but the
government remains silent. There was absolutely no mention in the
throne speech of the crisis in the airline industry. It is very
clear that major changes will be coming. These are the questions
I have. Where is the government's vision for the future of the
Canadian airline industry? Where does the government feel
Canadians want to see the airline industry go?
It is the government's apparent lack of vision that causes
concern. The government seems to always be responding or
reacting to situations rather than working out some of the
problems or finding solutions in advance. Unfortunately its
history of popping up into the issues and trying to influence the
private sector is usually done for the wrong reasons.
Once the dust settles over the current airline industry
situation, government and parliament must work together in a
non-partisan fashion. We must work together with the
stakeholders to develop a clear blueprint for Canada's airline
industry in the 21st century.
I do not think there is a Canadian who has not heard of Onex,
Air Canada and Canadian Airlines International. Canadians accept
the fact that Canadian Airlines International is in trouble. I
think everyone is aware of the Onex offer to merge the two
airlines to stabilize Canada's airline industry under one major
airline.
I do not think there are many Canadians, and I am one of them,
who are aware of what Air Canada's counterproposal may be.
However, I would suggest that one way or another it looks like we
will only have one national airline in Canada. More importantly,
parliament must play a role and it must be done in a non-partisan
fashion.
1240
The Reform Party believes that the role of government should be
to facilitate a private enterprise solution to this problem.
That means less government regulation not more. It means that
the government must establish the priority of protecting the
interests of Canadian consumers at both the national and regional
levels, the interests of the Canadian taxpayer, the interests of
the airline employees and the interests of those who invest in
Canada's airline industry.
Maybe a starting point would be a comparison with the airline
industry in Australia. It is interesting that in Australia where
the demographics and the geography is very similar to Canada and
where it has similar concerns and issues that Australia can have
two profitable national airlines. Maybe there is something that
we can learn from Australia's airline industry.
We also have to look at what role this government and previous
Liberal and Conservative governments played in bringing our
airline industry to the point where it is today. More
importantly, the issue we have to address is how to fix the
problem.
I will move on from the airline industry because there are other
transportation issues in the country that must be addressed.
Canada is on the brink of entering a new century. We can either
enter the new century boldly or we can enter it timidly and in
response to other situations around the world.
The brief mention of infrastructure programs in the throne
speech leaves a lot of questions in the air. It mentions that
the federal government will work with the provinces and the
private sector over the next year to develop a new five year plan
for improving the infrastructure. I think that is very short
sighted of the government and of our country.
We have to take a much larger and longer vision of where we want
to go with our infrastructure and on how we are going to get
there. We would be remiss if we were not looking in ten 20-year
cycles as opposed to only looking five years down the road. Not
only is that true for our infrastructure program but it is also
true for our national highway system.
Government has studied the problem of Canada's highway system
for years. It really is time to quit studying and to do
something about it. It is time for the government to implement a
national highway strategy program. It is also time for the
government to invest more than the 10% it collects in gas taxes
into our highway infrastructure. It is time that the government
started recognizing that highways and the ability to move people
and goods is very important. It is important for rural Canada,
it is important for urban Canada and it is important for the well
being of all Canadians that our transportation networks are
sound, well planned and certainly in good condition.
One of the issues that is very dear to my heart is the issue of
trade corridors. A large part of the reason for Canada's
economic improvement over the last years is due to the massive
increase in trade, mainly with the Americans. I do not know that
Canadians understand or realize that over $1.5 billion worth of
trade happens across the Canada-U.S. border every single day of
the year.
1245
I am really pleased to see that the Liberal government has
decided that trade is good for Canada, but if this growth is to
continue, if we are to continue to maximize the future of our
trading partners on the North American continent, our
infrastructure must grow to accommodate that trade.
It is not just good enough to have trade agreements. It is not
just good enough to have agreements among countries and documents
that are signed between the leaders. We have to be able to move
the goods that we have agreed to trade. We have to make sure
that the movement of those goods is done in an efficient and
timely manner.
I do not think we can ignore rail transportation, particularly
the movement of grain across our country. That has been an issue
for a number years and it remains an issue that has to be
resolved. Two reports have been produced for parliament to
consider, the Estey and Kroeger reports. I look forward to the
coming years and seeing this happen.
There are also environmental concerns. If the Minister of
Environment is concerned about vehicle emissions then I would
suggest that he go to any major commercial border crossing. He
could go down to the Ambassador Bridge between Windsor and
Detroit and see 100 trucks on either side of the bridge, idling
for hours waiting to fill out unnecessary paperwork at customs.
He could watch the fumes from their diesel engines billow into
the air and check why Canadian and American archaic cabotage
rules are forcing many trucks to travel on the continent empty.
It is time to address some of these issues.
More important, the government's plan of talking with the
provinces about highways is not just good enough. We need to
develop a seamless transportation system involving our highways,
our railways, our waterways and skies to move goods and people in
the most efficient manner not on a national basis but on a
continental-wide basis. Only then can we ensure that we are
looking after the health, safety and economic well-being of all
Canadians.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to represent the people of
Selkirk—Interlake and to speak to the throne speech today. The
government has been speaking about the good aspects of the speech
so I do not have to go over those details again. They are few
and far between, but it highlighted the ones it thought were
important.
I have a couple of issues that did not get fully addressed in
the throne speech. One of them was that Manitobans expected to
see more in the area of health care. There was nothing in the
speech but a reiteration of the fact that the government was
putting $11.5 billion into health care over the next several
years. That is totally insufficient. They would like to have
seen something in that regard.
Also the government seems to have recognized that it has been
fumbling the first nations accountability issue. The throne
speech mentioned that the government wanted to foster
accountability on the part of elected officials on our first
nations. The Indian affairs minister has said in speeches
privately in Saskatchewan that was one of the government's
objectives. It is certainly worth recognizing that.
Physical infrastructure work was mentioned with regard to what I
assume will be roads. This may have a benefit for farmers if the
physical infrastructure it is talking about enables roads to be
built sufficient to carry the large trucks which are now
necessary to carry grain from the farmers field to the inland
terminals and out to port by rail.
Those are all the items I saw in the throne speech which were
directly pertinent to farmers. Certainly we needed much more.
1250
A couple of points in the throne speech were scary for farmers.
Certainly we are concerned about the government's intentions with
regard to its Kyoto commitment and how they will impact upon the
government.
Another thing that is bothersome is the Endangered Species Act.
It will be implemented and passed in such a way that it will not
have the negative impacts on agriculture that we found in the
United States with its legislation.
An immense concern to my riding, to all of Manitoba and really
to all Canadians which was not mentioned in the throne speech,
involves an issue in the riding of Provencher in Manitoba. I am
referring to the closure of the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
nuclear research station. The government is in the process of
closing that research station. In fact it has virtually closed
it now.
What it is leaving behind can only be described as waste and
byproducts. The nuclear contamination from that site is still
there. That is a natural issue which happens. However it is the
government's responsibility to show some vision and direction
with regard to atomic energy uses in Canada and to clean up that
site. Manitobans want to use that site for private industrial
development, but it is impossible to do so because the government
is standing in the way of cleaning up the site and arranging for
it to be used for industrial purposes.
The mayor of Pinawa, the town in which it is located, and the
Hon. Darren Praznik, MLA for that area, have clearly brought to
my attention that they need assistance to bring to the attention
of the government in Ottawa that this nuclear contamination and
the clean up of the Whiteshell site are of utmost importance.
I can only tell the resource minister that I will be raising
this matter in the House over upcoming months. It should have
been in the throne speech. We will make sure that it is raised
and something is done about it.
I will point out one last thing about it. When hot cells,
nuclear contaminated cells, in Tunney's Pasture in Ottawa were
decommissioned a couple of years ago, they were completely
demolished and the site was returned to a green field state. Why
should Manitobans and the people of Selkirk—Interlake and
Provencher expect anything less than what was done in Ontario?
As the chief agriculture critic I will devote the rest of my
speech to agriculture issues. Our leader has spoken quite
eloquently with regard to the lack of emphasis on agriculture in
the throne speech.
For the last two years farmers across Canada have faced
destructive drops in farm income. Realized net income in Canada
fell by 21% in 1998 and is predicted to fall by another 15% in
1999. That brings the figure down for Saskatchewan in terms of
realized net income to a negative $48 million for 1999. Farmers
will be losing massive amounts of money in Saskatchewan.
Saskatchewan farmers are so desperate that they are actually
involved right now in a tax revolt involving the education taxes
on their properties. We are finding that these farmers are being
pushed into doing anything they can do to reduce the cost of
government in particular and other costs that are helping to
drive them out of business.
I will use the gross figures for Manitoba.
We talk about a realized net farm income drop in Manitoba to $64
million according to Statistics Canada figures. These figures
are not something I made up myself. They are right from
Statistics Canada. That drop to $64 million is $100 million
below the $164 million earned by Manitoba farmers in 1998 and
well below the five year average of $231 million.
1255
The program the government brought forward to address the income
crisis was AIDA, the agricultural income disaster assistance
program. The government had the understanding or
misunderstanding, really, that the situation with regard to farm
incomes was simply a one year drop in income in 1998 but that the
drastic drop may happen in 1999 also.
The government took the program that came to it from the safety
net advisory committee, which involves a lot of farmers' groups,
et cetera. The government changed that recommendation around to
make the program fit the budget the minister thought he could get
for it, instead of making the program fit the crisis and address
the problem. That is exactly why AIDA has not worked.
I will just give a couple of examples of farmers who were
applying for AIDA and receiving nothing. One story is that in
May of this year two brothers who are farmers in Manitoba
applied. Their application is still sitting in the review area
of AIDA. The way the farm is set up, they expect to get
approximately $70,000 back from AIDA. They have received nothing
and they are on the verge of going bankrupt.
Over past months, certainly since last fall in particular and in
fact right from 1993, the Reform Party has made many suggestions
to the government on how it can increase the income of farmers.
That is the subject of a minority report of the Standing
Committee on Agriculture. It involved matters such as reducing
the cost of government, reducing user fees and making the
Canadian Wheat Board a voluntary board.
As a result, I would only suggest that the government review all
the material we in the Reform have produced, take those
suggestions and implement them immediately to help solve the
crisis in western Canada and across the country.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I happen
to represent a riding that has a lot of farmers in it, although
admittedly the farmers in my area are more mixed farmers than
grain farmers. We certainly are aware of the crisis that is
taking place on the prairies with farmers. I would like to ask
my hon. colleague to comment on a couple of points.
First, we lost the benefit of the Crow rate under the Liberal
government. I am rather surprised at that because these days we
are talking about the fishing rights of the natives, apparently
based on an agreement which was some 200 years old. It is said
to last in perpetuity and cannot be changed. It seems to me the
Crow rate agreement was also an agreement in perpetuity, but the
government just said with impunity that it would wipe it out and
give them a bit of a cash payment which hopefully would cover it.
Could the member comment on to what degree the cash payment came
even close to covering the long term costs of farmers
transporting their grain to the ports?
My second question is with regard to transportation problems.
When I was a youngster my dad used to ask “How come when I buy a
combine or a tractor that is manufactured in Ontario I have to
pay the freight to get it from Ontario to Saskatchewan, but when
I sell them my wheat I have to pay the freight to send their
wheat back to Ontario?” I would like the member to comment on
those two points.
1300
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Madam Speaker, in perpetuity are two
words that have devastated western farmers and made them so mad.
They are madder than a boiled owl when they hear the words
spoken, so I hesitate to even use them.
That Liberal promise along with the promise of the Conservatives
over the years assured western Canadian farmers that the Crow
rate, which was a subsidy for exporting grain, would be kept in
perpetuity. Western Canadian farmers certainly knew better than
the Liberal and Conservative governments. They realized that the
Crow rate was not allowing western farmers to diversify their
incomes. As a result when the Crow rate went it was beneficial
in that farmers diversified and have certainly improved the
western farm economy in that regard.
The real devastation regarding the income problem and the cash
taken out of farmers' pockets when the subsidy was not received
anymore was that starting in 1993 with the trade agreement and in
1995 with the federal budget, domestic support for agriculture
was drastically reduced by the government in an attempt to
balance its deficit. In doing so it brought in user fees and all
kinds of charges, increased taxes and all of the things that have
taken away the meagre incomes farmers were getting from exporting
their grain.
It is domestic support that is lacking from the government. We
heard it today in question period. Farmers are asking for that
support to be reinstated at least to the level where they can
remain viable and on the farm, to provide Canadians a secure
domestic food supply. It is in our national interest that that
be done.
What do we see? Nothing is happening by way of money for the
majority of farmers in western Canada in particular, and in
Ontario, to keep them on the farm and keep the farms going. What
will happen? It will end up that this country's farmland will be
owned by absentee landlords.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
Peace River country has had a double whammy. It has had a series
of very wet years that have caused farmers to have a low three
year margin net income.
The government put together an AIDA program that said it would
base payments on a three year margin net income. Guess what? It
was so low that farmers do not have the income to get a payout.
That is why they are failing again to pay—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We have to resume
debate.
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to represent Vancouver Kingsway and take
part in today's debate. I am splitting my time with the hon.
member for St. Paul's.
We are entering the century of the Pacific. It is very fitting,
as the Prime Minister has noted, that a Canadian who came to the
country as a young refugee from China should be the new Governor
General.
That an individual who arrived in Canada as a refugee can attain
the position of Governor General, a post deeply rooted in our
tradition, is a symbol to the world. It is a very special
appointment and symbol that Canada affords to all citizens the
opportunity to participate fully in our society.
It is a symbol that all citizens, whether born on Canadian soil
or having arrived as migrants from other nations, can and do make
meaningful contributions. It is a symbol that Canada is a nation
that recognizes talent and diversity. Indeed over the last
century our society has blossomed with migrants from the four
corners of the globe arriving and contributing.
1305
The appointment of the Governor General is a true reflection and
celebration of cultural diversity in Canada today. I would like
to congratulate the Prime Minister on this important appointment.
That such an appointment has been made under this government
demonstrates its recognition and appreciation of the rich and
beautiful cultural fibre that our nation has.
That so many aspects of this country are flourishing is a credit
to our Liberal government, but we must continue to build on our
strengths. We must strive to increase the quality of life of all
Canadians. This government has proven it has the courage and the
vision to do so. Concrete plans have been formed to help
Canadians face the challenges of the new century.
Children are at the forefront of our investment in the future.
This government is committed to ensuring that children receive
the support and attention they need. Many studies demonstrate
that the early years of a child's life are very important. Loving
and involved parents are the cornerstone of the well-being,
happiness and success of every child.
The government is to be commended on its solid commitment to
extend employment insurance maternity benefits and parental
leave. Maternal leave time will be extended from a current
maximum to a full year, a year that will provide invaluable time
for all our children.
The government has shown its insight in providing new benefits
to accommodate the diverse needs of Canadian families. Those
benefits will be more flexible, more adaptable to the wide range
of realities that face Canadian families. This government wants
to ensure that children are equipped with all the capacities they
need to be ready to learn when they begin school and to grow into
healthy productive adults.
As a government, as responsible citizens, we have no higher
priority than our children. As our children grow they must be
well educated in good schools and institutions that will provide
them with skills that will prepare them for work and future
challenges, that will prepare them to be successful in a global
economy. That is why the investment this government has
announced for our post-secondary institutions is so crucial.
In the Prime Minister's address, he endorsed a plan to create
1,200 new chairs for research excellence in universities across
Canada and more important, a plan for the financial support
needed to make them internationally competitive. That was not an
empty commitment: $60 million in the first year of the plan; $122
million in the second year; $180 million in the third year; and
following that, a further $120 million will fund 800 additional
chairs.
Canada needs those university chair endowments to compete for,
to attract and to retain researchers of international calibre.
Furthermore, those researchers will train our students to become
the best and the brightest in the world. Such investment in
post-secondary institutions ensures Canadians will have the
resources and expertise to be successful in a highly competitive
world. Those endowments will ensure Canada is at the forefront
of the knowledge based economy.
1310
The Canada Foundation for Innovation has already been created.
That $1 billion endowment is helping to build a leading edge
national system of innovation. Knowledge and technological
innovation are the cornerstones of a higher standard of living
and a better quality of life. The investment of the government
will ensure Canadian institutions have the resources, the
laboratories and the university infrastructure to carry out their
creative work, but this is not all.
In January the Canadian millennium scholarship fund will begin
to generate over 10,000 scholarships. The government's SchoolNet
project has connected every public school and library in Canada.
The community access program will have public Internet sites in
10,000 rural and urban communities before the end of this year.
The government has and will continue to increase support for
lifelong learning to ensure Canada has the most highly skilled
and knowledgeable workforce in the world.
The previous commitments of the government and those outlined in
the Speech from the Throne indicate the level of commitment this
government has to ensure Canadians will embrace the challenges of
the 21st century. This investment in education and research will
fuel the Canadian economy of the next century. Our economy will
continue to strive and to grow. Canadian families will benefit.
Continued tax reduction will foster an even more dynamic
economy. Canadian families have already seen the benefits of tax
cuts totalling $16.5 billion in the last two budgets alone. That
trend will continue. The next budget will lay out a multi-year
plan for further tax reduction. I am a member of the finance
committee and we will be conducting prebudget public hearings to
listen to Canadians for their ideas and suggestions for our next
budget.
We are one of the leading industrialized nations in the world.
The future will see great advances in business, government and
society. The way to the 21st century is to invest in the
cornerstones of our society. We will invest in our children, in
our families, in our researchers and in our educational system.
Let us be clear. What this government will not do is sacrifice
our financial health. Canadians from British Columbia and indeed
from coast to coast to coast recognize this is the direction for
Canada in the next century. The government is doing what
Canadians want.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Madam Speaker, I have a
question for the hon. member.
She said that the 21st century would belong to the Pacific
region. Will the hon. member be able to influence her government
colleagues, so that they take a stand regarding the labeling of
genetically modified products?
We know that the Minister of Agriculture took a stand when he
said that such labeling was optional. However, the Asian market
requires that genetically modified products be labeled.
May be the hon. member can influence her colleagues. I would
like to hear her comments on this issue.
1315
[English]
Ms. Sophia Leung: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon.
member for her very thoughtful question. It would be very
interesting for our government to consider and I think a lot of
study will follow.
In the meantime, very strict regulations will be set up. I
thank her for calling this matter to our attention.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech with great
interest. I noted that she said repeatedly throughout her speech
“We will invest. We will invest. We will invest”.
The problem I have with that is that what she and her colleagues
in the Liberal Party do not seem to understand is that when they
talk about investing they talk about spending taxpayers' money.
Typically the Liberal answer is to set up more programs. She
outlined a whole raft of them in her speech for which they are
going to need taxpayers' money.
She also talked about providing a higher standard of living. She
said “We must strive to improve the quality of life for
Canadians”. Certainly, something like that we can all agree
with. However, I wonder when she and her Liberal colleagues will
get it through their heads that the easiest way to improve the
quality of life for Canadians is to lift the oppressive tax
burden which they face.
I do not want to hear the hon. member insult Canadians'
intelligence by talking about $16.5 billion in tax cuts.
Canadians know quite well that is more than offset by the $18
billion in tax increases over the past couple of years that the
government has foisted on them. Really, they are worse off.
That is very clear when they look at their take home pay.
I want the hon. member to answer very honestly and
truthfully—and do not insult the intelligence of the Canadians
voters who are watching this debate today—when her government is
going to deliver real tax relief, not this bogus $16.5 billion
they always talk about.
Ms. Sophia Leung: Madam Speaker, I would like to remind
my colleague that we very successfully eliminated the $42 billion
deficit. Last year we not only reduced taxes, we also eliminated
the 3% surtax. We all know that. It is on the record.
Now we are entering an era where we will have a balanced
approach. There will be tax cuts, but at the same time we will
not overlook the most important things, such as health care,
social programs and the children's agenda. We are now spending
under a very cautious, socially balanced program.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Madam Speaker, the
hon. member speaks again of investment, which is really spending,
but the fact is that many Canadians are finding it difficult to
invest themselves. While the government is currently in the
black, at an unprecedented rate Canadians are in the red. We
have the highest level of personal debt in the history of our
country.
In the 1990s Canadians have seen an 8% drop in their personal
disposable income because of the tax burden imposed by this
government. During the same period Americans have enjoyed a 10%
increase.
Would it not be better if Canadians were able to invest for
their own futures as opposed to the government taking more money
from Canadians and then trying to invest where it feels the
priorities are?
Ms. Sophia Leung: Madam Speaker, we do not just take from
Canadians. We are also trying to create more opportunities for
trade and we are trying to help medium and small business people
gain more business so they will have more cash in their pockets.
We are doing both. We are meeting the social needs of Canadians
and, at the same time, we are trying to help business and other
sectors.
1320
[Translation]
Mrs. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
very pleased to rise today to reply to the Speech from the
Throne.
Building a higher quality of life for all Canadians is an ideal
theme, as we are about to celebrate the new millennium. It is
the greatest legacy that we can leave to Canadians.
[English]
It is about vision. It is about what kind of country we want to
live in. It demonstrates a real understanding of the broadest
determinants of quality of life. It recognizes that although we
have been designated the best country in the world in which to
live we cannot rest on our laurels.
Vision is statesman-like foresight, sagacity in planning. It
means using our experience and our knowledge together with the
power to apply them critically and practically. More than that,
it is incorporating the core values of Canadians. Vision and
values are the key ingredients to making a difference.
The Speech from the Throne was an extraordinary example of the
positive role the government can play in people's lives. The tug
of war is over. No longer is it possible for Canadians to think
that good social policy is bad economic policy. We are now
embarking on a new age where with good social science research we
can demonstrate that good social policy is excellent economic
policy and those who think that tax cuts alone will cure all are
horribly misguided.
The tax cuts in Ontario resulted in the doubling of child
poverty. We are embarrassed internationally because of this.
The cuts to social services in Ontario have not saved money.
Gina Browne, the fabulous researcher at McMaster and author of
When the Bough Breaks, has now demonstrated that
conclusively, with the help of Health Canada. The Ministry of
Health of Ontario has turned down the study twice and now seems
to be hiding from its results.
I would like to outline some of the highlights of the study to
show that the failure to provide appropriate social programs does
not save a cent because the people go elsewhere, generally to the
medical system, and cost at least as much money there.
Gina took over 700 single moms. Some were left to self-direct
their support generally by using walk-in clinics, emergency
departments and GPs' offices. Some were directed to a variety of
support: recreation, day care, social services and employment
advice.
At the end of two years the control group had 10% less on
welfare generally because the Harris program had cut them off.
The group that had only received a recreation program for their
kids over six, which included transportation, running shoes and
snacks, had twice as many moms off welfare and huge savings to
the system in parole, children's aid and the use of food banks.
The kids now had friends from other neighbourhoods and were well
on their way.
In the group that received all the support, over 25% had exited
the welfare system and demonstrated huge savings in their use of
the medical system. The interventions helped to identify the
mothers with depression and got them appropriate and effective
help.
As Gina has said to rotary club after rotary club, the
Government of Ontario is kidding itself if it thinks it is saving
money by its cuts.
What is exciting now is that we can fund research to show what
instinctively we have known, that good social policy is good
economic policy. With the social union framework we have an
exciting tool with which we as a country can begin to share best
practices and demonstrate that accountability and transparency
are what Canadians need in order to feel that their taxes are
well spent.
The commitment in the social union for all levels of government
to report publicly on the effectiveness of their social programs
in effect will continue to demonstrate this reality of good
social programs being good economic policy.
The Speech from the Throne articulated the commitment of the
Government of Canada to work toward removing all barriers for the
mobility of Canadians with respect to their qualifications,
student loans and essential services for persons with
disabilities. It is clear that achieving full citizenship for
all Canadians is good social policy as well as good economic
policy.
The people of St. Paul's are big picture people. They
understand the need for balance and accountability. They
understand that we need evidence based practice. They understand
that strict ideology is usually bad public policy because of the
need for practical solutions based on proper evaluation and
changing conditions. The pure tax cutting rhetoric is just that.
I believe the Speech from the Throne has touched the core values
of Canadians. As my constituent Fiona Nelson pointed out, the
big cold countries at the top of the globe decided a long time
ago that we would have to look after one another.
The countries in the middle with the warm climate, fishing and
coconuts falling out of the trees have not had to be quite so
progressive. Canadians decided a long time ago that they do not
want people to have to mortgage their homes, and maybe even lose
them, for their cobalt treatment for cancer.
1325
The final report of the National Forum on Health eloquently
articulated that the core Canadian values will remain even when
opinions can waver or be seduced by the rhetoric of more money in
people's pockets solving everything.
Canadians want fairness. They want the tax system to be made
fairer. They know that increasing disposable income for the
lower and middle classes is a good thing. They understand that
the child tax benefit has been an extremely important measure for
the working poor, and that extending it to the middle class will
be extremely important to their children.
Last year at the prebudget consultations in St. Paul's some of
the business people expressed their concern about the use of the
word “investment” as the new code for government spending.
Whether we call it smart spending, results based management or
investment, it is becoming clearer and clearer that we can spend
a little now or a lot more later.
The Minister of Labour, who is responsible for homelessness, has
declared many times that investing in kids now will help us to
close prisons later and that this is now becoming better
understood. There are certain expenditures that, with a proper
long range view, we cannot afford not to do. Governments can no
longer present a little checklist of things that can be
accomplished within their mandate.
As we look to the millennium it is imperative that we look
forward to our future. It is our kids. It is our planet. We
need to do the right thing now. It will be our legacy.
If 25% of absenteeism in children is because of a tragic
increase in asthma, we must do something about air quality now.
We must help the world deal with all aspects of the
sustainability of our planet.
The vision articulated in the Speech from the Throne was a broad
vision for Canada. Its focus on children as we move to a
knowledge based economy is one of the best things we can be
doing. Dr. Fraser Mustard said that there is substantial
evidence that the quality of early childhood experience has long
term effects on an individual's performance in the education
system, their behaviour in adult life and their risk for chronic
disease in adult life.
We know that this need is universal and that in many
neighbourhoods the wealthy children are not doing any better
because love is not the same thing as knowing how to parent.
I had the privilege of practising next to the fabulous
Children's Storefront in Toronto where I watched parents, nannies
and new immigrants come. With the advice of the early childhood
educators they learned about conflict resolution, positive
reinforcement, attitudes toward learning, cuddling and reading.
I know that it works. I know that those children are better off.
As we embark on the exciting new research chairs and the
Canadian institutes of health research we have an opportunity to
gain better evidence as we do research in evaluating the policies
and programs to find the optimal solutions.
If we look at the commitment to aboriginal health alone, we know
that we have to do something about the doubled rate of low birth
rate babies, five times the suicide rate and six times the death
rate from injuries, violence and poisoning. We need to look at
the root causes of homelessness, the role of
de-institutionalization, child abuse, substance abuse, learning
disabilities and FAE/FAS.
This is an extraordinary time for Canada. The prospect of a
surplus will ensure our ability to be able to deliver a truly
balanced approach. This is a truly Canadian thing to do. As to
the promises we made to Canadians who elected us—tax relief,
debt retirement and prudent investments—we can all be proud that
the vision and values articulated in the Speech from the Throne
will indeed build a higher quality of life for all Canadians.
Good social policy is good economic policy.
[Translation]
We want to build a stronger Canada and provide a better quality
of life to our children and grandchildren. This is the best
legacy that we can leave to them.
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to direct two questions to the hon. member. The
previous speaker talked a great deal about the importance of
education, with which I agree. Being well educated people, our
young people look forward to a good future in this country.
I am acquainted with many highly educated people from this land.
In fact, one of them is my son, who went into a certain field,
searched around and is now working in Georgia along with
thousands of other Canadians who have left this country. Doing
the same job down there, as compared to here, he puts $500 to
$600 each month more into his pocket, savings because of taxes.
1330
He is on a very good health program. He has benefits that
exceed any that we provide to many of our employees in this land.
Yet his heart is in Canada. He wants to be here, as do many of
them, but because of economics and of high taxes they cannot
afford not to take jobs south of the border with greater
benefits, greater wages and lower taxes. When will the
government recognize that quality of life does not exist here? It
is fading away.
On quality of life the solicitor general, the justice minister
and many of the people in the justice area have indicated that we
need to empty our prisons, that we have too many people in jail.
This month a multiple killer, a cop killer, walked away from a
minimum security prison. There has been a 100% increase in
people walking away from prison.
Is the placement of a person who has been convicted of taking a
life, a police killer, into a minimum security institution from
which they are walking away the right method? Is that a method
of emptying our jails? It all adds up to the total incompetence
of a justice system which would allow this kind of person to walk
away from a penitentiary.
That is not ensuring quality of life. That is endangering lives
in our land. The government's policies are allowing it. It is
worse today than it ever was. Could the hon. member address
these two issues?
Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Madam Speaker, I remind the hon.
member that most of the people moving to the United States are
moving because of opportunities. In terms of salaries that are
offered there, for example, there is the fabulous Howard Hughes
grant of $1 million a year to a researcher. We have trouble
competing with that. There is no good evidence that these people
are moving purely because of taxes. It is opportunity.
When my patients moved to New York and had to spend $10,000 a
year on their health insurance they understood what comes with
the taxes in our country and a reliance on a public health care
system, a fabulous public education system and a huge reduction
in crime.
People do not want to live in armed communities. The kind of
approach demonstrated in the Speech from the Throne will actually
prevent the cop killers the hon. member talks about. We will
actually be able to demonstrate that we have much smaller numbers
of people who require being in prison 20 years from now if we do
the right thing now.
It is not that we want more cops and more prisons. That is not
an approach to crime. We have to deal with people who were
abused as children, who have fetal alcohol effects, who have
learning disabilities that were not recognized and then ran into
trouble in the school system, dropped out, got into trouble with
drugs and then later into trouble with the justice system.
This is a prevention problem. This has nothing to do with what
the hon. member suggests is crime and punishment. It just does
not work. We know it does not work. We have to prevent
psychopaths before they are formed.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Madam Speaker, let me say
from the outset that the reason I want to take part in this
debate about the throne speech is to stress how this government—
which has major surpluses after cuts in transfers to the
provinces, with the result that ordinary people in particular
have felt the impact of these significant cuts in health,
education and social assistance—is using these surpluses in an
arrogant way, without any concern for the very real problems
experienced by individuals, problems for which the provinces now
appear to be responsible.
1335
First, why did the government postpone the beginning of the
session by three weeks? Did the throne speech really justify
that three week delay? During those three weeks, Quebecers and
Canadians could not get answers from federal ministers, nor
could these ministers be pressured into finding solutions to
issues such as the major problem in the airline industry.
In Montreal, between 5,000 and 10,000 jobs could be lost, yet no
one was there to explain why the government was letting things
develop in such fashion or, if there is an east-west problem in
Canada, to let us at least talk openly about it.
Why was the speech postponed? Citizens were deprived of an
opportunity to react in a timely manner to the supreme court
decision. The government saw the Marshall decision coming; it
should have been ready.
Who paid the price? I would like to point out that Acadians and
natives were on good terms. Many times, Acadians would say, in
French, that they were sad because the reason many people were
still around was because the Indians had protected them after
the 1755 deportation. The government's negligence has torn this
community apart. It will take time for things to return to
normal.
Why a three week delay? Here is what I think. First, the
government wanted to install, with great pomp, a new couple to
represent the Queen of England, the Queen of Canada. The
government claims it wants to help Canada enter the 21st century
as a leader.
In the meantime, what are the Australians doing? They are
getting ready for a referendum on whether or not to become a
republic. That is a debate that might perhaps lead to the 21st
century. The decisive day is November 6.
Why did the government delay the Speech from the Throne? So as
not to muddy the waters for the International Forum on
Federalism, which was supposed to show how wonderful Canadian
federalism was. How wrong it was, because that was not what
came out of the forum.
By the way, I would like my constituents in Mercier to know that
I was there and glad that I was. What we saw were federations
that said they were having problems and were trying to resolve
them. That is not what we see in Canada.
Did the Canadians tell the forum that they were having problems,
that they had imposed the Constitution on Quebec in 1982, and
that it could no longer be changed, when change was what was
needed? No, we did not hear that.
Canada appeared as the model of a federation, but nobody was
fooled, because Lucien Bouchard and Joseph Facal set out the
problems. They said what we are saying in the House of Commons.
The conference revealed more than just the problems that Canada
did not want to reveal. It also established that the issue of
identity was important one. The speaker everyone there
acknowledged as the best spoke of the importance of identity.
Other federations said that they were trying to satisfy the
needs of groups, specifically, the federations based on two or
three nations trying to accommodate them so that together they
may improve the quality of life of their citizens.
I could not ignore the fact either that the first person to
point out that Canadian federalism had huge problems, was
Ghislain Picard, who noted just how often native peoples had
promises made to them put off.
Finally, we have the throne speech. I can't say right off that
it was not worth forgoing the three weeks of session. For
Quebec, this is a throne speech of a unitarian country
recognizing increasingly less its mere existence.
1340
The word is mentioned once to say that the government will be
concerned with the issue of clarity, as if 94% of Quebecers who
voted the last time did not know that their question was clear.
Even Jean Chrétien realized it.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Yes. I think the hon.
member realized that we do not name members in this House.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I apologize; I meant to
say the Prime Minister of Canada.
We have the Speech from the Throne. The mentality in it is the
same as at the international conference on federalism. Canada
is denying the problems.
The Government of Canada is skirting the problems it itself
created with the dramatic cuts to transfer payments.
I am speaking of Quebec, and I may perhaps speak as well of the
other provinces, which are dealing with problems in health care
and education. There are problems in postgraduate education, in
helping the most disadvantaged. The government arrives and talks
to us about the 21st century, applauded by the Liberal crowd.
And what does it announce?
Does it announce help for the provinces in resolving their
problems? No. It introduces new programs. Will it help the
unemployed live during the time it takes them to find a new job?
No, the government introduces new programs.
The terrible thing in this is that many people need money.
These people find themselves in a situation created to a large
extent by the federal cuts. They do not necessarily understand
exactly how they ended up in that situation, because those who
made the cuts and reduced services are those who manage the
programs, that is the provincial governments. Nonetheless, the
federal government will introduce new benefits for children, for
example.
If children are poor, it is because their families are poor. We
saw the situation of the families deteriorate, and that is the
most serious problem at the moment. Middle income earners, the
middle class, are those who paid most, and there is absolutely
no chance they will ever get enough for their money back, since
there will be no new investments in health or education nor any
money to help the neediest.
I know that 1,200 new chairs were announced. I can talk about
that because I was member of the industry committee. The main
problem in postsecondary education comes from the context in
which universities must operate. The creation of new chairs will
not solve the problem. Of course, universities will gladly
accept the money, but they are in dire need, like the hospitals.
If the government had had a real vision—and everybody will
reach the new millennium at the same time, like Christmas and
New Year Day—it would have started by working on the problems
it created itself, to avoid becoming an outdated government, one
that is out of touch, in spite of its desire to appear to be the
best wired government in the world.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Madam
Speaker, ten minutes is a short time for a lot of people in this
parliament, but especially for the member for Mercier who,
obviously, had a lot more to say.
She opened a door at the very end of her speech. She had only
one minute left when she raised the problem of funding for
universities, a problem which was created in part by the federal
government. Members will recall the drastic cuts in research and
development, which had a particular impact on universities.
1345
I would also like her to comment on the following: this morning,
in a newspaper, there was an article about maternity leave. I
was struck by the title of this article written by Jean-Jacques
Samson, from Quebec City, with whom I do not always agree, but
who really did put his finger on the problem. He pointed out
that the federal government wants to show some generosity by
extending maternity leave without changing UI eligibility rules
but, at the same time, that we must not forget that it no longer
contributes to the UI fund. Only employers and employees
contribute to the fund.
Is the federal government not doing the same thing it did to the
provinces, namely cutting transfer payments and using all kinds
of schemes to look generous, trying to impress Canadians with
other people's money?
Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would
first like to thank my colleague for the extra time granted to
me. Ten minutes go by real fast. This reaction from a well-known
Quebec journalist is sound and I was recently getting to the
same conclusion although in a different way. Let us take for
example the issue of maternity leave. I can tell you that most
of those who phoned my constituency office had the simple
reaction to say that the unemployment benefits are so low that
instead of having a full year off, they would much rather have a
shorter leave and get real benefits that would equal to much
more than 55% of their salary.
We all know that working women often do not earn much more than
minimum wage. They also often do not work many hours, which
means that they earn very little money.
Consequently, even if we allow those low-income women to take a
whole year off, if they do not have a spouse with a good salary,
they will not be able to take advantage of it.
It is a very simple way of answering to the government, by
looking at ordinary people's reaction. If the government was
really taking their problems into account instead of only
reacting to the plans that the government of Quebec advanced and
that it has a hard time to implement because of the lack of
co-operation from the federal government, the government would
grant real maternity leave. Real maternity leave is not one
that only a few women can take advantage of. It certainly does not
generate enough income, even if it is extended.
There is a lot more to say about this Speech from the
throne and the generous gifts that it contains, without taking
into account the real situations and the problems that the
government itself is responsible for.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on
the throne speech because three weeks ago the members of the
Bloc who are in charge of social issues have stated that social
equity should be the motto of this throne speech. When I
consider this speech, I have to wonder if the government has
really tried to uphold the principle of social equity.
It certainly has not found the right means to do it. We should
not hide from the fact that the role of the federal government
is to redistribute wealth, and it can do it through transfer
payments, for example. It should also use the EI plan to make
sure workers get a decent income when they are out of work.
But its responsibility is not to create first line services.
1350
That is not its turf. It has never succeeded in doing it
efficiently and concretely, and it is not its constitutional
responsibility to do it.
The first mistake of the federal government is that it did not
limit its role. In Quebec and in Canada, nobody expected figures
on tax reduction, but we were counting on clear indications that
the federal government would significantly reduce the tax
burden.
In order to do it, the federal government does not need to cut
transfer payments or any other program.
It can do so by simply stopping interfering in areas outside its
jurisdiction and limiting its spending power to those areas
under its responsibility, such as national defence and
international affairs. If the federal government had restricted
its involvement to these areas and had decided, for the two
years left in its mandate, to deal only with its constitutional
responsibilities, it could have freed up large sums of money
that could have gone into the pockets of the middle class and
the poor, on whose backs the battle against the deficit was won,
and left some room for those actually in charge of important
areas as health and education to levy taxes.
In this regard, the federal government decided, for the sake of
visibility, to forgo its responsibilities and revert to the old
habits of the Liberal governments we knew in the 1960s and the
1970s. We will have to keep a very close watch because we could
very well face the same situation as before, with a federal
government competing with the provinces, interfering in areas
under their jurisdiction, buying off the provinces with millions
of dollars, and trying to buy the silence of community groups,
for instance. What we are seeing, such as wanting to provide
services in the home, is totally unacceptable.
My second point is this: if the government was really
interested in social fairness, it would have significantly
increased transfer payments. These days the economy is booming
and production is on the rise.
Our problem is the distribution of wealth, and this federal
government has decided not to meet that challenge. It was not
flashy enough for it, not significant enough.
The Minister of Human Resources Development, who is responsible
for the department with most responsibility for the impact on
the provinces, and for transfers, seems not to have been heeded
by this government. The measures she proposed probably did not
give the federal government the visibility it wanted.
By putting visibility before efficiency, however, the federal
government is not fulfilling its role, and this impacts on
direct services to the population provided by the provinces.
The federal government is hiding behind the fact that it is not
in the front line in providing services to the population, and
it is washing its hands of the outcome.
Then it comes along, a bit like a white knight, to provide home
services over the heads of the provinces, who were not able to
provide them because the federal government did not give them
the necessary funding. When it comes down to it, this attitude
is close to being Machiavellian and it is something that, in my
opinion, the population of Quebec and of Canada does not accept.
They cannot see themselves in the throne speech that has just
been delivered.
The third aspect that is close to my heart is the entire
question of employment insurance. With a tour and subsequently
with the Employment Insurance Act, it has been demonstrated
since 1994, with well-documented files and briefs, that
implementation of this act had created a great many inequities.
How is it possible that this speech contains nothing that will
do away with the rule of intensity, which penalizes the seasonal
workers? How can the Liberals across the way accept the fact
that their government, at a time when it has $6 billion in
surplus employment insurance funds yearly, is incapable of
putting an end to the injustice this rule of intensity
represents?
If there are some honourable members who do not know that this
rule of intensity is, I will explain it to them. Each time one
of their constituents uses up 20 weeks of emploment insurance,
his or her benefits are cut by 1%. This means that, for a
seasonal worker who works about twenty weeks each year, after
three years, he or she will receive 50% of his average earnings,
rather than 55%.
When people earn $9, $10 or $11 an hour, the difference between
the two often represents the money necessary to make ends meet.
If we were going through a terrible austerity period like the
one in the early nineties, the government might be justified in
saying “Everyone should do his or her share”. The government did
not ask everyone to do his or her share, but it continues to
make that request to people who have already done their share.
People who have jobs in rural areas are not deemed to be
unemployed but, in the end, they still do not have enough money
to support their families. This is unacceptable.
The government does not get a passing grade as regards this
issue.
1355
What does social equity mean for the government? Is it that it
did not use employment insurance to help seasonal workers and
young people? Only 25% of all young workers qualify for
employment insurance. They all contribute to the program now.
They all have payroll deductions, but only 25% can get benefits.
This is unacceptable.
How can the throne speech talk about fairness and about
providing funds for young people and children when the
government is not giving anything more to the parents?
Most children in Canada live with their parents. It is the
parents who support the family. If the government gives money
only to children, it does not necessarily mean that these
children will try harder to succeed in life, but it could result
in the parents having an inadequate income. Children become more
dependent on the state, whereas if parents receive an employment
insurance cheque, it is because that money comes from an
insurance program. They worked to earn that money and they made
contributions to the program. The government did not at all
achieve its objectives in that area.
This morning, I heard the Secretary of State for Rural
Development tell us how dedicated he was to taking his
responsibilities seriously. If he wants results, he should
speak to the Minister of Human Resources Development and the
Minister of Finance and get this scrapped. It is unacceptable.
It is practically immoral that people should still be living
like this in Canada, which calls itself a developed and well-off
society. This is something that has to be changed.
Here is another example. There is the wonderful announcement
about parental leave. The number of weeks of benefits will be
increased to 52 from 26. Bravo for women with children, or
couples where the man decides to stay at home. This gives them
more weeks. Great.
But what we were not told was whether, in order to qualify for
this leave, 700 hours would still be required when, before the
EI reform, 300 hours entitled one to maternity leave? In
Quebec, one woman out of five or six would qualify with the
figure set at 700. That is 20%.
Try though they might to come up with the best scheme in the
world, if no one qualifies, is that what we want? All that is
achieved is visibility, but it is temporary, not long term,
because people are smart. They are perfectly capable of seeing
where this will lead.
Furthermore, we saw this already in yesterday's news on
television.
Women who have, or want to have, a child, couples where the
father wants to stay at home, are wondering “Am I going to be
entitled to this? Could it be more flexible? Could I have the
opportunity to benefit from it?”
It is therefore important to settle this matter, and to have
adequate parental leave.
I will conclude by addressing what was not in this speech. It
is most astonishing, and if I were a private citizen and not in
politics, I would say “What is going on there in the House of
Commons? They have a Speech from the Throne that announces
policies for two years, but they do not mention anything about
airlines”. It is as if they had never heard of Air Canada and
Canadian International Airlines.
There is no mention of aboriginal rights and yet the media are
full of stories about native fishers. We see them daily on our
TV. There is scarcely any reference to organized crime, yet
there are major problems with it too.
How can they prepare a speech that is supposed to give a vision
of the country for the next two years but sending the following
message to people “We are talking about things that have nothing
at all to do with reality. Don't bother listening. It isn't
worth the trouble”.
Why this approach that is divorced from reality? Because this
government is run by a federal bureaucracy that thinks for us,
and decides what is right for us. It puts visibility before
efficiency. That is where Canadian federalism is taking us.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
want to thank the hon. member for raising an issue that we have
not heard enough about in the debate. We certainly did not hear
any reference to it during the throne speech and we did not hear
much reference to it in the subsequent follow up debate. The
issue I am talking about is the national scandal that exists in
our EI system. The hon. member pointed out some of its many,
many flaws. I would like to comment on this briefly and then ask
him how he feels about a recommendation I would like to make.
1400
In my riding of Winnipeg Centre I have problems similar to what
the hon. member pointed out. The changes to the EI system have
taken $20 million a year out of my riding alone, out of one inner
city riding in Winnipeg.
Can we imagine the impact when $20 million a year that used to
be transferred from the federal government to my riding is no
longer there? Let us look at the other side of the coin. Can we
imagine trying to get a new business to come to a riding with a
$20 million payroll? We would have to pave the streets with gold
to try to get the business to come to our riding. The inverse is
also true. We should be very alarmed when we lose a $20 million
payroll just from changes to the program.
The hon. member pointed out the surplus that exists in the fund.
There is a $600 million a month surplus. We are paying in $600
million a month more than we are getting out in benefits. This
is a national scandal. I do not know why working people are not
taking to the streets. They should be furious about the issue.
They certainly are where I come from.
The Speech from the Throne talked about finally dealing with
labour market training in terms of national sectoral initiatives.
That is something we have been advocating for decades within the
building trades and the labour movement. Finally we are getting
reference to that.
The province of Quebec has a very good system for labour market
training through a 1% training levy. In my industry that money
is then managed through the CCQ, the Commission de la
construction du Québec. It manages that money and the training
in that sector.
My question and recommendation would be: Can we not use some of
the enormous surplus in the EI fund for these sectoral councils
and make the correct model the national model for the whole
country in terms of labour market training?
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Madam Speaker, I like the example the member
gave of his riding of Winnipeg Centre being out $20 million in
EI. Where I come from, in the Lower St. Lawrence region, the
amount is $83 million in a given year.
Yesterday, in Moncton, in response to a question, the Minister
of Human Resources Development said that she did not think that
restoring benefits would change matters, or extend the seasonal
industry. This is tantamount to telling seasonal workers that
they do not work longer because they do not want to.
Why are both not possible? Why could the seasonal industry's
period of activities not be extended? Why could we not take an
original approach to this and develop our economy and, at the
same time, make sure people have an adequate income? Right now,
they are being treated like economic guinea pigs. The door is
going to be shut; the requirements are going to be made so
stringent that they will be driven back to work. But this is not
what will happen.
In Montreal, a few weeks ago, there was a job fair. I think
10,000 people turned up in search of jobs. People want jobs.
What EI has done is to remove the stabilizing effect of the
economy. Today, in a period of economic growth, the federal
government does is not playing its role of sharing out the
wealth responsibly.
There is also the member's question about the 1% rule. In fact,
this allows the focus to be put on training. This is one way of
preparing ourselves to compete with the rest of the world.
There was another example of that recently. The Quebec minister
responsible for economic development, Bernard Landry, offered to
help subcontractors obtain contracts with General Motors, to
provide them with the conditions that would enable them to
develop things.
The Minister of Industry reacted by saying “No, no, we must not
intervene like that. We have to let the General Motors plant in
Quebec close”. However, they will make sure the one in Ontario
stays open.
There is no future over there. We need a government that is
responsible in both social and economic terms. Quebecers
realize, in addition, that they have one government too many in
Canada. It leads to decisions that are unacceptable and
inappropriate for the future of Quebecers.
1405
[English]
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for
Toronto Centre—Rosedale.
The residents of Waterloo—Wellington have gratefully received
the throne speech and what it entails. That bodes well for us as
a government and certainly as Canadians. That is important to
note. I also thank my colleague, the hon. member for
Windsor—St. Clair, for moving the Address in Reply to the Speech
from the Throne and the hon. member for Laval West for seconding
it.
I extend my congratulations to Her Excellency the Governor
General for being installed in that prestigious position. It is
one which the residents of Waterloo—Wellington think is a great
position for her. We are grateful for that.
I want to look at some of the health care provisions provided in
the throne speech. The government continues to be deeply
committed to a universal and publicly administered health care
system that delivers the highest quality health care to all
Canadians, no matter where they live in this great country of
ours. As reiterated in the Speech from Throne on October 12,
good health and quality care are essential to the well-being of
all Canadians.
The measures announced in the 1999 federal budget will improve
access to quality care and help restore the confidence of
Canadians in the future of medicare, but a high quality health
care system depends on more than money. It requires adjustments
in the way health care is organized and delivered.
At their meeting in September 1999 in Charlottetown, health
ministers from all Canadian provinces and territories underlined
access to quality care and its link to an appropriate supply,
deployment and distribution of highly qualified health
professionals. Those ministers agreed to continue to work
collaboratively on health resources and the human resources
necessary in planning, having noted concrete progress in this
area. That is also important to note.
The throne speech puts further emphasis on the government's
connectedness agenda to ensure that Canada is economically
competitive in a global marketplace and to improve the quality of
life of Canadians. Investments in the health infrastructure have
an important role to play in this regard.
As we have noted, a modern health information system will give
health professionals and individual citizens improved access to
up to date information about health issues and treatment options.
The government will ensure that citizens in every region of this
great country have access to such information so that they too
can make better informed decisions.
As part of the government's plan to improve Canada's information
infrastructure, the government will reintroduce legislation to
protect personal and business information in the digital world.
The reintroduction of the bill, formerly Bill C-54, will have
some impact on the development of the health infrastructure.
Examples will include that Canada's privacy concerns are
protected.
The government's intention to build on the personal gateway
project to the government information and community content,
www.access.ca, could tie into the health infrastructure
initiatives such as a Canadian Health Network.
In addition, the government's five year plan for improving
physical infrastructure includes telecommunication in health. The
government will also take steps to modernize overall health
protection for a changing world. Investments in the health
protection branch national health surveillance infrastructure
will be part of this modernization process. That too is
important.
The government will also continue to address the serious health
problems in aboriginal communities, for example, supporting their
efforts to promote wellness and to strengthen the delivery of
health services for them. The first nations health information
system can help achieve this objective in a very meaningful way.
The government announced in last February's budget that it was
providing $328 million over three years to start building a truly
national network of information about health and health services
to strengthen the health care system and make it more accountable
to Canadians. All these measures are important to Canadians as
core values for all of us.
Let me turn my attention to the Canadian Institutes of Health
Research which are important vehicles. It will fund health
research that will improve the quality of life and health of
Canadians and lead to more effective health products and services
and will result in the strengthening of the Canadian health care
system.
It will offer unique opportunities for economic development in
the knowledge based economy. This initiative came from the
research community which has been working closely with health
officials to develop the design and structure of the CIHR.
1410
The CIHR will integrate the wide range of approaches to health
research under a single umbrella organization, providing
co-ordination and support for these efforts based on a shared
health research agenda. Biomedical scientists will work
collaboratively with clinic researchers; researchers specializing
in health services and systems; and researchers working on the
health of populations, societal and cultural dimensions of health
and environmental influences on health.
The CIHR will be a truly national institution, breaking down
traditional barriers between disparate research sectors and
different research agencies. It will establish strong,
co-operative partnerships among researchers, research funders in
federal, provincial and territorial governments, voluntary health
organizations in the private sector and users of health research
in general.
Virtual health research institutes will link researchers working
on a common theme. These institutes will be guided by a strong
ethical framework and will adopt integrated multidisciplinary
approaches to health research as a whole. The CIHR will provide
opportunities and support for Canadian scientists to participate
in international collaborations for the benefit of all Canadians,
no matter where they live and within the wider global community
as well.
In the budget last February the government gave $50 million a
year for three years to the granting councils to work toward the
objectives of the CIHR. The impact of this new funding has
already been felt in the research community. I look forward to
the CIHR bill being introduced this fall.
I will now turn briefly to a discussion of the Canada health and
social transfer, the CHST. In the budget of 1999 the Government
of Canada announced an investment of $11.5 billion over five
years in health care. This was the single largest new investment
the government ever made. The increase in the CHST cash from the
previous 1999 budget level of $12.5 billion to $15 billion by
2001-02 takes what is regarded as the health component of the
CHST to as high a level as it was before the period of
expenditure restraint in the mid-1990s.
The budget of 1999 also dealt with the issue of equitable
distribution of the CHST to provinces and territories. By
2001-02, CHST entitlements will be distributed on an equal per
capita basis. As a result provinces and territories will receive
$985 per capita in CHST entitlements by the year 2003-04. This
increase clearly demonstrates the government's determination to
work with all our partners to provide the absolutely best health
care possible to all our citizens.
The Speech from the Throne reaffirmed the government's
commitment to move forward with our partners in the health care
community on a common priority and common front. They include
supporting the testing of innovations in integrated service areas
such as home care and pharmacare, ensuring that citizens in every
region of the country have improved access to up to date
information about health issues and treatment options through the
modern health information system so that they can make good
choices.
All this underscores what we are up to as a government in terms
of the throne speech and the vision that will take us into the
21st century. It is important to note that as we march
confidently into the 21st century we do so by linking arms with
all Canadians and not, as some would have us do, by leaving some
Canadians behind.
Let us as a government on behalf of all Canadians keep our focus
on the opportunities of the future in the 21st century and not on
the grievances of the past. In the spirit of co-operation,
fairness and equity that is precisely what we as a government are
doing. We are doing it with vision, foresight and compassion.
1415
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
have a quick question for the member.
Emphasis on health and the importance of health is always right
up front in the minds of many Canadians. This government has
been in power since 1993. The report has just come out that one
in six children across the country are going to school hungry. It
is three times worse now than it was in 1993. Homelessness is
double what it was in 1993. Poverty is up 100% from what it was
in 1993. There is squalor and third world conditions on many
reserves. It is far worse than it was in 1993.
Would the member please give me the government's excuses for
allowing this to happen in the last six years?
Mr. Lynn Myers: Madam Speaker, I do know there are
ongoing problems that we as Canadians face and that certainly we
as a government face. It requires a concerted effort on the part
of all parliamentarians and all Canadians to address those
problems. We need to attack those areas that need attention. I
think the member heard that in the throne speech, if he was
paying attention and I hope he was. We are on the cusp of doing
great things with respect to our children's agenda for example,
and issues related to the homeless and poverty.
We will as a government do the kinds of things that are
necessary to put in place initiatives to ensure that those
problems are eradicated. Canadians expect no less of us and that
is what we as a government will be doing. We will be doing it
with vision and foresight, unlike the party opposite which
instead of uniting Canadians in a common cause to eradicate
problems seems determined always to take extremist views that
pull people apart, that pit region against region, people against
people and group against group.
We on the government side will have no part of that agenda.
Mercifully and thank God that we do not. We know what we have to
do. We will do the right thing in terms of all the issues noted.
We will do it with vigour and with the compassion that Canadians
know only we can provide.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Madam
Speaker, the member talks about doing the right thing. I want to
ask him about a very big crisis facing our country, namely the
farming crisis on the prairies, the drop in farm income. Farm
income is going down to negative levels. It is the biggest
crisis since the 1930s.
We now have in Saskatchewan and Manitoba a joint alliance
between all the political parties. For example, in my province
of Saskatchewan all three political parties and the farm groups
have gotten together and are requesting of the federal government
an additional $1 billion in terms of emergency farm aid for our
province. I am not talking about the AIDA program that is there
now. I am talking about an additional $1 billion minimum of farm
aid and farm assistance.
It is the largest farm crisis since the 1930s. People are going
bankrupt. People are under stress. We have many letters here
from children who have written about the stress in their families
and the financial pain they are facing.
It has united all three political parties. It has united the
farm groups and the chamber of commerce. It is a crisis like I
have never seen because unlike the member, I was not here in the
1930s. It is a long time ago.
I want to ask the member whether he is open to helping us put
pressure on the Minister of Finance and the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food to use some of the several billions of
dollars of surplus that are now accumulating to help farmers stay
on the land.
I remind him that every time a farmer is better off in this
country, we are all better off. When the farmer is better off,
there are more jobs in the towns, cities and villages across the
country. When the people have more jobs and the economy is
stronger, there is more money for health care, there is more
money for tax cuts and there is more money for education.
Whether the member will help us in that lobby is my question.
1420
Mr. Lynn Myers: Madam Speaker, I really do not need to be
lectured by the member opposite about the importance of farmers.
I still live on the family farm and we settled in 1827. I know
the importance of what the family farm means. I am still on it.
I still live it.
I was part of the tour that went to Saskatchewan and Manitoba
this summer. I know firsthand the kinds of heartache those
farmers are facing. It is very real and it is very disturbing.
We as a government, as the minister of agriculture mentioned
today, along with our provincial partners have committed the
kinds of resources that are necessary to do the right thing in
that very important area.
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to rise on debate in response to the Speech
from the Throne. I would like to echo the words of the member
for Vancouver Kingsway and the member for Waterloo—Wellington
who congratulated the Governor General on her appointment and on
the Speech from the Throne.
The Governor General's words were particularly welcome to those
of us in Toronto Centre—Rosedale because the Governor General
and her husband John Ralston Saul live in Toronto
Centre—Rosedale. We are all very proud to see her installed as
our new Governor General. We are proud of what she represents to
this country, looking forward into the future of the 21st
century, representing what is the best of Canadians and Canadian
developments in the 20th century.
[Translation]
They also represent Toronto's bicultural dimension and its
bilingualism, anglophones who speak French and who have
incorporated our country's French element into their culture and
into Toronto's multiculturalism.
[English]
Toronto Centre—Rosedale is an extremely diverse riding in the
middle of downtown Toronto. St. James town has 20,000 people
living in it. Fifty-seven different languages are spoken there.
Those languages are spoken by people who live and work here in
Canada together because we have established a country which has
as its base a certain notion of tolerance and a willingness to
work together. We have certain Canadian values that make that
work.
An hon. member: What about the value of equality for all
the people?
Mr. Bill Graham: That is why those people are there. They
have a sense of the value of equality.
My riding also happens to have the largest gay and lesbian
community in Canada, which the hon. member opposite knows
something about because his party is already trying to make sure
they are not treated as equals. As members will recall this House
adopted measures in the last parliament to ensure that that
community will be properly treated. We now wait for legislation
which will bring into effect those values of equality. We will
see how the opposition party treats those matters when they come
before the House when we talk about equality.
We can look at the businessmen in our ridings. We are aware of
the economic requirements of a modern economy, or the cultural
dimension of my riding in Cabbagetown, or the universities and
community colleges. We are proud to have in our riding the
University of Toronto, Ryerson university, George Brown community
college and Collège des Grands Lacs.
We are proud to have mixed communities like that of St. Lawrence
where an enormous number of co-ops are contributing to the way in
which we manage our relations in a complex urban environment
today.
The Speech from the Throne responds to the needs of this
community as it responds to the needs generally of Canadians. It
addresses the needs of children. It addresses the need for
investment in science and technology so that our universities and
researchers can grow and make this a stronger country.
The throne speech addresses the issues of the environment,
health and agriculture in spite of some of the comments that were
made in the House today. The north is very important for this
country and is seldom mentioned. It was important for us to see
mention of the north and our arctic in the Speech from the
Throne.
It also addresses the needs of the business community to see tax
reductions. We heard today in question period of $16.5 billion
projected for the future with possibilities of greater reductions
to come.
It is a balanced approach, exactly what I would have expected of
the government. It focuses on the needs of Canadians generally
to ensure that those in society have a good government that
furnishes them with the services they need and at the same time
ensures that we have a healthy and vibrant economy that is able
to deliver those services.
1425
The Speech from the Throne had another very important dimension
to it, which I think members of the House would be equally
interested in, and that is the international dimension. The
Speech from the Throne spoke of the role of Canada and Canadians
in a world that is evolving. It recognized that we cannot be
prosperous or healthy in a world that is not prosperous and
healthy.
The government understands that Canadians live in an integrated
world and that activities outside our borders affect us on a
daily basis. We are adapting ourselves to world conditions in a
responsible way and in a way to ensure that Canadian values and
interests are protected in that world.
If we look at the area of trade and economics, we see that the
policies that are being adopted by the government, both in the
WTO and the FTAA, are responsive to Canadians' concerns. When
the foreign affairs committee travelled across the country there
was an intense interest from Canadians on this subject. They
were determined to have human rights, labour standards and the
environment put at the forefront of our concerns at the WTO.
Canadians are also concerned that globalization is forcing
changes on us which we do not wish to accept. Our determination
therefore is to ensure that the institutions in which Canada is
represented abroad will both protect and advance our values and
interests. As the member for Peace River reminds me, that
includes the interests of agriculture which will certainly be at
the forefront of the discussions in Seattle as he well knows, and
which our government will make sure is made a priority point for
the government in those negotiations.
It also recognizes that state sovereignty is changing in the
world today. The people's needs have to be put ahead of those of
states. That is why we have our peacekeepers in places like
Bosnia, Haiti and East Timor where the safety of women and
children has become a preoccupation of governments and where the
international control of drugs and crime is a focal point of what
our government is doing.
In short, it is what our foreign affairs minister calls the
human security agenda. It is the agenda of ensuring that
individuals are more important than states as we go into the 21st
century in a world in which borders and state sovereignty is
being eroded in favour of individual protection and the need to
ensure that everybody is guaranteed a better standard of living
throughout the world.
Canadians are a generous people. We recognize that in helping
our neighbours we help ourselves. In that respect, the member
would be happy to recognize that the Speech from the Throne spoke
of an increased need for Canadian aid to underdeveloped
countries. We will rebuild our need for aid to underdeveloped
countries.
We rejoice in today's announcement that Médecins Sans Frontières
has been named for a Nobel prize this year. As members know,
there is a Médecins Sans Frontières in Canada. We have young
doctors from Canada and non-doctors who work with that
organization outside our borders. They all contribute to the
well-being of the world in exactly the same way as our modern
NGOs do in providing a different type of world, a different type
of international arrangement within which we all participate. The
Speech from the Throne spoke directly to that and it is an
inspiration for us all to enable us to be more effective with our
global responsibilities.
From the perspective of the people in my riding, and I believe
from the perspective of all Canadians, the Speech from the Throne
demonstrated a balance between what we need in terms of providing
services for Canadians and a sense of what our society needs,
both in the present and in the future. This was evidenced by our
increased funding for universities and our increased funding for
health care, which are concerns for Canadians. It focused on the
needs of today's Canadians and on the needs of Canadians in the
future.
This will be accomplished in the broader context of a world in
which Canadians will play a role. As we go into the 21st century
we will make sure that our interests and values are secure here
at home and secure in the world. The Speech from the Throne
demonstrates the ability of the government to achieve that.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 2:30 p.m., the
House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11:00 a.m.,
pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)