37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 007
CONTENTS
Tuesday, February 6, 2001
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1005
| INTEREST ACT
|
| Bill C-223. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| FAMILY FARM COST OF PRODUCTION PROTECTION ACT
|
| Bill C-224. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-225. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| BANK ACT
|
| Bill C-226. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| PENSION OMBUDSMAN ACT
|
| Bill C-227. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1010
| CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
| Bill C-228. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| FIRST NATIONS VETERANS COMPENSATION ACT
|
| Bill C-229. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA ACT
|
| Bill C-230. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| CREDIT OMBUDSMAN ACT
|
| Bill C-231. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION ACT
|
| Bill C-232. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
| CORRECTIONS AND CONDITIONAL RELEASE ACT
|
| Bill C-233. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1015
| SUPREME COURT ACT
|
| Bill C-234. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. John Bryden |
| YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
| Bill C-235. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS ACT
|
| Bill C-236. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. John McKay |
| DIVORCE ACT
|
| Bill C-237. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-238. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1020
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-239. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-240. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
|
| Resumption of debate on Address in Reply
|
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
1025
1030
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1035
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
1040
1045
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| Mr. Geoff Regan |
1050
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1055
1100
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1105
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1110
1115
| Hon. Gilbert Normand |
1120
1125
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
| Motion
|
| SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
|
| Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1130
| Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
1135
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1140
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1145
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
1150
1155
| Mr. Geoff Regan |
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1200
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1205
| Mr. Paul Steckle |
1210
1215
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1220
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Mr. Andy Savoy |
1225
1230
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1235
| Mr. Geoff Regan |
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1240
1245
| Mr. Mario Laframboise |
1250
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1255
| Mr. André Harvey |
1300
1305
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1310
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| Mr. Shawn Murphy |
1315
1320
1325
| Mr. Geoff Regan |
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1330
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1335
| Mr. Geoff Regan |
1340
| Ms. Carol Skelton |
1345
1350
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1355
| AUDITOR GENERAL
|
| The Speaker |
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| CHARLIE GRANT
|
| Mr. Joe Comuzzi |
| FOOD FREEDOM DAY
|
| Mr. Rob Merrifield |
| FOOD FREEDOM DAY
|
| Mr. Paul Steckle |
| DAVID IFTODY
|
| Mr. Bob Speller |
1400
| FOOD FREEDOM DAY
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| AUDITOR GENERAL
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| BILL CORCORAN
|
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
| SOIRÉE DES MASQUES
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| TOQUE TUESDAY
|
| Mr. John Godfrey |
1405
| CANADIAN FOODGRAINS BANK
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| DAVID IFTODY
|
| Mr. Tony Ianno |
| FOOD FREEDOM DAY
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| CHINA
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1410
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| DAVID IFTODY
|
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Vic Toews |
1415
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| AUDITOR GENERAL
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1420
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| GOVERNMENT GRANTS
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
1425
| CINAR
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
1430
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| ENERGY
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| AUDITOR GENERAL
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1435
| GOVERNMENT GRANTS
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| AUDITOR GENERAL
|
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1440
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. John Manley |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| HEALTH
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1445
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| AUTO INDUSTRY
|
| Ms. Susan Whelan |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1450
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| Hon. Robert Nault |
| SOFTWOOD LUMBER
|
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
1455
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| AUDITOR GENERAL
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
| Mr. John Williams |
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
| ASBESTOS
|
| Mr. Gérard Binet |
1500
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
| Mr. Vic Toews |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Vic Toews |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| WATER CONTAMINATION
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
| PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
1505
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Roger Gallaway |
1510
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1515
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1520
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1525
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Mr. Dan McTeague |
1530
| The Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
|
| Resumption of debate on Address in Reply
|
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
1535
1540
| Mr. Larry Bagnell |
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1545
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
1550
1555
1600
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
1605
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1610
1615
| Amendment to the amendment
|
| Mr. John Bryden |
1620
| Mr. Dan McTeague |
1625
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
1630
1635
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
| Mr. Dan McTeague |
1640
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
1645
1650
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
1655
1700
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
1705
1710
1715
| Mr. Jerry Pickard |
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1720
| Mr. John Herron |
1725
1730
| Mr. Bill Matthews |
1735
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Mr. Jerry Pickard |
1740
1745
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1750
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
1755
1800
1830
(Division 2)
| Amendment negatived
|
| WAYS AND MEANS
|
| Financial Consumer Agency
|
| Motion
|
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
1835
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
(Division 3)
| Motion agreed to
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 007
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, February 6, 2001
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1005
[English]
INTEREST ACT
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-223, an act to amend the Interest Act
(interest payable on repayment of a mortgage loan before
maturity).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill would ensure that everyone has a
chance to repay a mortgage before the mortgage expires or before
the maturity of that mortgage without an interest penalty,
thereby putting into law what is only fair practice in financial
institutions.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
FAMILY FARM COST OF PRODUCTION PROTECTION ACT
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-224, an act to provide cost of
production protection for the family farm.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill would provide a guarantee that
the farmers receive a price that reflects the cost of production
for their products. It is similar in many ways to what the
European countries, or indeed the United States, have for many of
their products.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
INCOME TAX ACT
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-225, an act to amend the Income Tax Act
(deductibility of expense of tools provided as a requirement of
employment).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill would amend the Income Tax Act.
It would provide for the very fair provision that mechanics
should be able to deduct the cost of their tools when they have
to purchase these tools for work purposes. Again, it is a bill
that is based on equity for all Canadians.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
BANK ACT
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-226, an act to amend the Bank Act (bank
mergers).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue. The bill
would amend the Bank Act with regard to mergers among our big
banks. It would allow mergers to take place on two conditions.
The first would be that if one bank were to become insolvent
then, of course, a merger could take place. The other condition
would be that a merger applicant would be successful only if the
application passes in the House of Commons by virtue of a
resolution of the House of Commons, whereby we collectively make
the decision, not the Minister of Finance.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PENSION OMBUDSMAN ACT
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-227, an act to establish the office of
Pension Ombudsman to investigate administrative difficulties
encountered by persons in their dealings with government in
respect of benefits under the Canada Pension Plan or the Old Age
Security Act or tax liability on such benefits and to review the
policies and practices applied in the administration and
adjudication of such benefits and liabilities.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill has the purpose of creating the
office of a pension ombudsman to deal with all the problems that
people have with the Canada pension plan, the old age security
act and pensions of that sort under federal jurisdiction. The
powers of the office of an ombudsman would be in terms of the
traditional powers those offices hold.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1010
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-228, an act to amend the Canada Pension
Plan (early pension entitlement for police officers and
firefighters).
He said: Mr. Speaker, members are quite familiar with this
bill. It would provide for the early retirement of firefighters
and police officers because of the hazardous occupations in which
they are involved.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
FIRST NATIONS VETERANS COMPENSATION ACT
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-229, an act to provide compensation to
First Nations veterans on a comparable basis to that given to
other war veterans.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill would attempt to right an
historical wrong in the country. It would provide first nations
veterans who fought in the first world war, the second world war
and the Korean war, or their families, with four things: first,
an apology; second, adequate compensation; third, a scholarship
in their honour; and, fourth, a war memorial that is dedicated to
their fighting for the country over the course of three different
wars. I am sure all members of the House would support this
bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA ACT
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-230, an act to amend the Business
Development Bank of Canada Act and the Canada Student Loans Act
to provide for a student loan system that is more supportive of
students.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill would provide changes in
legislation to make sure that students have a more reasonable
interest rate for student loans and a more reasonable repayment
rate that favours students rather than private financial
institutions.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CREDIT OMBUDSMAN ACT
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-231, an act to establish the office of
Credit Ombudsman to be an advocate for the interests of consumers
and small business in credit matters and to investigate and
report on the provision by financial institutions of consumer and
small business credit by community and by industry in order to
ensure equity in the distribution of credit resources.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill would establish the office of a
credit ombudsman to look at the problems that consumers and small
businesses have with credit and to advocate on their behalf. The
office would have the traditional powers of the office of an
ombudsman.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION ACT
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-232, an act respecting conscientious
objection to the use of taxes for military purposes.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill would permit individuals who
object on conscientious grounds to paying taxes that might be
used for military purposes to direct that an amount equivalent to
a prescribed percentage of the income tax they pay in a year be
diverted to a special account established by this enactment. This
account would direct funds toward peaceful purposes such as peace
education, war relief, humanitarian and environmental projects.
The fund would be established in consultation with groups
including: The Canadian Yearly Meeting—Religious Society of
Friends, or Quakers, the Canadian Conference of Mennonites;
Conscience Canada Inc.; Mennonite Central Committee of Canada;
and Nos impôts pour la paix.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CORRECTIONS AND CONDITIONAL RELEASE ACT
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-233, an act to amend the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act (withdrawal of
applications for full parole by offenders serving two or more
years).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Lethbridge for
seconding this bill that would amend the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act.
The present act not only permits offenders to make application
for parole but allows them to withdraw their application at any
time with little, if any, repercussion.
My amendments attempt to protect the taxpayer and the victims.
Unless there are reasonable and valid grounds for withdrawal by
the offender, the reapplication would be delayed for two years.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1015
SUPREME COURT ACT
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-234, an act to amend
the Supreme Court Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill would require the Supreme Court
of Canada to hear from and consider the intentions of parliament
when it considers charter challenges. Moreover, it would also
require that in the event of a less than unanimous decision on a
charter challenge, the supreme court's decision would not be
considered binding other than to the case being heard at the
time.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-235, an act to amend the Young
Offenders Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Lethbridge for
seconding this bill which would amend the Young Offenders Act to
make the offence set out in section 7.2 a hybrid offence.
The bill was originally introduced in the last parliament as
Bill C-260. The Minister of Justice recognized the value of the
legislation as she incorporated it in its entirety in the failed
Bill C-3 in the last parliament.
I am endeavouring again to introduce this amendment to the Young
Offenders Act that is in currently in force since we have no new
legislation yet approved.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS ACT
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-236, an act to amend the Hazardous Products Act
(fire-safe cigarettes).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
Sydney—Victoria for seconding the motion. The bill would force
cigarette companies to make fire safe cigarettes. If we could
save a dozen lives a year, we would do so. If we could save 100
injuries a year, we would do so. If we could save millions of
dollars in property damage, we would do so.
Cigarette companies have known how to make fire-safe cigarettes
for years but have failed to do so. The proposed bill
would remedy that situation. I hope to solicit the support of
all members.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
DIVORCE ACT
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-237, an act to
amend the Divorce Act (joint custody).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to ensure that
the courts grant custody of a child to both parents unless there
exists evidence that to do so would not be in the best interests
of the child. Automatic joint custody could reduce the number of
parents forced to go to court to gain access to their kids,
increase the likelihood of support payment compliance and reduce
the likelihood of one parent denying the right of the other to
see the children.
The report of the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and
Access recommended two years ago that joint parenting be included
in new legislation but the justice minister has yet to do so.
Children have waited long enough.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-238, an act to
amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentencing).
He said: Mr. Speaker, conditional sentencing was introduced in
the 35th parliament as Bill C-41. Since that time, tens of
thousands of conditional sentences have been handed down. Most
of these sentences are for petty crimes. However, many have been
handed down for crimes as serious as sexual assault,
manslaughter, drunk driving and drug trafficking.
In 1997 the British Columbia Court of Appeal stated in a
decision regarding conditional sentencing that “if parliament
had intended to exclude certain offences from consideration, it
should have done so in clear language”.
My bill does precisely that. It lists the offences to be
excluded from any possibility of receiving a conditional
sentence.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1020
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-239, an act to
amend the Criminal Code and the Young Offenders Act (capital
punishment).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I believe Canada should hold a binding
referendum on capital punishment so that all the Canadian people,
and not political parties, can decide whether or not it should be
reinstated. An Alliance government has pledged to do this,
however the Liberals do not believe in allowing Canadians to
exercise this power.
Today I am reintroducing the bill to reinstate the death penalty
for adults convicted of first degree murder. In addition, the
bill also imposes a range of stiffer penalties for youths
convicted of murder.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-240, an act to amend the
Criminal Code (prohibiting certain offenders from changing their
name).
He said: Mr. Speaker, once again I am introducing legislation
in the House of Commons which would, if adopted, prevent serious
offenders from changing their names while incarcerated. It must
be a right of Canadians to know who is residing in and around
their homes if one of these persons is a convicted killer or
serious sex offender.
Currently incarcerated inmates are able to apply for and receive
changes of names, changes of drivers' licences and other
documents. When on parole or released, they can slip into any
neighbourhood while an innocent, unsuspecting public believes all
is well. I am personally aware of serious sex offenders who have
changed their names and even admitted they were a danger to the
public when they were released.
We cannot wait for offenders who have hidden their identity to
reoffend and then say we have made mistakes. We have an
obligation to protect the public.
(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.): I ask, Mr.
Speaker, that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
The House resumed from February 2 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.
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
before I begin my remarks, I would like to note that I am
splitting my time with the member from
Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik.
I also wish to mark the passing of a colleague of ours, a former
member of the House, Mr. David Iftody, who died suddenly last
night. He will be missed.
As this is the first time I have had an opportunity to speak in
the House since the election, I will begin by thanking my
constituents who have demonstrated their faith in me for the
third time. I am honoured by their support and I pledge, as I
have always done, my efforts to serve them to the best of my
ability.
I also want to thank my wife and family. I am blessed with
three wonderful children and a wife who takes on a lot of extra
responsibilities so that I may be here. She gives up a lot and I
really appreciate her efforts.
I also want to thank my many friends and volunteers who worked
so hard for my re-election and worked with me throughout the
intervening years to serve the people of Winnipeg South.
Finally, I want to thank my staff who I believe are among the
best in Canada and who work very hard for very poor pay, very
limited remuneration and do an excellent job.
I want to welcome the new members. I also want to welcome you,
Mr. Speaker, as Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees of the
Whole. We have a new Clerk but I think we have the same table
officers returning.
I also want to thank all of the people around the Hill who work
unseen by us to make our lives so much easier, whether it is the
drivers, the security guards who are always so friendly and
helpful, the people who clean our offices, the Hansard
staff and an enormous number of people who toil day in and day
out so that we may do the work that we are here to do. They do
not often get the recognition they deserve.
Since I have very limited time, I want to simply highlight a few
things. I was very disappointed in the way this campaign evolved
in the last election.
1025
I hold the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party
responsible for starting it. We all launched into what was a
very bitter and personal campaign. As a result, I think the
Canadian people lost an opportunity through that process to hear
us debate some of the things we debate all the time around here.
They lost an opportunity to hear some discussion of ideas to
improve the country. We lost a lot in that.
There were a few things our party put forward that were
exceptional. As a person who represents a suburban riding in the
south end of Winnipeg and a university, there were a couple of
things that went entirely unnoticed in the Speech from the Throne
that are enormously exciting and important for our country.
We made a commitment, and it was repeated by the Prime Minister,
to make Canada among the top five countries in the world in
investments in R and D by the year 2010. That is a staggeringly
important announcement, not just for the research community
but for our entire quality of life. The government made that
commitment and I am enormously proud of it.
We also made a commitment to bring broadband access to all homes
by 2004. I am sure a lot of people do not know what that means.
It is an enormously important commitment, one that says we will
all have high speed broadband, wideband access to our homes.
Everyone talks about getting television on their computers.
That is a very small part of what it means. It means having the
power to drive the kind of interfaces needed in order to have
user friendly access so we can take advantage of the services
which can be made available with the new information and
technologies. It means we can literally talk to our television
sets and order whatever we want by voice. It means my mother and
grandmother can interact with the technology. It is shatteringly
important and I am surprised we made it. It will take a lot of
effort to get there.
I represent the University of Manitoba, one of the best
universities in the world and certainly an important resource in
my community. There are commitments around research and
development, broadband access and registered learning accounts.
We talked about this as being the knowledge economy and the need
for lifelong learning. The government has now put its resources
behind that. We are giving people an opportunity to retrain,
build their skills and invest in their own futures. It is an
incredibly important initiative and one that I am sorry was not
debated more wholesomely during the election.
I will focus on one set of issues because I have such limited
time. Each time I run for election I come back here and set my
own agenda in addition to the ones that I have committed to with
my constituents during the campaign. We have some local
infrastructure, an underpass and urban transit that we are going
to work on. I see that reflected in the Speech from the Throne.
My big passion is the whole business of what is euphemistically
called e-government, the adaptation by government of the
information and communications technologies that have become so
pervasive in the private sector. Either Gates or Michael Dell
said that the Internet changes everything. We are just beginning
to realize how true that is and what a profound change is going
on.
If we look back at what has happened in the private sector with
large corporations and all the talk about downsizing,
rightsizing, flattening, speeding up and the customer is king,
all the stuff that has taken place in the last decade and a half,
there have been enormous and profound changes in the way
businesses do business. The world has speeded up. Bill Gates
calls this decade the decade of velocity. The skill necessary
now is how to deal in a world that is moving faster and faster.
Government will have to get there and learn how to live in that
world.
Whether we want to or not, we are going to evolve from a
structure of government that is hierarchical and based on
traditional methods of accountability and department structure
into a more network form of government. We are interacting on a
very immediate basis with the levels of government and citizens
in ways that are just unprecedented. We have to get our heads
around that and start thinking about what this means for our
role.
If we change the structure and operations of government we
cannot help but affect the accountability mechanisms, the
governance.
We cannot change the way in which information flows in a
government and not affect the way that decisions are made.
1030
I do not have a particular passion for parliamentary reform. It
is not the thing that drives me. However I see some portions of
parliamentary reform as being critically important to advance the
rate at which we adapt new technologies and the way in which our
government will change.
It is important that Canada lead that change. We go back and
forth in that leadership position around the world, but other
governments in the industrialized world such as Japan and
Australia are making some important strides right now.
I want to sound a note of caution. There is a commitment in the
Speech from the Throne to bring forward a review and a redrafting
of the existing privacy legislation. This will be a critically
important debate, one to which we need to pay a lot of attention
and one that I am concerned about.
Privacy is a right. It is not just a right in the charter but
it is a right that the supreme court has read into the charter.
It is a right that we all exercise. I am a little tired of
people talking about customers, that we will move to a customer
style of government. This is nonsense.
It has been tried around the world. It has failed all over the
place because it fails to recognize the fact that I may be a
customer of government in a few transactions but I am a citizen
of Canada all the time and as a citizen I have rights. The
government is accountable to me as a citizen. One of the ways I
exercise that right is in the way it respects me and the way it
treats the information that it has about me.
At the same time there are huge values to be gained as a citizen
by allowing the government to accumulate information to better
serve me and to better understand how government functions and
how society functions.
At the heart of that is privacy legislation. Currently it
is being worked on by a committee of bureaucrats. I am sure they
are bright and beautiful people. However this is a bill that
must be crafted on the floor of the Chamber by all of us. This
is a bill that concerns the rights of all of us. It is something
that we must be very involved in. We cannot let it go through
the House simply because it has received the stamp of approval of
the executive.
In conclusion, I wish all members well. I think it will be an
extremely interesting few years in which we can make some major
improvements.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague's
speech very carefully. I certainly agreed with him when he
talked about how unfortunate it was that the election campaign
was very vicious and dirty. Probably members from all parties
would agree with that. I noted that he singled out one or two
people as deserving some criticism in that regard.
I remind the hon. member with all due respect that his leader,
the Prime Minister of Canada, who at the start of the election
campaign referred to my party, the Canadian Alliance, as the
forces of darkness. That kicked off the campaign and started us
down the road of everybody tearing at each other.
All Canadians were absolutely embarrassed for the Prime Minister
in the dying days of the campaign when he was in Atlantic Canada.
He referred to the fact that he liked to do politics in the east
because he did not understand westerners. I think he said
they were different. Then he said that he was kidding and then
that he was actually serious.
Did the hon. member make a note of that fact? Has he had a
chance to talk to his leader to find out whether the Prime
Minister was kidding or was he serious in the way he feels about
westerners?
Mr. Reg Alcock: Mr. Speaker, I will resist the urge to
play with this response. I have never been embarrassed by the
Prime Minister, and I am a westerner.
The things that I talked about in my speech, which I think are so
important to the future of this country, are there because of the
Prime Minister's willingness to listen and work on these issues.
1035
I did single out one party. It is possible for us to constantly
spend our time in this Chamber looking at that little phrase that
each one of us will misspeak at some time or another and pounce
on it saying that this is what we mean. The reason I singled out
the leader of the Conservative Party was that was the first set
of deliberate insults and deliberate fabrications that were put
on public record in the first set of ads. I think that is
different from debate where we get into pulling out those little
twists.
I recently wrote a paper on communication. It is very difficult
for us, as politicians, to communicate because we are so used to
listening to a person on the other side just long enough to find
that phrase that we can flip back at them in order to discredit
what they are saying. We do not listen to what they are talking
about and that soon becomes the way we function. We never really
hear what we are saying.
I dismiss that part of the debate. However, I do think there
were some deliberate acts that did not serve all of us very well.
There has been a concern about the drop in voter turnout, but I
think that has less to do with disinterest on the part of
Canadians and more to do with disgust in this last process.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the speech by
my colleague, particularly the matter of electronic government.
We do have at our disposal an extraordinary new tool in the new
technologies and the Internet, but this is a tool that can have
both positive and negative effects.
We see what I would term the pre-generation of what the federal
government is doing with these tools, for example the HRDC
scandal and the cross-referencing with Revenue Canada of data on
unemployed travellers, without any prior authorization.
I know the hon. member was on a fact-finding tour across Canada
on this and there will be a Canada-wide conference. I would like
to know from the hon. member if our duty as parliamentarians is
to act as true watchdogs in order to ensure that these tools do
not merely become tools of the high bureaucracy in order to
control the system, and to ensure that democracy gains from
them, rather than losing?
[English]
Mr. Reg Alcock: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
interest and his assistance to us in meetings with the Quebec
government on this very important issue.
Value will come from the ability to accumulate data. What HRD
did is something that we would like to see happen again. We want
to put proper safeguards and controls in place so that people
understand what is happening and have the right to interact.
However the member is absolutely right to identify it as an
important issue. It is critical that all members of the House
get involved in this debate in the next couple of years. If they
want to learn about it, they can attend a conference at the end
of March.
[Translation]
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first of all, allow me to congratulate you on your appointment.
I would also like to congratulate you and your family,
especially your son Chad Kilger, who plays for the Montreal
Canadians and was yesterday selected his club's player of the
month for the province of Quebec and Canada,
I would like to thank those who re-elected me this past November
27. We had a good campaign. The riding of
Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik is, I would remind hon. members, the
biggest riding in all of Canada. It extends over more than
800,000 square kilometres and has a population of 100,000.
I dedicated this election to my wife, Diane St-Julien, who has
been following me and helping me through the last three mandates
and who will continue to do so in this one. I also thank my
daughter, Sonya-Kim St-Julien, who, for the last four elections,
has been giving me advice on communications.
I wish to thank the voters of the large riding of
Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik for giving me a fourth majority, in all
of the riding's 68 polls. My hometown is the municipality of
Val-d'Or, but I also represent a community located in Nunavik,
2,000 kilometres north of it, called Salluit.
I thank the Inuit from Nunavik, the Cree from James Bay, the
Algonquin, the Algonquin communities and the other residents of
my riding for this great victory, and particularly thanks to our
leader, the Prime Minister of Canada and Liberal member for
Saint-Maurice.
1040
In the throne speech, we were told that a better future awaits
us. We must put forward a project that will not leave anyone
behind. Above all, we must set priorities and draft a specific
plan. This is what was done in the red book during the last
election campaign.
We realize that, during an election campaign, we must face a
number of political parties. A 30 day election campaign is fair
ball. There are pros and cons. Some people have claimed that my
election on June 2, 1997, was a historical aberration. This is
not so: it was my mother's birthday on that day.
The member who claimed that there was a historical aberration
the day of my election has seen that we have fixed that
aberration, as I was re-elected on November 27. All of that to
say that the member who made the statement in my riding was
wrong again.
In any case, what are we concerned about today? The specific
plan of the Liberal government, with our Prime Minister at its
head and the new options available to us, be they innovation,
learning skills, connecting Canadians or trade and investment.
The Liberal government is providing prospects for children,
families, health and quality care, a healthy environment, strong
and safe communities, a dynamic Canadian culture and most
importantly new windows of opportunity for us internationally.
In a large riding such as Abitibi, we are concerned with the
price of metals in the mining sector. We have gold, copper,
palladium and vanadium. There has been a price war for the past
three years. The price of gold was always pegged at under $300
and rose above it only once. Cambior, a company recognized
worldwide, got it because gold was sold on option.
The throne speech calls for building our health care system.
Last September, in an effort to modernize our system, the
Liberal government gave the provinces an extra $21.2 billion
over five years. At issue is better meeting the needs of
Canadians. This is a priority, which received much attention
during the election, and today we hear mention of it again.
What is important? Not treating people in hospital as clients.
Those sick in hospital must be treated as human beings.
Together with the provinces, we must find solutions. That is
what is important.
In addition, we must give thought to creating a registered
individual learning account for employees, help Canadians
establish a training plan and find the necessary funding. For
those aged 45 to 50 who have lost their job, new ways must be
found to enable them to return to the labour market.
What is important in recent years is that our government, with
its expertise, has run this country with all members of the
House and has paid down the debt, given fair tax breaks, and
invested in health, in research and innovation, in families and
children and in the protection of the environment.
On the topic of research and innovation, we know that in a
remote area such as Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, considerable money
is needed to help universities and cegeps. The rector of the
Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue, in Rouyn-Noranda,
has submitted projects involving primarily forestry in the Amos
region.
For Val-d'Or, the focus was on underground communications and
multimedia, and for Rouyn-Noranda, on various other areas.
The important thing is that we need this money to boost
research, particularly in a riding where natural resources are
so important, whether in mining or forestry. We have trouble
getting secondary and tertiary manufacturing going.
Be that as it may, in the coming months and years we will
improve prospects for people in our region. The government will
work closely with the private sector to offer broadband high
speed access to citizens, businesses, educational institutions
and all communities, particularly in a region such as ours,
which takes in northern Quebec, Nunavik and James Bay.
The government plans to introduce communications. Recently, we
have seen Bell Canada double its telecommunication rates in
Nunavik. Why? The company told the Inuit and those working in
this sector that, now that too many people were using the
Internet, it would double their rates in order to lower rates
for Internet users.
1045
That is a good one on Bell Canada. It is doing a great deal of
harm in Nunavik, and the people do not find it amusing, since
they are the ones having to pay.
It is also important for new approaches to be found. I strongly
believe that the government, via the minister responsible for
the economic development of Quebec or via Industry Canada, is
going to put new methods into place to help northern Quebec,
James Bay and Nunavik.
What is important in our area is health, quality health care in
particular. We know that we need to work hard in conjunction
with the governments, the government of Quebec in particular, to
find physicians. We also need to improve the situation of
hospitals and to add to the numbers of nurses in a region as
large as ours.
We must speak of Nunavik, because it must be kept in mind that
the Inuit pay taxes just like southerners do. Recently I
spoke with the President of Makivik corporation, Mr. Pita
Aatami. He said that new ways must be found to help the
hospitals administered by Kativik corporation, by the Nunavik health board,
and improvements must be made in order to attract nurses.
What is important is to work very hard in this House in order to
be accountable to the taxpayers, to the people in that great
riding, to Quebec and to Canada.
We must plan in order to reduce taxes, move toward a new economy
and strengthen our communities.
[English]
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member is interested in the country's current equalization
formula because he is from Quebec and Quebec is a recipient of
equalization payments. The current equalization formula keeps a
province from drowning but falls far short in that it never gives
a province the wherewithal to swim on its own.
As a member from Quebec, a province that receives equalization
payments, how would he feel about a change in the current
equalization formula to recognize that some provinces need a leg
up to develop their natural resources?
[Translation]
Mr. Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent question. In
Quebec, we have equalization payments and tax points. Also, we
must file two tax returns, a provincial one and a federal one.
Transfers will always be an issue. Let us not forget that under
the equalization program there are rich provinces and poor
provinces.
For a number of years, even Quebec had a deficit in the
employment insurance sector of some three of four billion
dollars. Who helped us? It was the other provinces. There is
always room for improvement of the equalization program, but
always in co-operation with the current government of Quebec.
We know the Quebec Liberal Party, through the Hon. Jean
Charest, made proposals regarding equalization and the handing
over of tax points to the province. We are waiting to see what
will come out of these proposals.
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to ask the hon. member if he is aware of the impact on his
riding of the changes to the employment insurance program. I am
convinced that he is pleased to see that the government has
already introduced the new employment insurance bill. I would
like to know the impact of these changes on his riding.
Mr. Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member.
Employment insurance is indeed an important issue in my region.
Seasonal workers in a large ridings such as ours are like those
from the Atlantic region, whether they work in mining or several
other industries.
Bill C-2 has been introduced. There is always room for
improvement.
1050
We know that the standards come from a committee of the
commission, which comprises management and unionized employees.
What is important? Finding the right solutions. Requests come
into my office either from Laurier Gilbert, from Val d'Or, or
the Regroupement des chômeurs et chômeuses, wanting to appear
before the standing committee.
It is also important to look at both sides of the coin.
A few years ago there were people using unemployment insurance
in the last four months of the year, because during the year
they had earned their full salary on Saturdays and Sundays
earning double time and double time and a half. When they saw
they were going to pay too much income tax, they went on
unemployment. It was very easy to do so back then.
There are employers back home who say to me “With the new
reform, we get more”. Back home, Bélanger Électrique said “I am
happy with this, because the electricians come to us. Before we
never saw them in construction”. The same is true for PLC in
Senneterre, which does not have mechanics any more. The mechanics
went off for three months. We knew it, it was not a secret,
some of them went off hunting and fishing and so on over the
holidays.
The system has to be improved and together, before the standing
committee, we will find solutions. Together with the
government in office is the way to improve things for people.
In any case, what counts is keeping permanent jobs.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I know the House will join with me in offering
congratulations to you on your position. We all know that the
House is in very good hands.
I will be splitting my time with the member for
Souris—Moose Mountain.
I want to take this opportunity to offer my sincere thanks to
the people of the riding of Medicine Hat who once again elected
me to be their representative in Ottawa. It is really a great
honour. I also want to say a special thanks to my family: to my
wife Deb and my boys, Matthew and Michael, without whose
indulgence it would be impossible to do this job.
I am the foreign affairs critic for the Canadian Alliance. My
job is to scrutinize the government's foreign policy and to offer
suggestions on how it might be strengthened.
Today I have just 10 minutes to speak, so an entire survey of
the government's foreign policy is not possible. I will focus
therefore on what I believe to be the most important aspect of
our foreign policy, the complex relationship between Canada and
the United States.
Specifically I wish to offer ways to strengthen that
relationship. First must come a change in attitude. We need to
remind ourselves that every single Canadian benefits from our
relationship with the United States, and not just a little.
Over 40% of Canada's annual wealth is generated by trade, and
80% of that trade is with the United States, a $10 trillion
economy. In other words, trade with the U.S. accounts for about
a third of all the wealth generated in our country every year.
One could imagine the unemployment and cuts to government
services if that wonderful relationship suddenly ended. A strong
relationship with the United States is very much in Canada's
economic interests.
Some people are anxious knowing that President Bush will make
his first foreign trip to Mexico instead of to Canada. They are
worried that Mexico will soon eclipse Canada as America's biggest
trading partner.
I am not troubled per se by Mexico building a stronger
relationship with the United States. More U.S. trade with Mexico
does not necessarily mean less U.S. trade with Canada.
The relationship between Mexico and the United States is
probably underdeveloped and, in my opinion, very much to the
detriment of the Mexican people. I hope both sides of that
relationship prosper because the wealthier they become the
greater the opportunities for Canada.
What troubles me even more is the cavalier and even hostile
attitude some of the Liberals betray toward the long, deep
friendship between Canada and the United States.
More trade between the United States and Mexico is not a threat
to Canada's interests. Undermining, snubbing or picking fights
with the U.S. is a threat to our interests. Nothing can be
gained but much can be lost when prominent members of the
government go out of their way to tweak the noses of the
Americans.
Examples abound. Consider Raymond Chrétien, former Canadian
ambassador to the U.S., and his embarrassing statements last
spring. The ambassador said publicly that the Liberal government
favoured candidate Gore over candidate Bush in the U.S.
presidential election.
Imagine the outcry if that had happened the other way around, if
an American official had consciously interfered in a Canadian
election. Thank goodness the Americans mostly ignored the
government's disregard of the tradition of non-interference in
domestic politics.
1055
A second example occurred in 1999. A suspected Algerian
terrorist making his way from Canada into the United States was
picked up with bomb making equipment in the trunk of his car.
CSIS, our intelligence agency, reports that it is monitoring 50
terrorist organizations that currently operate in Canada. The
Liberal government still largely ignores these U.S. concerns, to
the point where Liberal cabinet ministers, such as the finance
minister, have defended attending a fundraising dinner in Toronto
for a group that CSIS and the U.S. state department have
identified as a front for a terrorist organization.
A third example occurred just recently. Our current foreign
affairs minister, regarding the U.S. proposal for a missile
shield, made the amazing announcement that if President Bush
satisfies the concerns of the Russians and the Chinese then
Canada will be satisfied as well.
When did we decide that Canada's foreign policy would be driven
by the wants of the Russians and the Chinese? I think that is
absolutely ludicrous.
Perhaps the minister needs to be reminded that we are an ally of
the United States, not Russia and China. Perhaps he should
recall that Canada and the U.S. are committed to mutual defence
through NATO and NORAD. Perhaps he needs to recall that the
likely scenario would be a missile coming from across the Pacific
toward North America with the idea being that the U.S. missile
shield would be in place to shoot it down before it reached North
America, something that is definitely in the interest of Canada.
To be sure, questions remain about the effectiveness of that
shield, but it is irresponsible for the minister to dismiss it
out of hand while casting his lot with the Russians and Chinese.
In reviewing the recent record, President Bush might be forgiven
for wondering whether Canada is still the trusted ally that it
once was.
We must do more than quit annoying the Americans and undermining
our relationship. We must put greater effort and resources into
building and improving that relationship. Why should we do that?
We should do it because it is in the interests of Canada. Even a
small percentage of increases in exports to the United States
would result in thousands of new Canadian jobs.
However, the Prime Minister and the Department of Foreign
Affairs would much rather talk about their elaborate efforts to
promote trade with China and Cuba. This is a little more than
ironic because Canada's exports to China have gone down by about
$800 million since the first trade Canada mission a few years
ago.
Meanwhile, our yearly trade with Cuba is $500 million dollars.
We do more trade with the United States in half a day than we do
with Cuba in the entire year. The United States, moreover, is
not a notorious human rights abuser like both China and Cuba.
We need to do much better. First, we should start by forging
much stronger relationships with the Bush administration,
congress and senators. We also need a new initiative to get to
know governors and legislators because they are often the first
to raise issues which can sometimes become full blown trade
disputes.
Second, we need to rebuild our military to more properly fulfil
our NATO and NORAD commitments. A strong and independent foreign
policy requires a strong military behind it.
Third, we need to crack down on terrorist organizations
operating within Canada, not just for our own safety, which is
reason enough, but also so the Americans will ease up on the
restrictions at the Canada-U.S. border that impede trade and
hurts the prosperity of Canadians.
We need to show respect for American concerns if we want them to
respect ours. Nobody doubts that Canada should practice an
independent foreign policy but not one driven by knee-jerk
anti-Americanism.
The guiding principle of foreign policy should be the
deliberate, methodical pursuit of outcomes that are directly
beneficial to Canada. In other words, sometimes we will agree
with the Americans because it is in our economic or security
interests to do so. Other times we will disagree, as we have on
softwood lumber or Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic, again
because it is in our interest to do so.
It is an approach that we have used in the past to build our
reputations as respected, fair and independent players on the
world stage.
1100
In conclusion, I urge the government to pay closer attention to
the critically important relationship with America. In war and
in peace we have worked together to our mutual benefit. A new
administration in Washington means a new chance to build on that
relationship, but it requires a new Canadian attitude free of the
defensiveness that the current Liberal government has so
frequently displayed. What we need is a tough minded, determined
and respectful approach driven by the interests of the Canadian
people.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the remarks of the
member for Medicine Hat with interest. I have two questions for
him.
First, he said that the Alliance Party has a different view from
that of the government about the softwood lumber dispute. I am
wondering what its position might be.
Five years ago the forest industry pleaded and begged the
government for the quota system to manage trade so that they
could get five years of trade peace. In hindsight perhaps it has
not worked, but it was on the basis of the industry's
recommendation that the government proceeded to manage trade. Now
there is talk about free trade in lumber. What is the Alliance's
position on softwood lumber?
Second, the member referred to the social dinner with the Tamil
community in Toronto, a cultural dinner. I think it was $25 a
head, hardly a big fundraiser. I was there with two ministers.
He talks about the Tamil community and sponsoring tourist
activities in Sri Lanka. What about other communities that are
illegally sending money back to their home countries to help
causes? Why is he singling out the Tamil community? Has he some
information that the government does not have?
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, let me answer those
questions in reverse order. I simply point to the CSIS website,
Canada's own intelligence agency, which raises the red flag about
the particular group that sponsored the dinner the finance
minister and the member attended.
This is not information that we exclusively have. If he would
consult his own government then he would find out that there are
concerns about this group. It is not the Tamil community in
general; it is this group. I want to make that very clear.
I do not think it is correct for the member across the way to
misrepresent our position. He has asked for our position on the
issue of softwood lumber. Our position is that we would like to
have free trade with the United States in softwood lumber.
The real question is what is the government's position. We have
the industry minister saying “I think the renewal of the
existing agreement is something that will be part of the mix when
we sit down at the table”. He says that we should renew the
softwood lumber deal, even though the industry does not want it.
The industry is opposed to it but the industry minister wants to
do it.
Meanwhile, the international trade minister says something
different again. Perhaps the member's question should go to his
own ministers. Then he could find out the government's position
from them.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for
Medicine Hat that we need a stronger military in terms of Sea
King replacements, money and compensation benefits for the
valiant men and women in our armed forces.
The feeling that I am getting on this side of the fence is that
a while ago they argued to put Canadian flags on their desks and
now it sounds as if they want to put U.S. flags on their desks.
It is obvious by his comments that Alliance members will support
the nuclear missile defence shield which leads us all down the
path to nuclear madness.
It is also quite obvious by his comments that the Americans plan
to open up the Alaskan oil reserves in Alaska and on the east
coast. President Bush also indicated a year ago that he would
lift the moratorium on the Georges Bank on which Canada has
placed a 12 year moratorium.
Would the member support the lifting of the Alaskan oil reserve,
which has a great effect on our aboriginal people, on the
porcupine caribou herd and on our fishing communities, if the
moratorium is lifted off the Georges Bank?
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, the position of the
Canadian Alliance with respect to all these issues is that we
will do what is in Canada's interest. Because I have not
attacked the United States, my friend has suggested that means we
would put American flags on our desks. It is quite the contrary.
We want to do what is in the best interest of Canada.
Sometimes that means agreeing with the Americans.
Sometimes it means taking the opposite position, such as we are
doing on softwood lumber. I think that is entirely appropriate.
1105
In answer to the question, when the issues become completely
clear, the issues of missile defence, of opening up the refuge in
Alaska and other such issues, the Canadian Alliance will take a
position that favours the interests of Canadians. However, it
will not be the knee-jerk anti-Americanism which unfortunately
characterizes so much of the rhetoric of the NDP.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, this is my first time to speak during
the new session. I congratulate you on occupying the chair and
express my confidence in you.
I have thanked my constituents. It is a rare that they would
ask me to thank some other people, some of whom are in the House.
The hon. member from Winnipeg has already spoken. I always enjoy
what he has to say. He referred to the campaign as being more
than just a bit dirty, but the dirt and the innuendoes actually
helped me.
When I started my campaign my crew knew that I had about 41% of
the vote. Then the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration made
a speech which reached my constituency. It was in the Ottawa
Citizen and stated that I above everyone was
anti-immigration. Those words riled my constituents and I jumped
about 5% in the polls because they knew it was absolutely untrue.
Then one night on television a former premier of the province of
Ontario said that the Alliance in the west could put up a donkey
and get it elected. I know he was talking about me and I will
say why: I am the one with the biggest ears over here.
Immediately I went up another 5%.
Then we had an incident in which a reporter said, and he wishes
he had not said it, that the Ontario vote was a sophisticated
vote. It is, as are the votes in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and
British Columbia, but the tone in which he said that put me up
10%.
By this time my crew estimated that I had 61% of the vote. The
surge in popularity came more from comments that were meant to
degrade me and my efforts in my constituency. Finally, and this
is a little humorous, one of the other candidates accused me of
stealing his platform and that put me over the top.
In a sense I say to people who tried to use a smear campaign
that it blocked hundreds of Canadians from going to the polls in
the last election. If it continues we will have fewer Canadians
exercising their right to vote.
My colleague from Medicine Hat referred to security. I wish to
talk briefly about security at home. He referred to security on
the international level. I know what it is like to look into the
eyes of a child who lives with insecurity. I know what it is
like to look at elderly people who live with insecurity. I
certainly know from the past four years what insecurity means to
my constituents.
I am very proud to be the Department of Veterans Affairs critic.
I say to the government and to this side of the House as well
that if those in veterans affairs knew that the veterans affairs
committee was not an independent committee, I think they would
feel insulted. They would say they have enough on their plates,
enough matters to be discussed, that they should be a separate
committee.
I will ask a question this morning in the House. The very people
providing the security and the freedom we enjoy are now some of
the most forgotten people in Canada, and that ought not to be.
Many veterans out there have not received medals for the various
campaigns they have been in. They have been asking for them for
years. Widows of veterans have been cut off from some of the vet
programs. That ought not to be. Where is their security?
1110
To top it all off, a young fellow in the army reserve came to
me. He volunteered to go overseas to Bosnia and was ordered to
get his passport. When the passport came, unbelievably he had to
pay for it. A man who is volunteering his time to serve with the
Canadian forces had to pay for his passport. I hope he receives
remuneration, but the last I heard he had not.
Let me ask one more question. I believe that a promise made is
a debt unpaid. It is clearly recorded that the government still
owes merchant navy vets some $70 million. I believe that should
be paid and it should be paid now. There was no mention of it in
the throne speech, but I believe it should be paid.
Another forgotten group is grassroots aboriginals. For years
they have been crying out for help, telling us of the fraud, the
theft, the corruption and the mismanagement. These accusations
reach my office and I am sure they reach the offices of members
opposite. These accusations come from rank and file aboriginals.
They are not invented on this side of the House. They have been
crying out for years. I can understand their feeling of
insecurity.
The throne speech indicated that billions will be allotted to
the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I ask
the government, and particularly cabinet, to listen to the rank
and file. Aboriginals should be included so that they have a
degree of security on their own land. They do not now. People
in Regina are on a hunger strike in the hope that the government
will say that enough is enough and bring about security.
Security means fundamental changes. We must respond to the
auditor general. We talk about the inherent right of
self-government, treaty entitlements and land claims which will
bring security to all. However all of the claims mean absolutely
nothing unless we change our approach to accountability for the
common people, the grassroots people.
I want to spend my last two minutes talking about the terrible
insecurity that exists within my constituency and across the
farms of western Canada. Towns and villages are disappearing. On
the main street of my town four businesses have closed. They
will never reopen.
We are watching a whole generation, fourth and fifth generation
Canadians, completely deserting our province because the
government bungles more money than ever got into the hands of the
farmers of western Canada. It has thrown away more money than
will ever go to make agriculture a sustainable industry in
western Canada. We need to provide them with some measure of
security.
In closing, since 1993 the government has deliberately used
alienation to divide Canada and to give it the largest block of
voting. It believes in going ahead and alienating and it can
always be government. That is a national philosophy of which it
should be ashamed.
1115
[Translation]
Hon. Gilbert Normand (Secretary of State (Science, Research and
Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by
congratulating you on your appointment and by thanking all the
people of the big, beautiful riding of
Bellechasse—Etchemins—Montmagny—L'Islet for returning me to the
House. I also wish to thank the Prime Minister for his vote of
confidence by appointing me to the position of Secretary of
State for Science, Research and Development. This morning I
will be sharing my time with the hon. member for
Guelph—Wellington.
As hon. members will no doubt realize, my remarks on the Speech
from the Throne will provide an explanation and support of the
Canadian government's programs to advance science and research
in this country.
In recent years, the Canadian government has made huge efforts
to develop this sector of activity and to make it possible to
enhance the quality of life and standard of living of all of our
citizens. Research councils, which we call funding bodies, have
been put in place, such as the Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council of Canada, created in 1978 out of the National
Research Council, and the Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council, which has its roots in the Canada Council.
More recently, we established the Canada Foundation for
Innovation in 1998, Genome Canada in 1999 and the university
chairs in 2000. In the year 2000, we also gave strong support
to environmental research.
The government's intention in focusing so much effort on R and D is
aimed at national and international objectives, along with what
I would term security and ethical ones.
Foremost among the mandates is to keep our research scientists
in Canada and not to see them leaving for other countries. As
well, we want to attract foreign researchers of international
repute.
Canada has set itself the policy goal of moving from 15th
ranking internationally in R and D to 5th within 10 years. That is
why there is a clear indication in the Speech from the Throne
and in the Prime Minister's speech that the emphasis will be on
innovation, research and development, and we shall be doubling
the budgets devoted to this over the next ten years.
Our universities need substantial support.
The Canadian Foundation for Innovation has made new funding
available and this has led to agreements with the provinces and
private sector for additional and increasingly innovative
research in our universities. However more work remains to be done,
particularly with respect to support for indirect costs.
I must also tell the House that Quebec's universities are going
to need some very tangible support, particularly with the
about face by Quebec's Minister of Education this week.
With respect to research being carried out in our hospitals with
funding from both by the Canadian Foundation for Innovation and
our granting councils, many of our hospitals have actually
acquired international reputations in research.
Some of this research has resulted in the development of drugs
now recognized throughout the world.
There are various approaches to research in Canada. The
government has its own in-house research centres, such as those
in the Departments of Agriculture, Natural Resources, the
Environment, and Fisheries and Oceans. All these research
centres are now in the process of restructuring so as to meet
the needs of industry in the various sectors concerned. The
primary purpose of this research, as I mentioned, is to give
citizens access to quality products, new drugs and new
technologies, whether in transportation, environmental
monitoring, agriculture or food.
1120
This research is vital to our economic and social development.
It is also designed to maintain Canada's credibility in the
international scientific community.
We are working closely with a number of countries. In his
economic statement last October, the Minister of Finance
announced an additional $100 million for the Canadian Foundation
for Innovation for collaborative international research projects .
The Canada Foundation for Innovation, which was given that
mandate, wants to establish three or four major research centres
in our country, where researchers from abroad can work in
co-operation with our own scientists.
The foundation also wants to set up a program to allow Canadian
researchers to work abroad with researchers from other
countries.
The important thing regarding our investments is that they are
profitable in the sense that we have partners who come to work
with us. Genome Canada, among others, was set up barely a year
ago with a budget of $160 million and has already collected $240
million from the provinces, not counting the money that will
come from the private sector for genetic research.
These initiatives, which we want to further develop and even
double in the coming years, are not only useful but
indispensable to our country's development and, as I said
earlier, to improving the quality of life of our fellow
citizens.
Various types of research are conducted in co-operation. For
instance, for the space agency, France, Canada and the United
States are co-operating regarding telescopes set up in Hawaii.
This is currently giving an incredible boost to astronomical
research.
Beyond the money aspect, the Canadian government will also have
to concentrate on issues of safety and ethics.
As people know, a lot of discussions are going on, primarily on
biotechnological research. There is the whole issue of research
on human embryos, on human cloning, organ culture and genetic
properties. All of this must be debated and mechanisms must be
put in place to do so.
Personally, I am currently working on creating what I call—but
which will probably not be its final name—a national academy of
sciences. Canada is the only country of the G8 without such a
body, which would be independent and could provide expert
opinions, which would be available to the population at large.
We are currently working to set up federal-provincial discussions
on science, research and development.
In the coming month, the first federal-provincial science
ministers meeting will very likely be held.
At the moment, Canada's scientific influence abroad is growing
with our researchers. Discussions with the Minister for
International Trade are increasing. I myself, as the Secretary
of State for Science, Research and Development, have already had
three meetings with the Carnegie group, which brings together
the ministers of science of all the G-8 countries. The next
meeting of this type will be held in Quebec, most likely
in Montmagny itself.
The efforts that went into the throne speech for science,
research and development are not only justified but
indispensable. I want to congratulate my colleagues on their
support and I thank them for seeing the importance of developing
this sector of activity.
[English]
Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
During my speech I inadvertently used the wrong figure when I was
pleading for the government to return the money owing to the
merchant marines. I should have said $10 million. I think I
said $70 million.
* * *
1125
[Translation]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice,
statements pursuant to Standing Order 31 may be made this day
from 1:55 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. and, after 2:10 p.m. a Minister of
the Crown may be permitted to make a statement pursuant to the
said standing order.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
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 of Canada in reply to her
speech at the opening of the session, and of the amendment.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the House today,
following the speech by the member for
Bellechasse—Etchemins—Montmagny—L'Islet. I have two questions for
him.
The first concerns research and development. I agree that some
of the Canadian Foundation for Innovation projects have produced
some interesting results. For example, I know that the Centre
spécialisé de technologie physique du Québec, in La Pocatière,
received funding.
I would like the hon. member to tell me whether his vision
encompasses a sufficient share of R and D investment both for
Quebec and for areas outside the major centres, be they in
Quebec or elsewhere.
As we know, the trend in this field is to create centres in
order to create synergy, but often there is a natural attraction
toward the major centres. There has been a tradition of
research in certain areas for years. For instance, the centre
in La Pocatière benefited from the support of an experimental
farm for some years. Unfortunately, it was closed in 1994 as a
result of cuts. Since then, however, new areas of activity have
been developed in fields related to technology, mass transit and
all manner of other areas.
Does the hon. member think Quebec is getting its fair share?
What about the regions? When I see the number of federal
research centres that are located in the Ottawa region compared
to Quebec, I feel there is a very considerable disproportion.
My second question deals with an issue which must be of concern
to the hon. member. During the election campaign, it was said
that there would be other changes to employment insurance in
addition to those contained in the former Bill C-44. Now Bill
C-2 has just been introduced and it is Bill C-44 all over again.
During the campaign, the Prime Minister stated that certain
problems, certain major shortcomings in the plan needed to be
corrected. The Secretary of State for Amateur Sport and the
Minister of Public Works and Government Services, who is also
the minister responsible for Quebec, suggested that other
improvements needed to be made. I know as well that the hon.
member for Bellechasse—Etchemins—Montmagny—L'Islet, with whom I
participated in a debate on this issue during the campaign, has
indicated a desire for such openness.
Can he explain to us why the government has not immediately
brought in other modifications? Does he believe it is possible
for additional improvements to indeed be added through the work
of the committee, and for the terrible clause trying to legalize
the misappropriation of the employment insurance fund surplus to
be eliminated?
Hon. Gilbert Normand: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon.
member for his very pertinent questions.
As for his first question concerning the Canada Foundation for
Innovation, this is a first because the foundation is investing
not only in universities, but also in colleges. In fact, the
Collège La Pocatière, located in the hon. member's riding,
benefited from such subsidies, as did Cégep Lévis—Lauzon and
several other cégeps in various regions.
I must also point out that one of our priorities is to
demonstrate that research can be conducted in rural areas when
the so-called critical mass is not indispensable to such
research.
I can give the hon. member several examples of what has been
done in recent months.
There has been, among other initiatives, the marine science park
in Rimouski, the de-icing operations in Chicoutimi, some
composite materials in Sherbrooke and, just recently, the
establishment of the aluminum research centre in the
Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region.
This area is indeed a government priority. I could add that in
Rouyn—Noranda there is a research program on pain and various
other initiatives. So, this is indeed a government priority.
1130
In my opinion, Quebec is getting its fair share and even more
than its fair share. In recent years it has received over 30%
of all the subsidies given across the country.
One must not only look at the research centres located in Ottawa
to determine what is being done across the country, and
particularly in Quebec, regarding research and sport subsidies.
When the granting councils and the foundation select projects,
that process is conducted by experts and is not dependent on any
geographical consideration. It is innovation that counts. Quebec
is very innovative, and it gets its fair share.
As for employment insurance, the bill was tabled in its original
form, as we said it would. It was referred to a parliamentary
committee. It would have been ill-advised on the government's
part not to leave it to members of parliament to propose
amendments, and I am convinced that the hon. member opposite
will propose amendments.
[English]
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I take this opportunity to congratulate you. You look
great in the chair.
I am pleased to rise today to take part in the debate on the
Speech from the Throne. I thank the people of Guelph—Wellington
for re-electing me for a third term as their member of
parliament. It is an honour and a privilege to stand here as
their representative. I promise to do all that I can to ensure
that their voices are heard in the Chamber and across the land.
The Speech from the Throne sets the course for the future. It
outlines the government's vision for Canada. It explains how we
will create opportunity for all Canadians in the 21st century. By
working together to implement this moderate and balanced plan,
all Canadians, men, women and children, will have the opportunity
to be the best that they can be in the best country in the world.
Personally I am proud of our achievements as a government over
the past seven or eight years, and this plan builds on those
accomplishments. We will continue to table balanced budgets, to
pay down the debt, to cut taxes fairly, to invest in health care
and social programs, to encourage research and innovation, to
protect our environment and to help Canadian families.
The Speech from the Throne will have a very real impact in my
riding of Guelph—Wellington. In order for Canada to continue to
be a world leader in terms of innovation and entrepreneurship, we
have to create opportunities for bright minds to learn and share
their knowledge.
Some of the nation's brightest minds study and teach at the
University of Guelph. The university and our community will
benefit from the federal government's commitment to work with
other public and private partners and to encourage research and
development.
We will at least double the current federal investment in R and
D by 2010. We will strengthen the research capacity of our
universities, government laboratories and institutions. We will
accelerate our ability to commercialize research discoveries.
Many of these are made at the University of Guelph.
For example, the Yukon Gold potato was developed by Dr. Gary
Johnston, an employee of Agriculture Canada, doing research at
the University of Guelph. We will also support more
collaborative international research at the frontiers of
knowledge.
The University of Guelph, which is well known for its roots in
the farming community in Guelph—Wellington as a whole, and
Canadians from coast to coast will all benefit from the federal
government's commitment to helping our agriculture sector move
beyond crisis management. Together we will work toward more
genuine diversification and value added growth, new investments,
better land use and high standards of environment stewardship.
I am pleased to see the commitment to our farmers and their
families. Our agricultural community helped to make Canada what
it is today, and we must give it the tools it needs to continue
to grow and prosper. Mr. Speaker, as our whip you talked a lot
about having a tool box with tools in it so that people could
achieve their full potential.
While the well-being of our agricultural community is a concern
in Guelph—Wellington, so too is the state of our health care
system. In the Speech from the Throne our government reaffirms
our commitment to upholding the Canada Health Act. We will work
with the provinces to ensure that all governments continue to
fulfil their commitment to the principle of medicare.
We will work to help Canadians maintain a healthy lifestyle by
encouraging physical fitness, combating substance abuse and
tobacco consumption, and promoting mental health.
1135
In order for Canadians to have confidence in our health care
system they need to understand how it is run. To this end we
will create a citizen's council on health care quality to provide
perspective on relevant and meaningful measures of how our health
care is performing.
We will also encourage active minds by creating registered
individual learning accounts to make it easier for Canadians to
plan for and to finance their education. We will improve loans
for part time students and provide support for young people who
have difficulty staying in school or getting their first job.
As the former chair of the Guelph—Wellington County Literacy
Council, I am pleased to announce that the federal government
will invite the provinces, territories and other parties to
launch a national initiative to increase adult literacy.
In the new knowledge economy it is no longer enough to be
literate. Canadians must also be computer literate to succeed.
The path to national prosperity and personal opportunity travels
the Internet. The federal government is committed to building a
fast lane for Canada on the information highway by giving
Canadians the skills and opportunities they need to become the
most Internet savvy people in the world so that we can compete to
win.
We will make the Government of Canada the most connected
government in the world to its citizens. We will help entire
communities go on line and create the framework needed to make
Canada a world leader in e-commerce. Getting Canadians on line
will not only help connect us to the world but also to each
other. We can learn so much about each other if children in
Whitehorse can chat on line with students in Gander, Drumheller,
Guelph or Halton.
Canada cannot succeed in the knowledge economy unless we prepare
our children for success. To this end we will build on our
efforts to eliminate child poverty. We will develop new measures
to help single parents overcome poverty and to create a better
future for their families. We will work with the provinces to
modernize laws for child support, custody and access, and to
ensure they work in the best interests of the children in cases
of family breakdown.
Guelph—Wellington has always been especially concerned with
helping our children and with ensuring that they inherit a clean,
safe country. We all need clean air to breathe, clean water to
drink and natural spaces to enjoy.
The Speech from the Throne commits the federal government to
implementing the smog emissions reduction agreement signed with
the United States to reduce vehicle emissions by 90%. We will do
our part to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
We will develop stronger national guidelines for water quality
and fund improvements to municipal water and waste systems. We
will invest in the creation of new national parks and make our
existing parks ecologically healthy. We will strengthen laws to
safeguard Canadians from toxic substances.
To ensure our communities are safe we will continue to implement
a balanced approach to crime, focusing on prevention and on
punishment. We will take aggressive steps to combat organized
crime. We will reintroduce legislation dealing with young
offenders.
On a final note of good news for Guelph—Wellington, the Speech
from the Throne includes a commitment to helping our municipal
and provincial partners improve public transit infrastructure. We
will stimulate the creation of more affordable rental housing,
for which there is a very real and urgent need in my riding and
in many other ridings across Canada. My colleague from Halton
and I were just speaking of the homeless issue and the things
that we need to do and have done as a government to help in that
area.
The issues are wide and broad and the needs are great, but the
government has worked hard to have a balanced platform. We will
continue on that path to do the right thing for all Canadians.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments of the member
opposite. There were a couple of points I would like her to
address that she did not mention.
1140
She mentioned that one issue addressed in the throne speech was
the commitment by the government to bring the agricultural
community further than crisis management. I would like to
suggest to her that the program to get money out to the farmers
with low incomes in disaster situations has not worked. Only 50%
of the money has been disbursed. Does she have any comments on
what the government will do to get that money out faster?
Spring seeding is coming. Many people in my riding and across
Canada from coast to coast are having trouble in the agricultural
sector to meet their needs. I wonder if the comments in the
throne speech, which say that tools will be given to get our
agricultural community past this crisis and into other areas,
mean that the government will try to help farmers to get off the
land instead of help them to stay there. If that is the approach
the government is taking it is on the wrong track.
We need to do something immediately to get these funds off
cabinet table and on to the kitchen tables across Canada. Would
the member comment on what she will do about that?
A joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons met to
deal with the parenting issue when families break up. This has
been on the table now for about two years. The justice minister
said she would not look at it for another two years.
This issue needs to be addressed. Many Canadians are coming to
my office asking questions on it. They must be coming to the
member's office as well. Would she comment on the government's
slow approach in dealing with it?
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: Mr. Speaker, let me assure my
colleague that the government believes in the family farm. There
is no question we are committed to it. We also believe as a
government in a safe, affordable food supply.
When we look across the world we see people in food lines. They
line up for hours for a quart of milk or a loaf of bread. As
much as 85% or 90% of their money goes toward that food supply
and they are still hungry. We have none of this in Canada. This
has been because the government has been committed to the family
farm. This has been because we believe that we need to have
safe, affordable food for all.
I will not stand before the House today and say there are no
problems in agriculture. There are many problems. Since the
government was first elected in 1993 it has increased the safety
net by 85%. That is an important point, but there is no doubt
there continue to be problems in the trade area.
Last night the Prime Minister talked to the new president of the
United States about this issue, which tells me that we are
continuing to work on it. Perhaps my colleague would like to
infer that by the wave of a magic wand everything will be okay.
That is not possible. We have to continually work at problems in
balance, and that is what we intend to do.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the hon.
member. For her to stand in the House of Commons and say that
the Liberal Party cares about the family farmer is simply not on.
It is simply ridiculous.
The facts are that 22,000 farm families left the farm last year
in western Canada alone. Those are the facts. They are
undeniable. When we speak to the children on the prairies about
whether they are interested in the farming community, they say
they want nothing to do with farms. Who does she think will be
the farmers that will feed Canadians in the future?
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: Mr. Speaker, the government has
continually been focused on a direction to help farmers. All
things are not perfect. I will not stand here and say to my
colleague that they are.
In January I met with about 50 commodity groups. All things are
not bleak in all areas. We have some areas of farming that are
experiencing very tough times right now. The government is
committed to the family farm and a safe, affordable food supply.
1145
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to respond to the
throne speech. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member
for Calgary East.
I thank all the residents of Saanich—Gulf Islands for doing me
the great honour of re-electing me to the House of Commons to
represent them. I also thank my wife and my family, who have
stood beside me for the last three and a half years and who are
so important to me in doing this job.
I am the international trade critic for the Canadian Alliance,
while my colleague from Lethbridge deals with the agricultural
issues in international trade. It is difficult to get into all
of the issues, but there are some that are very important and I
will focus on those.
I was encouraged to hear in the throne speech that the
government will work toward creating a free trade area of the
Americas. Canada can be number one of the Americas if we put our
minds to it, if we work together, and if we put policies forward
to ensure that we have free trade.
Parliament has been sitting for only a little over a week since
the last election, but I have to admit that I find some of the
comments coming from the government and its cabinet ministers
quite alarming. I will focus on those.
Two issues are very important to Canada on the international
trade front. One is the softwood lumber agreement with our
friends to the south, the Americans, which expires next month and
which is very important. At present, Canada has $1.2 billion in
trade every day with the Americans. Over $10 billion a year is
traded in softwood lumber. The industry is very important to
Canada's economy. There are thousands of jobs at stake.
Yesterday as we were trying to put forward our concern about
being in sync and having a unified position, in response to a
question the Deputy Prime Minister maintained that “there is no
threat or action on countervail against Canada on this matter”.
That is the whole issue.
This issue has been before the U.S. senate, while in January
Ottawa launched a challenge to a U.S. law which states that
countervail duties are non-refundable even if the Americans lose
a WTO challenge on countervail action. That law is seen as an
incentive for the U.S. government to impose countervail duties
even when an action is not likely to be upheld by the WTO. Our
own people in the international trade department, our own trade
officials, conceded that they expect the United States to
immediately begin action to impose duties on Canadian lumber once
the deal expires on April 1. This issue puts thousands of jobs
at stake right across Canada. I ask the government to look at
this.
To his credit, the international trade minister seems to be
saying the right things. He is saying that he wants to let the
agreement expire, which is the position of the Canadian Alliance.
The member for Vancouver Island North has done a lot of work on
this file and he has advocated this for the last year. Do we
need to let this expire? Do we want to get to free market
trading with the United States on softwood lumber? Canada has to
aggressively go after this.
We want to let this agreement expire, but the Minister of
Industry has come out with a position in which he says “I think
the renewal of the existing agreement is something that will be
part of the mix when we sit down at the table”. Canadians do not
want that. Industry does not want that. The international trade
minister does not want that.
Yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister waded into this debate by
saying there was no threat of countervail duties. That is
exactly the threat we could face from the U.S. Canada has to
take a very strong position.
1150
Hopefully members of cabinet will sit down and decide that there
is only one position, not three, and that they can speak with a
unified voice on this matter. I do find it alarming that the
Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday there is no threat. In
fact, right out of the U.S. senate, this is exactly what they are
threatening to do. At the confirmation hearings of Robert
Zoellick, the U.S. trade representative, the Americans said that
this is the most important issue between our two countries and
that they want him to make it his first priority after his
confirmation. Again I ask the government to look at this.
There is another issue we need to bring up as we go to a free
trade agreement with the Americas, if that is our goal. We are
now engaged in a dispute with Brazil over Embraer. Canada has
gone to the World Trade Organization. Last year it won that
case. In December the World Trade Organization gave Canada the
option of imposing sanctions against Brazil as the only way to
fight this measure, but to date Canada has done absolutely
nothing.
Again I am concerned, in that we want to enter into free trade
agreements with the Americas, which I absolutely 100% endorse,
but even in the dispute we have now with Brazil, Canada is not
acting with the tools available under the rules of the World
Trade Organization. We have been one of the principle proponents
of these tools and have advocated for them, yet we have not been
using them. I find that alarming.
As we go toward free trade agreements, Canada enjoys a very
strong trading relationship with the United States, $1.2 billion
in trade every day. The U.S. is our most important trading
partner. Over 80% of Canada's trade is with the United States.
There is no question, I would argue, that we have been considered
one of the favourites of the United States and vice versa. We
have done a lot of trade with them. That is about to change.
There is the new administration in Mexico under Vicente Fox and
the new administration under President Bush, and President Bush
has made it very clear that he is looking to expand trade
throughout the Americas.
International trade amounts to 40% of the wealth created in
Canada. It is so critical to our economy and, if we are not
completely on the ball, we could be left behind in this evolving
free trade area. Brazil will play a role. We know Mexico will
be at the table in a major way and will become a very powerful
trading partner in the Americas. It is important for Canada to
get a very strong trade policy and aggressively pursue it, not
just with the United States but with Mexico and the states
throughout Central and South America.
With regard to the actions we have seen from the government in
the last week, I am not sure if the government members are really
sitting down and getting their position right or if they are all
jockeying to see who can get out of cabinet first to get in front
of the cameras. It is alarming when one says one thing and one
says another. The headlines in every major paper across the
country last week said that the Minister of Industry and the
Minister for International Trade are fighting over who gets
control of this file. Quite frankly, Canadians really do not
care who is in charge of the file; they just want to make sure
that someone is and that Canada has a unified voice.
My colleagues and I, throughout this parliament, will look at
all government policies and put forward constructive options that
we believe will advance Canada's position in the international
trade market. I believe Canada can be number one if we have the
courage to stand up to all these other nations, to make sure that
Canada is on the forefront of these free trade agreements and to
actively pursue them.
1155
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate and was interested in the hon. member's comment about
the importance of trade and relations between our country and the
United States. I agree that they are very important. Clearly
the United States is our most important trading partner as well
as our close friend and neighbour.
On the issue of softwood lumber, what can the hon. member tell
me about his party's position on the situation in Atlantic
Canada, where the majority of forest products come from private
woodlots?
In fact, the Atlantic region has been exempted by the U.S. The
U.S. senators, congressmen and trade representative all recognize
that in Atlantic Canada there is no question of any subsidy, even
from their perspective. They do not have the view that the
lumber coming from Atlantic Canada is subsidized lumber. They do
not feel that there should be any quotas, export taxes or
anything else on that lumber.
There are thousands of jobs in Atlantic Canada dependent on the
lumber industry. I wonder what his party would propose to ensure
that the interests of Atlantic Canada are protected.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, I first want to emphasize
that we do not come here to represent the views of Atlantic
Canada or British Columbia or Ontario. We come here to represent
and look after the interests of all Canadians, from coast to
coast to coast. The Canadian Alliance, and again I give credit
to the member for Vancouver Island North, has advocated the
position the government has now taken, that is, the Alliance
wants to see a free market without any countervailing duties or
quotas, a free market in lumber for everyone in Canada, for
British Columbians, for Nova Scotians, for everyone from the
Atlantic regions, for everyone across Canada. We believe that is
very important.
I would agree that there are no subsidies for the lumber
industry in Atlantic Canada, just like there are none in British
Columbia. Of course some of our opponents in the U.S., our
competition, would argue that there are, but this issue has been
to the World Trade Organization and Canada won. The WTO ruled
that the British Columbia forest industry is not subsidized.
There are different practices.
I will argue as aggressively for the people of Atlantic Canada
as I will for the people of British Columbia, and for everyone
else in between, that Canada pursue this very aggressively. We
should let the softwood lumber agreement expire, which I believe
is the position of at least the international trade minister, and
we should ensure that the lumber industry right across Canada has
unfettered access to all U.S. markets.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I ask the member to elaborate a bit more on the
agricultural situation. As we know, the grain and oilseed sector
in this country is hurting very badly because of low commodity
prices. Some believe that those low commodity prices are due to
European and U.S. subsidies for farmers. Certainly in Europe
something like 56% or 58% of their agricultural dollar is created
through subsidies. In the United States, it is about 38%, while
in Canada it is somewhere around 9 or 10 cents.
I feel the government has not been aggressive enough as a
country at the trade table. I ask the member to elaborate on
some of the things that we as a country can do to help lever some
of these subsidies down in order to create a better atmosphere
for our agricultural community.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member from
Lethbridge for his question, and as he will be responsible for
the agricultural sector of international trade, I look forward to
working together with him to provide solutions for the government
over the next three or four years.
It is clear that the United States subsidizes its farmers four
times more than Canada does. Canada has to start taking a very
strong, aggressive position in the negotiations with the
Americans. Collectively we have to go after the Europeans on
their subsidies. If we are going to have a free market, we
believe that Canada and Canadian farmers can compete if they are
competing on a level playing field. However, now they are up
against a huge wall. The subsidies in Europe and the United
States are so excessive compared to those of Canada that
competing is almost impossible. The government has offered some
relief, but the money has been left on the cabinet table and has
never reached the kitchen table.
1200
In summary, it is time for the Canadian government to
aggressively pursue the Americans to abandon these policies and
get on board and collectively go after the Europeans.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, before I start, I would like to join my colleagues in
congratulating you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker. I look
forward to working with you.
It is an honour for me to rise this afternoon in reply to the
Speech from the Throne. Earlier last year, following World Trade
Organization negotiations in Seattle which I attended as a member
of the Canadian delegation, I hosted a public meeting in my
riding to discuss among other things world trade and
globalization.
Like many Canadians, constituents of mine who attended this
meeting did not know a great deal about the WTO or NAFTA. What
they did know was that Canada has prospered from its involvement
in international trade. Globalization and Canada's involvement
in the global economy were not viewed as inherently threatening
but simply a natural progression brought about by freer markets
and advancements in communications.
Certainly there were questions about what globalization meant
for Canada's sovereignty or our ability to make policy decisions
in the public interest.
A common theme of this meeting was that globalization should
bring prosperity to all countries and people of the world. We
know globalization has led many developing countries to increased
prosperity and wealth. However, for many others globalization
poses a challenge. The question for Canadians is how best all
countries can grasp opportunities offered by globalization.
I strongly believe that freer trade and expanding local
economies are the best engines for development and prosperity.
The best hope for developing countries has always been to find
ways of tapping into the vast resources of private capital. We
must stop thinking of government as the permanent engine driving
overseas assistance and instead view the government as a
facilitating partner. Canadians should be encouraged to
contribute directly to NGOs involved in foreign assistance.
Governments can then match contributions given by the private
sector.
An excellent working example of this system in practice is the
Canadian Food Grains Bank. The Canadian Food Grains Bank accepts
donations of grains to send overseas for people in need. The
Canadian International Development Agency, CIDA, matches the
donations received by the CFGB on a four to one basis. The
government money is used to either purchase additional grains in
Canada or to purchase grains closer to the area in need. Through
the Canadian Food Grains Bank and its partners, 98% of the food
donated to the organization makes it to the people who
desperately need it. That is a true Canadian success story.
Naturally, Canada must also continue to provide assistance for
emergency relief efforts. The minister responsible for CIDA was
quick to respond to devastating earthquakes in El Salvador and
India with $1 million and $5 million respectively. I applaud the
government for its prompt response to this crisis.
Although the November 27 federal election was dominated by
domestic issues like taxes and health care, Canadians have come
to expect that their country provides assistance to countries and
people less fortunate. Having said that, Canadians expect a
certain level of performance, results and accountability for tax
dollars budgeted for foreign aid.
The auditor general in his 1993, 1996, 1998 and 2000 reports was
critical of CIDA's mismanagement and institutional culture
characterized by confusion and lack of focus. It seems that over
the years change has not come easily to CIDA The Canadian
Alliance believes that CIDA is simply not capable as presently
structured of fulfilling its mandate effectively or efficiently.
I mentioned earlier in my speech it is freer trade and expanding
local economies that are the best engines for development and
prosperity.
Globalization continues to be the engine bringing countries
together. Globalization has helped to promote sustainable
development and prosperity around the world. Globalization
represents opportunities and challenges for all countries in the
world, including Canada.
1205
Canada entered the new century with some significant economic
strengths. However, it also has some troubling weakness. The
country's strength includes a labour force that is among the most
highly educated in the world and a well developed infrastructure
that includes advanced information and communications technology,
both necessary requirements in a knowledge based economy.
However, we have some glaring weaknesses including the relatively
low rates of research and development, a capital investment rate
that is far below the level of the United States, a high personal
and corporate taxation and our relative slowness, again compared
to the United States, in adapting advanced technologies and in
seizing the new economic opportunities.
The federal government announced a program in the throne speech
to double the investment in research and development by 2010.
This is a step in the right direction. However, the government
missed a critical opportunity in the throne speech to introduce
real tax relief and encourage our best and brightest to remain in
Canada. Again the government has ignored the reality of the
brain drain. It is a fact that every year more and more of our
best and brightest are attracted to the high earnings, lower
taxes and better job opportunities offered in the United States.
As we look to the future, the United States is poised to
introduce substantial tax reductions and to pay down the debt
within the next 10 years. Our finance minister has introduced
tax cuts which are marginal at best and has an unambitious target
of paying down Canada's debt. Canada cannot hope to remain
competitive with the United States if our fiscal structure is so
terribly out of line with the others. The government needs to
make fiscal competitiveness with the United States a current
priority. This means real tax relief and a dedicated paydown
schedule. None of these important steps were mentioned in the
Liberal throne speech.
Critics of globalization fear that economic integration is
leading to a loss of Canadian sovereignty. As policymakers we
must adhere to our obligations under NAFTA and WTO which attempt
to prevent policy actions that might create an unlevel playing
field. Similarly, Canada's policymakers must give careful
attention to how their actions will impact the country's ability
to attract investment and highly skilled workers. There are
concerns about foreign ownership.
Our undervalued Canadian dollar has given Canadian exporters an
advantage in exporting their products and services to the United
States. However, it has made Canadian companies a bargain for
American investors. Former Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed has
expressed concern about Canada's sovereignty since the signing of
NAFTA.
In conclusion, I would say that globalization is extremely
important. With the summit of free trade of the Americas coming
pretty soon, even the president of the United States is very keen
to promote free trade, the issues and challenges of globalization
must advance.
The Leader of the Official Opposition has asked me to chair an
advisory committee to address globalization and Canada's
competitiveness. I will talk with NGOs and Canada's business
leaders to develop a sound plan for Canada to deal with some of
the questions surrounding globalization. I look forward to
hearing from anyone who has something to add.
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at
the outset I want to indicate that I will be sharing my time with
the member for Tobique—Mactaquac.
It is a privilege and pleasure this morning to speak for the
first time in the 37th Parliament of Canada, my first time since
being returned for the third time. I want to pay tribute to some
of those people who have made it possible for me to come back.
First, I want to personally thank my wife and my family for their
continued support and indulgence of my time to others.
Being a member of parliament, as all of us in the House know,
requires giving up a lot of our personal time. I enjoy it and my
family has agreed to allow me to do that.
1210
I also want to express my appreciation to the people of
Huron—Bruce for their support over the past number of elections.
Traditionally, my riding was a Conservative riding. The people
who normally supported that party chose to support me because of
my representation. I count it a humbling experience to come
back, and from time to time I ask them to recommit to that
support they first gave to me in 1993.
This morning I want to commit my time to speaking on the issue
of agriculture. My riding of Huron—Bruce is primarily an
agricultural riding. It is an area which is now traditionally
called the western coast of Ontario. It is an area where we
primarily make our living from the land. However, we also have a
number of other industries.
Probably the most notable industry in our riding is Sifto Salt.
It represents the largest salt mine in the world. When people
travel the highways of Ontario or in other parts of Canada and
the United States, they will likely be saved the embarrassment of
finding themselves in a ditch because the salt on those roads
probably came from Goderich, Ontario. It is one of the things
that we would like to forget for a while since we have had a long
period of winter, but spring is not that far around the corner.
That brings me to the concerns that I have regarding agriculture
today.
It is imperative to remember that we all look upon our farmers
as the suppliers of our food source. We rely on them to provide
us with our daily food. In the short time that has been
allocated to me this morning, I want to give the members some
illustrations of where agriculture is today.
Agriculture is at a crossroads in Canada. It is not because we
have been unable to produce the food. We have been able to
safely produce food in adequate numbers and quantities for
Canadians. However, we have been unable to receive adequate
returns in the marketplace to make it profitable for farmers to
remain on their lands.
I come from a family of seven generations of agrologists, people
who have made their living from the land. The generation of
people which follow me are not farmers today and will not be
farmers. They are making their life vocation in other sectors.
That is disconcerting in itself.
Perhaps I can help members better understand where agriculture
is today. In my riding of Huron—Bruce, we produce more
agricultural products in terms of dollar value than any other
riding in Canada east of Winnipeg. We have the largest grain
inland elevators in Canada in a little village called Hensall.
Every time I turn around or every time I go down a road I pass
some of those farmers who have given us the food that we put on
our tables. I have a strong tradition in agriculture.
I remember citing in the House of Commons in the 36th parliament
the importance of agriculture. Then I saw storm clouds on the
horizon. Today the storm clouds have developed into a major
storm. These people are seeking refuge and help. They are
calling upon government to intervene in the short term.
In the Speech from the Throne the Governor General said “The
government will help Canada's agricultural sector move beyond
crisis management”. Indeed, the government recognizes that
there is crisis in agriculture.
We need to move now. We are 90 days away from seeding in
Ontario. While I support agriculture in all corners of the
country, my focus is largely on Ontario because that is where my
expertise is. When I speak of what is good for Ontario, it also
has to be good for other parts of the country. Every province
needs to share in the wealth that we generate. That is what
Canada is all about.
1215
A farmer came to my office last Friday morning with a balance
sheet of his returns from last year. He had his own bookkeeper
do the accounting and then sent it to the auditor for a final
accounting so it would be accurate.
This farmer is well known in my community. He remains nameless
in the House. However he has allowed me to bring his numbers to
the House to give some credence to the arguments we are putting
forward.
On a 600 acre operation, which is not a large one, he paid
himself $110 per acre for the land he owns. He included repairs
and had very little depreciation because most of his equipment
had been depreciated to a point where there was nothing left. At
the end of the day he was $90 per acre short on income and
expenses.
This guy would be considered a model farmer in his community. He
had a $55,000 loss on 600 acres. Last year he purchased nitrogen
fertilizer at $150 per tonne. He has two prices: one a month
ago at $350 per tonne for this coming spring and another which is
effective now. Unless he purchases it now, it will go to $450
per tonne. This is a 140% increase from two years ago.
For diesel fuel and other fuel sources, because he has a drying
operation as well, we are talking about enormous increases in the
90 to 100% range. However his prices were basically put into
effect in the 1930s. There is not an industry in Canada that can
sustain such losses over that many years. I think food is much
more important than we sometimes give it credit for. The issue
of food goes much beyond the farm gate. It is an issue of
sovereignty.
Do we want continued sovereignty over our food supply? Do we
want our rural communities, which share the wealth when farmers
prosper, to continue to exist? Do we want churches and schools
to disappear from the rural landscape in Ontario and throughout
the rest of Canada?
We have choices to make. This is a serious issue. I do not
often come to the House with an issue that is so profoundly
difficult to talk about. Because I know it so well, it is
important that today and in the short term we find a vehicle to
deliver cash to farmers which they can take to the bank. If we
do not, we will not have farmers in the future.
We did what was right for Bombardier. Farmers will not argue
that we did what was right. It is important that we now do the
right thing for agriculture. Some 640,000 people in Ontario are
directly or indirectly related to this industry and 24,000 people
are involved in the aerospace industry.
Let us do the right thing. Let us deliver the money to our
farmers before seeding time so that we can enjoy the food we put
on our plates every day.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am impressed with the hon. member opposite. He ought
to be commended for the beautiful, wonderful and insightful
remarks he just made. I congratulate him on his re-election to
the House of Commons.
The member brings forward a balanced position and puts it
together nicely. In light of his impassioned speech and his
obvious understanding of the problem, why has his government not
given to farmers the money it promised them, let alone a new
program to help them with other problems?
1220
The government has not even done what it said it would do. Why
can the hon. member opposite, a member of the government, not get
the Prime Minister to do what he said he would do?
Mr. Paul Steckle: Mr. Speaker, I am indebted to the hon.
member, who is a good friend of mine, for asking that question.
It is not that we have not delivered to farmers. It is a case of
mixed messages being sent to our farmers. Right now farmers are
more interested in money than in another message.
When we began this process some two and a half years ago, we
were looking at a request of $600 million. We came in at $900
million and raised that to $1.1 billion. We have committed to
three years at $1.1 billion and are now asking for another $900
million of federal money.
The member is speaking about the 20% that has not been delivered
on the AIDA program, and he is absolutely correct. If we have
not delivered that money we ought to be delivering it. It is not
because I have not put forward the argument to deliver that
money. I will continue to do that, but there are mitigating
circumstances which have for one reason or another not allowed it
to happen.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member for
Guelph—Wellington who seemed to think there was no farm crisis.
Then I heard my good friend, also with a farm background, mention
that there was a farm crisis. It is refreshing to have someone
on the backbenches with an incredible amount of backbone to tell
it exactly like it is. I do not think a member on this side of
the House could have said it as eloquently and as passionately as
he did.
The hon. member understands that farmers in Ontario and western
Canada are going through exactly what fishermen in the coastal
communities of Atlantic Canada went through and exactly what the
fishing communities of western Canada went through. Conservative
and Liberal policies have put the main producers of the food on
our tables in a state of continual crisis.
I consider the hon. member to be a great friend and a great
member of the fishing community. Will he take his comments
directly to the agriculture minister and the industry minister,
because they are the ones who need to hear them?
Mr. Paul Steckle: Mr. Speaker, I have come to enjoy
working with the hon. member from Nova Scotia on the fishery
committee. Not only will I take the message to the ministers to
whom he referred, but I have already done so.
Tomorrow I will deliver to anyone in the House who wishes one a
copy of the farmer's financial statement I spoke of earlier. All
the member needs to do is ask and he will have delivered to him a
copy of that statement. The message must get out and we must do
it as quickly as we can. We have no time to lose. I would be
more than delighted to provide you with that document.
The Deputy Speaker: As a reminder as we begin the 37th
parliament, please do not forget your Speaker. Rather than
addressing one another directly, it is more useful to speak
through the Chair.
Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is with an overwhelming sense of pride and respect that I rise
today in the House to respond to the throne speech.
I begin by thanking the constituents of Tobique—Mactaquac for
giving me the awesome responsibility and privilege of
representing their views and concerns in parliament. During the
election campaign I promised my constituents I would listen to
their concerns and speak to those issues on their behalf when in
Ottawa. I intend to fulfil that promise to the best of my
ability.
This obligation derives not only from the sense of
responsibility that comes with being a member of parliament but
in some measure from the fact that the Speaker of the House has a
sister residing in my riding, who I am sure will receive regular
reports on my performance in Ottawa.
I congratulate the Speaker of the House on his most recent
election victory. To be selected by your peers and assume the
highest authority in the House of Commons is the greatest mark of
respect your fellow members can show you.
Third, I congratulate all members of parliament on their recent
election victories. To be elected by the people of Canada to
represent their views and concerns is both a formidable task and
a tremendous opportunity.
This symbiotic relationship carries a huge responsibility, one
that I am prepared to accept while in public office.
1225
Lastly and most importantly, I thank my friends and family for
their unwavering support and inspiration. I especially want to
extend personal thanks to my wife and my mother. I thank my
mother for teaching me to aim high and my wife for keeping me on
track and helping me achieve my goals.
[Translation]
I also want to thank Gilles Bernier, the former member for
Tobique—Mactaquac, for his good work these past years, on
behalf of the people of our riding.
[English]
Situated in western New Brunswick, my riding is known for the
picturesque beauty of the Nashwaak, Tobique and Saint John River
valleys, a beauty my ancestors no doubt dwelt upon when they
first settled in the Saint John River Valley over 200 hundred
years ago.
The region of the upper Tobique River in the north end of the
riding has excellent fishing and hunting. Both my grandfather
and great-grandfather worked there as guides and lumberjacks. As
guides they respected nature. While probably not schooled in the
concepts of wildlife conservation, they understood its
implications. They knew that if everyone fished or hunted to
excess there would be no fish and game for their children or
their children's children.
I am proud to say, as my forefathers did, that the government
understands the concept of resource management. It has
explicitly committed itself to the protection of species at risk,
to marine conservation and to the conservation of our natural
spaces.
My forefathers fished and hunted alongside the aboriginal people
of the area, and each depended on the other in times of need. The
Tobique first nations are a proud people. I am optimistic about
the future of the government's relations with all first nations
people.
In aboriginal communities we are promoting programs to reduce
the incidence of fetal alcohol syndrome in newborns and
preventable diseases like tuberculosis and diabetes. The
aboriginal head start program will be significantly expanded to
better prepare aboriginal children for the rigours of the
educational system and to help those with special needs.
The people of Tobique first nations will see the benefits of an
increased focus on entrepreneurial and business expertise that
will ultimately promote economic development and industrial
growth in their community.
Just as some of my forefathers chose to be hunters and
lumberjacks, others chose to be farmers. The upper Saint John
River Valley is home to some of the highest quality seed and
table potatoes in the world. The area is responsible for 95% of
New Brunswick's potato production and most of it is grown on
traditional family farms. A superior product does not compensate
for low market prices or offset unfair subsidization by other
national governments, which has been an ongoing problem for
Canadian producers.
I am encouraged to see a renewed federal commitment to move away
from farm crisis management toward long term agricultural
sustainability, value added agricultural growth, improved land
usage and increased investment in research.
Carleton county in the centre of my riding has the third fastest
growing economy in Canada, fuelled by food processing, lumber
operations and metal working. As a professional engineer with
extensive experience in local economic development, I know
firsthand the commercial importance of research and development.
Companies must either innovate or over time they stagnate.
The government has made innovation a top priority. For
engineers, scientists and business people across Canada this is
music to their ears. The government will double spending on R
and D by 2010. It will accelerate the commercialization process
for new products. It will support collaborative research with
international partners. It will strengthen the research capacity
of Canadian universities and government laboratories.
I applaud the government's goal and encourage it as an
attainable one. The goal is to become one of the top five
countries in the world for research and development by 2010.
[Translation]
Today, I have spoken of my own experiences and those of my
forefathers, but I would now like to talk about our collective
future, that of Canada's youth, of our children, of my children.
My wife and I have a 19 month old daughter and are expecting a
second child in June. I am proud to say that our country is
built on liberal values, which accord the family its due
increasingly.
1230
I know that my children will benefit from the major spending
that goes into social programs. For example, by allocating an
additional $2.2 billion to the early childhood development
program, the federal government has reiterated its support for
targeted social spending.
It is doubling the length of parental leave and maternity
benefits while continuing to increase child tax benefits.
Today's children will grow up in a climate in which learning and
education, the foundations of a better future, have become a
national priority for all Canadians.
In the context of the millennium scholarship fund, scholarships
will be accorded over the next ten years to over 100,000
disadvantaged students. In addition, the educational tax credit
has been increased and tax cuts worth nearly $1 billion are
planned one million students over the next four years.
Finally, the registered individual learning accounts will help
Canadians of all ages find the money they need for their ongoing
training.
[English]
Promoting opportunities and social benefits for families is as
extremely important as protecting our families and children. The
tragedy at Walkerton last summer saw the deaths of innocent
Canadians, both adult and children. In response to the incident
I organized a drinking water conference in Fredericton, New
Brunswick, which saw over 300 people from across Canada attend
workshops and learn how to assess, remedy and ultimately protect
themselves and others from contaminated water sources.
The government has shown a commitment to safe drinking water for
all people in Canada by focusing on stronger national guidelines
for water quality, by strengthening the role of the national
water research institute, by funding improvements to municipal
water and waste water systems, and by investing in research and
development on better land use practices.
Our government has shown vision. Our government has shown
innovation. Our government has shown compassion for families,
children and aboriginal peoples. Our government has shown
leadership. I look forward to governing this great nation with
my colleagues from all political parties. The elected in each
riding reflect the truly great citizens of a great country.
I congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, and all members in advance for
what will prove to be an exciting, productive and rewarding 37th
parliament.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the new member for
Tobique—Mactaquac and I wish him good luck on the upcoming birth
of his next child.
Having listened to the member, one would think there are no
problems in the country. One would not think that record numbers
of students are leaving their post-secondary graduate studies
with record levels of debt. One would not think that a
tremendous amount of fishermen are still making under $10,000 a
year. One would not think that 22,000 families left the family
farm last year.
The throne speech concentrated heavily on the so-called new
economy and completely neglected what was called the old economy
of fishing, mining, forestry and agriculture. Would the member
comment on what he plans to do for Canada's largest employers in
the so-called old economy?
Mr. Andy Savoy: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore for my first
question, the encouragement and the welcome to the House of
Commons.
The future lies in the concept of value added in each of these
resource areas. We must look at agriculture and the fisheries
not only as a traditional resource but as a base product. We
must look at value adding to the resource by processing fisheries
products further down the line. Similarly in agriculture.
In my riding I have one of the experts in value adding in McCain
Foods, the largest frozen fry producer in the world. People have
taken value added to the extreme. McCain Foods produces not only
french fries. It produces juices, pizzas and a variety of value
added products. I believe the future lies in value added.
1235
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
join in congratulating the hon. member and welcoming him to the
House. We benefit in this place by having people from all walks
of life and different backgrounds. In the case of the hon.
member, we have the advantage of having a professional engineer
who has significant experience in the field of environmentally
sustainable development.
I am sure the member is aware of the government's plans in
relation to the treatment of waste water and water. How does he
feel about the government's infrastructure plans in this area?
Mr. Andy Savoy: Mr. Speaker, with regard to water and
waste water infrastructure, the government has taken an
initiative by investing over $2 billion. Specifically in my
riding with 14 small municipalities many have had boil orders in
the past.
The infrastructure program extends not only to the water system
itself but extends to the waste water system. Water
contamination is frequently the result of improper waste water
management. The government has made enormous progress as far as
investing $2.2 billion in water and waste water management.
The government has also looked at strengthening the National
Water Research Institute. It has looked at developing stronger
national guidelines for water quality. It is doing research and
development in better land use practices, which means the
protection of our surface water and our ground water sources.
Some of it is common sense. In layperson terms, one does not put
a chemical plant within 100 feet of a municipal well head or
municipal lagoon. That is an example of better land use
practice. More research and development are being done into land
use practices.
I look forward to working with the New Brunswick Environment
Industry Association to organize our second annual drinking water
conference entitled “Your Drinking Water: Ensuring Its Safety”.
This conference will further educate people from across Canada on
the perils and the contaminants potentially in our water source
and how to assess and remedy them.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I would like you to note that I will be splitting my time with
the new Bloc Quebecois member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.
Although I have already asked some questions and made some
comments, this is the first opportunity I have had since being
elected to actually rise and respond to the throne speech.
I would like to begin by thanking a few people. I am sure that
the House will understand. My first thanks go to my wife Nathalie
and my children Roxane and Vincent who, although still
young—eight and eleven years old—have a very good, not to say
an excellent, understanding of the demands made on a member for
parliament. I also wish to thank my family, the organizers and
voters of the riding of Berthier—Montcalm, who have put their
trust in me since 1993.
This is the third election for a party, the Bloc Quebecois,
which was not supposed to be around for more than three elections
in a row. In the riding of Berthier—Montcalm, my percentage of
the vote went up starting in 1993. I therefore think that there
is room for the Bloc Quebecois and that it is using its position
properly to defend Quebec's interests.
This brings me directly to the throne speech. What are we to
conclude from this particular throne speech? The tradition after
a general election was to have a speech that would give
parliamentarians some direction, that spoke about the
government's vision. Things had to change. There were new bills
on the table.
Unfortunately, I must agree with many other experts and
journalists. In a nutshell, all the time put into the throne
speech was pointless and very expensive. As we have seen, it was
even a very imperialist exercise, with the Governor General, the
Queen's representative. There is nothing, or nothing new anyway,
in the throne speech. It shows a complete lack of imagination on
the part of this government, which is simply maintaining the
course it embarked on after the 1997 election.
1240
It seems to me that this was an opportunity to follow up on
certain comments and wishes expressed by the public for changes.
But no. We can see for instance that, by wholly reproducing
what was already in its red book—not to fault that, but it was
unnecessary to have a general election and a throne speech—the
government decided to continue its usual incursion into areas of
provincial jurisdiction.
The reaction may be that the Bloc Quebecois is always saying
that, but it is the very source of this country's problem.
I would remind hon. members that Quebec did not sign the
constitution. No Quebec premier signed it, whether Parti
Quebecois or Liberal. None has signed the constitution. Yet
here again we find a government preparing to invest—because it
has the cash—in areas of provincial jurisdiction. Just think of
parental leave and education. Is there any area, under the
Canadian constitution, which falls more clearly under provincial
jurisdiction than education?
In the throne speech we can see that the federal government's
investment is under the pretext that there is a problem. Yes,
there is a problem, and not just in Quebec. The problem has
been caused by the federal government with its cuts to transfer
payments.
This is why we are asking the federal government, which is
accumulating billions of dollars, to transfer the money it took
to the provinces, which are closer to the people and provide
services directly to constituents so they may invest wherever
there is a need, including among others in education. It is,
however, not up to the federal government to invest directly in
education.
This is the basis of a number of misunderstandings. Let the
government
honour the Canadian constitution, which it boasts is good. Let
it honour it. In doing so, they will end up with a lot fewer
overlaps.
The same is true in education and health care, where the
government will
create a supervisory superstructure. As if the provinces could
not manage their hospitals and the health care system.
The problem, I repeat, was created by the federal government
when it cut the transfer payments and money, which was in fact
intended for these public services.
There is the matter of potable water. It is true that this has
been a problem in certain municipalities in Canada and Quebec.
However, water quality and availability are provincial matters as
well. Will the federal government start investing in that area
as well? That does not line up very well.
I understand that the government opposite is very arrogant. I
understand that it is quietly pursuing the same approach since
1997. Perhaps it should realize it is off track. The Bloc
Quebecois will be there to remind it. We will be there to get
the most for Quebec, to remind the federal government that it is
off the beam in the case of many bills and we will try to
influence it, as we have done in the past.
Through it all, we will continue to do our job and we will
respect provincial jurisdiction.
To be honest, there was at least one positive thing in the
throne speech, and I can hardly wait to have it in my hands.
This is the anti-gang legislation.
The House will recall that when the Bloc Quebecois spoke about
the problem of biker gangs in Quebec and in Canada, the
government members opposite practically laughed in our faces.
They said there was no problem, that the Criminal Code was
fine the way it was and that additional legislation was not
necessary. All the Liberals in the House heard the Prime
Minister and the Minister of Justice tell us this.
However, in the wake of the election campaign, people realized
that Canada did not in fact have the tools to effectively
combat organize crime.
We read in the throne speech that the federal government is
preparing to introduce anti-gang amendments.
1245
It has understood, and this is why the Bloc Quebecois is
important. Without us, the government would have done nothing because
it did not understand the problem. We got the message across.
We are going to continue to speak out because there are other
messages that must get across to the government, including
the one having to do with the Young Offenders Act.
I would have thought that after an election campaign the
government members opposite, especially those from Quebec, would
have understood that Quebecers do not want the Minister of
Justice and the federal government meddling with the Young
Offenders Act. This legislation has demonstrated its worth in
Quebec, where the crime and recidivism rates are the lowest in
Canada.
We are succeeding where other provinces are not.
Why? Because we apply the Young Offenders Act while some
provinces do not. They do not have the necessary infrastructures
to deal with young people who have a problem with crime.
What will the minister do? Will she listen to Quebec? Will she
follow Quebec's example, since our approach is successful? Have
the Quebec Liberal members of parliament managed to convince the
minister? They have not.
Following the throne speech, the minister introduced a bill
repealing the Young Offenders Act. She used the lowest common
denominator, that is those provinces that had the lowest success
rate with young offenders.
Now, the government is saying “Quebec will have to apply the
same provisions as western Canada”. This says a lot about the
value of the motion passed by the government to recognize Quebec
as a distinct society.
As for the Liberal members from Quebec, I would be ashamed to
belong to this government given the way it is dealing with the
Young Offenders Act. They have failed in their responsibility to
get the message across to the Minister of Justice.
As for us, we will continue, along with the national assembly,
the coalition and the Quebec consensus, to oppose the government
regarding such an important bill for the future of our young
people and having to do with the Young Offenders Act.
I see that my time is up, so I am leaving the floor to my
colleague.
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, first I want to say that I was very honoured to be
elected on November 27 by the people of
Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel to represent them in the House.
I would like to thank my constituents, my wife Francine, my
daughter Joëlle, my son Mario junior, all my political
organizers as well as my predecessor in the House, Maurice
Dumas, who has retired after seven productive years here.
I entered into the election campaign when Mr Dumas' departure
was announced, on the day the election was called. For me it was
of course quite a jump. At this time last year, I was president
of the Union des municipalités du Québec. It was a big challenge
for me, particularly when I heard that I was running in a
constituency targeted by the Liberal machine in Quebec.
I am even more thankful to the people of
Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel when I remember that, during the
campaign, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the
Minister of Public Works and even the Minister of Finance came
to help my opponent in his attempt to defeat me. The people of
Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel were not fooled.
My riding spans more than 6,000 square kilometres between the
greater Montreal and the metropolitan Outaouais. The federal
system had a harsh impact on this area over the last 30 years.
The riding of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel is located between two
major populated areas, but there still is no highway linking
these two important areas within the same province. It is the
only place in Canada where such a situation exists.
Moreover, the riding of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel includes an
international airport, Mirabel airport, where no development
plan has yet been prepared.
1250
We are also hit hard by an annual unemployment rate that hovers
around 10% annually, at 8% in the summer and about 14% in the
winter. Members will understand that this riding's
economy relies on forestry, agriculture, tourism and, of course,
these past years on industry.
Of course, members will also understand that in tourism,
agriculture and forestry employment is seasonal, not
workers. Consequently, this 10% rate of unemployment is
compounded by a 10% rate of people who are able to work yet are
receiving income security benefits from the Quebec government.
Thus, as we speak, 20% of the workers in the riding of
Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel are not working. This is a situation
that has no justification whatsoever, and we have been waiting
and still are waiting for changes to the Employment Insurance
Act.
Obviously, the strategies outlined by the federal government in
the last Speech from the Throne had nothing to impress the
citizens of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.
The only thing proposed regarding employment insurance
is that workers be given back 8% of annual surpluses taken from
the federal government's budgets. The government wants to dip
into the pockets of the workers in Quebec and Canada to the tune
of $32 billion.
During the last election, at the peak of the campaign, the Prime
Minister of Canada openly recognized that he had made a mistake
with the Employment Insurance Act. The leader of the Bloc
Quebecois wrote a letter to the leaders of all the political
parties in the House asking that the House be recalled on
compassionate grounds before the holiday season to
give some hope to the workers of Canada and Quebec who had been
penalized by the Employment Insurance Act.
The leader of the Liberal Party was the only one to refuse to
have the House recalled on humanitarian grounds before the holiday
season, which is absolutely inconceivable and unworthy of a
political party.
In the last Speech from the Throne, intrusion into areas such as
health and education is still to be found everywhere.
The Liberal Party has no intention of putting an end to the war
against the provinces, which has been going on for too long.
This government has decided once more to intrude into
provincial jurisdiction, namely health, education and the
legislation on young offenders. My colleague mentioned this
earlier; the federal government is still waging war against the
provinces. This is obviously a bad thing for economic activity
in the country.
Naturally, the whole story of the November 2000 election
campaign has been the most shameful in modern Canada, to
paraphrase the Prime Minister's words. It was the most shameful,
because it was the election of one man, as in Un Homme et son
péché. It was a case of power-hungry people who tried to catch
the other political parties off guard. This is the only reason
we had an election in November 2000. There was no other
justification for it.
The last election, which had the lowest participation rate in
the history of modern Canada, was the most shameful election of
modern times in our country.
On behalf of the citizens of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, I
predict that if the next five years, which have been launched by
this Speech from the Throne, are similar to the last 30 years,
Quebec will no longer be represented in this House when the next
election rolls around.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest
to the remarks of my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.
Let me remind the House that the member for that riding has
developed a great deal of expertise in municipal politics and
has decided to use his experience for the benefit of Quebec and
of the Bloc Quebecois. I am very pleased that electors in that
riding have put their trust in him.
1255
What struck me in his remarks was the similarities between his
riding and mine. One example is the importance of forestry, an
industry that has a direct impact on seasonal workers. He gave a
very concrete example. In his riding the unemployment rate
varies between 8% in summer and 14% in winter.
Could the hon. member tell the House whether it would be
interesting if we could make sure that, when the lumber
agreement expires on March 31, 2001, we could go back to free
trade in the lumber industry, like producers in Quebec and
Canada would like?
For forestry workers, the best way to get a fair return on their
contribution to the elimination of the deficit is not only tax
cuts, but also an employment insurance system that would provide
them with sufficient income when they are out of work.
When the earnings of workers are not very high, it is frequently
the supplement coming from the employment insurance plan that
helps make ends meet and financially sustains their family.
Mr. Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague
for his question.
As he knows, the forest industry has demanded that free trade
apply unconditionally to everything it has developed during the
last few years. It is important to understand the problems
facing the forestry workers and the owners of the logging
companies throughout Quebec. Forestry is a huge asset for
Quebec, and going back to the free trade agreement would
obviously help this industry to prosper.
In answer to my colleague's second question, major improvements
are expected to be made to the employment insurance system,
because it is the jobs in the forest industry, not the workers,
that are seasonal.
We can expect the grace periods to be abolished, the workers to
be able to hang on to the $32 billion in the EI fund and the
national program to be based on the needs of the workers in
every industry, including the forest industry.
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with my colleague from Hillsborough.
First of all I want to thank my fellow citizens in the riding of
Chicoutimi—Le Fjord who were inspired enough to elect me for
another mandate, so that I could strive to serve them
efficiently. They can be assured that I will do everything I
possibly can to show them that they did the right thing in
supporting me.
As you can see on my jacket, my first priority is still the
Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area. Before making my comments on the
Speech from the Throne, I want to say that I listened to what
some of my colleagues in the Bloc and in other parties had to
say. They are always talking about the Canada-Quebec dynamics,
Canada versus the provinces.
Recently I was reading the book written by Mr. John Ralston Saul
where he was wondering if the problem of Canada is not related to
the fact that the wealth is not shared equally within the
provinces.
In our regional university, an economist, not from
London but from the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, who
proved, supported by figures, that our region was highly
disadvantaged by Quebec government that was extremely
centralizing.
I thought that I should make an analysis to see where the
problem lies as far as the sharing of wealth is concerned. I have
the figures here. The federal government is sharing the wealth
with every province, a given amount per capita. The unemployment
rate and the wealth index are also thrown into the equation.
There are two major programs. There is equalization, a lump sum
payment that provinces can do what they want with, and there is
the Canada health and social transfer, for health and social
programs.
1300
The problem in Quebec is that our regions are in a very
precarious situation. We are looking at ways to keep our young
people in our regions and we are seeking the best method to stop
the migration of our young people. Yesterday, I asked the member
for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière if he could tell me about the
measures needed to stop the migration of these young people and
to offer them interesting jobs.
Unfortunately, I sometimes am under the impression, that the
members of the Bloc want all Canadians
to be on EI. I do not think this is the thing to do. The bill
was introduced. It will then be referred to a parliamentary
committee. Some interesting amendments will be made.
Significant changes have already been made. I am confident that
in the end the EI bill will please everyone.
I wondered how I could continue to help my region. I thought
we should analyze the areas where the government wanted to
invest. Health care is a major issue, especially in the regions
where the average age is increasing because of the incredible
migration of young people. Consequently, we must invest in this
area.
Everyone is aware of what happened in our regional hospitals.
The doctors and the nurses were pushed into early retirement
with huge cash outs. Friends and colleagues of mine told me this
“How can someone stay on with an offer like that?”
Finally, we are in an extremely difficult situation. With regard
to the health care budget, it is all fine and well to transfer $21,5
billion to the provinces. However, this is a provincial
jurisdiction and a Quebec jurisdiction, and I for one want to
make sure that our regions are in a position to provide health
care.
In my area, and this is a proven fact for the past 10 to 15
years, we need about $75 million more each year. The Canada
social transfer and equalization payments will go from $11.5
billion or $12 billion in 1994-95 to more than $14 billion in
2004. There is certainly a management problem. The provincial
government does not pay attention to the regions. The current
Quebec government is a centralizing government which
arbitrarily is using equalization payments to build a $900
million hospital in Montreal while letting the hospital in
Chicoutimi die.
As an hon. member from the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, I think
that when the amount of transfer funds are negotiated, it is
important to ask our government to make sure that regions are
well represented and have what they need to fulfil their role,
particularly in health care.
I also noticed that the throne speech insisted on the importance
of skills. The federal government talked about literacy and the
need to reach agreement with the provinces. One third of the
Canadian population has a literacy problem. That has a tremendous
cost for business.
The government insists a lot on research and development. During
the last parliament, I was in the opposition and I worked on a
very major project for my region, a major aluminum plant.
We actually produce 50% of all the aluminum in this country.
Nothing has been done yet in terms of processing. We lost 8,000
jobs in the aluminum industry. With the help of my colleagues
with whom I now sit, particularly the Minister of National
Revenue, we will be building next spring a national research
centre for the processing of aluminum that will allow us to
create good jobs for our young people. The issue of aluminum is
of critical importance to me.
There is also the forest issue. Natural resource areas such as
ours are there strictly to be developed. No one is helping us
with our development. The first aluminum processing plant, partly
financed by the Quebec government via the SGF was built in the
Montreal area.
We lost 8,000 jobs in our community, even if we were named the
aluminum valley last year. It must not become a valley of
tears.
There is another issue mentioned in the Speech from the Throne.
It is the issue of infrastructures. A region cannot develop
itself without a highway infrastructure (The Europeans, the
Americans understood that). This is a major element.
1305
For several years, the federal government has formed
partnerships with the private sector. I hope the Quebec
government will take advantage of these programs in order to
help our region to be connected to the North American continent
and to the beautiful greater Quebec City area by a highway
between Quebec City and Chicoutimi. This does not involve
billions of dollars, but it is important. Land communications
are the precursors to development, they do not follow it.
We have all the industrial development support programs, through
Economic Development Canada, as well as research programs which
I hope will be increasingly set up in the regions.
The guidelines the government wants to set for itself are
promising for the future.
There is the whole aspect of poverty. I would need more time to
speak about it, but I will come back to it. I think that one
day the federal and provincial governments will have to look
carefully at a method to combat poverty effectively.
The government has created good programs, such as the child tax
benefit, worth over $9 billion. There is the early childhood
support program worth over $2 billion. There is the whole
business of more progressive taxation over the next five years.
One hundred billion dollars less in income tax to pay will
benefit everyone.
Poverty is a difficult issue to define.
The European economic community and a number of other countries
are currently looking into the following possibility. Rather
than increasing the number of programs, consolidating federal
and provincial assistance programs, or within a federation such as
that of Europe, to fight poverty effectively with a
single program, there could be guaranteed minimum income. It
would be easier to manage and easier for recipients to identify.
I am certain that, in addition to the program's being more
effective, everyone would be content to know that, as Canadians
over 18 years of age, they have something to get them started in
life. I hope that one day a future agenda will include the
important item of giving thorough consideration to the battle
against poverty.
In 1967 the American government pointed out that this was
probably an approach worth considering. Unfortunately, there
was no follow-up. The Macdonald commission examined this
aspect. It considered it a positive avenue. One day we will
come back to this. Poverty is an important issue.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
am stunned by the speech of the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.
Since the hon. member changed sides in the House of Commons, his
views have also changed drastically. Part of his speech dealt
with health and was to the effect that the reason there are
problems in Quebec is because the Quebec government is too
centralizing. This takes the cake.
Moreover, Toronto MPs applauded him. He delivered a speech that
got applause from Ontario MPs. Mr. Speaker, I hope your
constituents are listening, because I am going to remind the
hon. member of some of the statements he made here barely a year
ago.
“What was scrapped in Canada was not the GST, but the health
care system, particularly in Quebec...Yes, people are tired of
the constitutional debate, but they certainly need a break from
the provocation carried on for the past 30 years by the leaders
of the Liberal Party of Canada”.
That comment was made on November 29, 1999. On March 20, 2000,
the hon. member said:
“How does one go about getting rid of a Prime Minister who, not
just in the case of Human Resources Development Canada, but in
the case of the budget, is determined to interfere in all
sectors of provincial jurisdiction?”
Here is one last quote:
1310
There has to be some logic in comments. One cannot speak from
both sides of his mouth in the House, make completely
contradictory statements and, above all, blame a government for
something that does not come under its jurisdiction. It is the
federal government that is to blame, not the provincial
government.
Mr. André Harvey: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have made speeches and the
Bloc members should quote them all. I will continue to stand up
for my region. Since I made my speeches, tax cuts in the order
of $100 billion have been announced.
About the Quebec government, a study by Dr. Moussaly revealed
that Quebec is siphoning $300 million in my region. All the
multinationals, all the tax measures which favour the Quebec
government, all that never comes back to our region but goes to
the greater Montreal region.
If the hon. member wants to talk about the last election, I can
tell him that I defended my fellow citizens of Chicoutimi—Le
Fjord against the whole PQ government.
Still, we succeeded in defeating them because it is important to
have people in this House to fight for research, for the park
highway, so that the regions are taken into account by the
Canadian government as much as possible, whenever possible.
On October 20 of last year, we received $52 million to create a
research centre for aluminium manufacturing. This is a good
thing and we did not wait for the Quebec government because it
would have taken another five years to reach an agreement.
[English]
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with great interest to the eloquent speech of
the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.
It is interesting to hear the Bloc people talk about Toronto and
other things. They conveniently forget that Mr. Bouchard
squirrelled away close to $1 billion of health money in a Toronto
bank, money that was earmarked for Quebecers.
I want to ask that great Quebecer and great Canadian, the member
for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, if he would explain to us the kind of
good work the federal government is doing with respect to
eradicating poverty, not only in Quebec but across Canada. I
would like to hear his views because I know he is a very eloquent
and passionate Quebecer and Canadian.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I am first and foremost a
regionalist and I find myself somewhat in agreement with La
Presse's Lysiane Gagnon, who says that Bloc Quebecois members
are on a picnic here in the House.
In the wake of an election, Bloc Quebecois members are
pretending to defend Quebec's interests. Let us begin by
defending the interests of our region, which needs help badly.
The Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region generates an extra $300 million
annually for Quebec, because of the multinationals that exploit
us but do not leave us with any jobs to show for it.
As long as we had jobs from exploiting our resources, we kept
quiet. But now natural resources are being exploited in a big
way and jobs are disappearing. Quebec is therefore benefiting.
We have the figures to prove it.
I invite Bloc Quebecois members to read the latest study by
Dr. Moussaly and they will see what is going on.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. André Harvey: It is not the federal government which is to
blame, but the Government of Quebec, a government which is
extremely—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I am sorry to interrupt the hon.
member, but his time is up.
[English]
Mr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, like
others who came before me, I also want to congratulate you on
your new position as acting speaker. I wish you all the best in
your new position.
1315
I also want to take this opportunity to thank the voters of
Hillsborough for their confidence in my candidacy. It is an
honour and a privilege to serve in the House of Commons. I am
grateful to have been given this opportunity. My pledge to each
of them is simple: to work hard, to represent the district to
the best of my ability and to be guided by the values of the
people of Hillsborough.
Mr. Speaker, I must tell you that I am enjoying the view from
this side of the House. When I left my previous place of
employment, my associates gave me a present. They gave me a set
of binoculars. They told me that where I was going in the House
I would not be able to see either you or the chair without these
binoculars. I am pleased to report that my view from this chair
is excellent.
At this point in time I want to pay tribute to my predecessor in
Hillsborough, Mr. George Proud. Mr. Proud served the
constituents of Hillsborough with dedication and distinction
during the last three parliaments of the House. George Proud was
a hard worker, was committed to the people of Hillsborough and
always maintained a very close contact with the common person.
The riding of Hillsborough is comprised of the city of
Charlottetown and a portion of the town of Stratford.
Charlottetown is a very historic location, especially as it
relates to this country and this very institution. It was there
in 1864 that delegates from Upper and Lower Canada and from the
colonies of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island
met for the purpose of exploring the possibility of forming a
union which eventually led to this federation.
As members of parliament, it would assist us to reflect on the
challenges and obstacles that faced those delegates who met in
Charlottetown in September 1864. The obstacles were immense:
cultural differences, historical differences, language
differences, differences in trading patterns and religious
differences.
Those delegates faced what in today's parlance would be
considered insurmountable obstacles. However, they had one
overreaching objective: to form a country, a country that would
be greater than the sum of its parts. That was exactly what they
did, and that is why we are here today.
As I indicated previously, the view from this seat is excellent.
It is through this vantage point that I can report to the people
of Canada that the government is doing a good job, not only here
in the House of Commons but also in administering the affairs of
the nation. By following sound economic principles and
implementing a balanced approach, an annual deficit of $42.1
billion has now been eliminated and replaced by a surplus of
$12.4 billion.
The balanced approach includes paying down the debt and cutting
taxes fairly. It includes investing in health care, research and
innovation. It includes investing in families and children. It
includes protecting the environment. This balanced approach is
the reason why the Canadian people gave the government a third
mandate.
The theme throughout the Speech from the Throne that impresses
me the most, as a first time member of the House, is that of
inclusion. Any time a country, such as Canada, experiences
economic growth both social and economic inequities arise.
This occurred during the industrial revolution and, to a lesser
extent, has occurred in western economies that have experienced
economic growth mainly brought about by the increased use of
technology.
1320
Economic and social inequities, if allowed to persist, are
counterproductive to further economic growth and will eventually
lead to social unrest. We cannot separate social and economic
priorities.
The Speech from the Throne establishes an agenda that will
widen the social and economic circle of the country. It includes
programs to improve the lives of the poor, especially poor
families with children, our aboriginal communities, the disabled,
people who have a lack of skills or training and people who are
illiterate.
One of the greatest challenges facing the government is the
issue of child poverty. In the throne speech, the government has
announced initiatives which, taken with commitments already
announced, will provide children with a good foundation so that
every child has a good start in life.
Some of the commitments already announced by the government
include: spending $2.2 billion over the next five years for
early childhood education; the doubling of maternity and parental
benefits available under the employment insurance legislation;
the doubling of the child tax credit; and the lowering of income
taxes for lower and middle income families.
I was pleased to see in the throne speech that the government
will continue to expand on these initiatives. It has committed
to implement new measures to help single parents overcome poverty
and become more self-sufficient. It has committed to work with
the provinces to modernize the laws relating to child support,
access and custody. It has committed to take steps to enable
parents to provide care for gravely ill children. Perhaps most
important, it has committed to provide further income tax relief
directed primarily at lower and middle income Canadians.
Another challenge facing the administration is the conditions
found in our aboriginal communities. Too many aboriginal
Canadians continue to live in poverty, without adequate housing,
health, education or job opportunities. I am pleased to see in
the throne speech that the government has made it a priority to
ensure that the basic needs of aboriginals for jobs, health care,
education, housing and infrastructure are met.
The government has taken a number of initiatives, including
commitments for aboriginal post-secondary education and the
creation of the aboriginal heads start program. There are a
number of initiatives outlined in the throne speech that take
these commitments a step further. A lot remains to be done but I
believe the agenda is the correct one.
A third group that the throne speech reaches out to is those
Canadians who do not have the necessary skills or training to
compete in today's marketplace. The throne speech calls for a
renewed effort in building a skilled workforce and the
establishment of a national literacy initiative.
As a member of the House, I am pleased that our government has
come forward with this agenda. The focus has shifted from
economic survival to economic and social renewal.
1325
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the hon. member on his excellent maiden speech. It
is a pleasure to have the hon. member from Atlantic Canada and
the great province of Prince Edward Island here in the House.
I enjoyed the member's speech. He covered a wide range of
important topics on the government's agenda and on the past
performance of the government. He touched on important problems
and issues that are of concern across the country. They are
certainly of concern in his riding as they are in mine.
Would the member like to comment on one part of the government's
plans, the area of innovation? Would he tell us what he thinks
will be the impact of those important efforts in Atlantic Canada?
Mr. Shawn Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I am very excited about
the steps the government has taken with regard to innovation.
I was especially pleased last June in Halifax when the Prime
Minister announced the Atlantic investment partnership. It
called for approximately $300 million to be spent in Atlantic
Canada on innovative projects, mainly geared toward our
university research institutions. I believe that is the right
path. It will develop our innovative infrastructure in Atlantic
Canada and we will see results in the years to come.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I too want to congratulate the hon. member for his
maiden speech. I remember the first speech I gave in the House
of Commons. It is a very nerve-racking experience and can be
very disconcerting. The member did an admirable job and I
commend him. The only trouble is he is on the wrong side of the
House.
Mr. Alex Shepherd: He is on your side.
Mr. Werner Schmidt: He is on my side but he is with the
government over there.
I was rather impressed with the way the member dissected the
Speech from the Throne. I think he did a pretty fair job of it.
However, this morning a private member's bill was introduced that
deals with the custody of children when parents divorce. The
Speech from the Throne did not really deal with that issue. I
know the member cares about that issue because the people in
Prince Edward Island are very concerned with families.
Would the hon. member tell us what his position would be in
terms of joint custody for children?
Mr. Shawn Murphy: Mr. Speaker, first, I am on the same
side of the House as the learned member. However, my goal in the
House is to get to the other side of the House. If there is
anyone over there, especially on the front benches, who wants to
trade with me, I am willing to talk with them.
With regard to the custody of children in cases of divorced or
separated families, the only principle, and by far the most
important and significant principle, that has to be taken into
account in any legislation that comes before us and is passed by
the House, is that the best interests of the child be taken into
account. All other interests are secondary.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
also congratulate the member for Hillsborough. I know he comes
from a very distinguished career on Prince Edward Island,
including being on the board of the CDIC, and many other areas.
I was curious about his comments with regard to the linkage
between social and economic policy. He also cited a few
examples. Could develop that theme a little
further, particularly in the areas of early childhood
development, health care, drug abuse and other aspects.
Mr. Shawn Murphy: Mr. Speaker, this is an important
issue. When we look at the history of nations, any time there
are disparities or there is economic growth, economic and social
inequities develop.
1330
Canada has been sheltered somewhat from that because of the
social legislation we have. It is important to bear this in
mind. There are inequities in the wage levels in Canada, and
that is why, in this 37th parliament, we have to bear in mind the
family, children and the disabled. We have to widen the circle,
not only the economic circle but the social circle.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives
me great pleasure to speak in support of the Liberal Party of
Canada and its initiatives and plans for Canada on issues that
are exceptionally important.
The Liberals have been in power since 1993. At the time we came
to power, the economic state of the nation was, to put it mildly,
a mess. There was a deficit of over $42 billion and there were
huge debts. There was a lack of confidence in the economy as
well as a lack of confidence in the institutions themselves,
whether it was parliament or the government itself. As well,
there was a high unemployment rate in excess of 10%. Inflation
was at an all time high. Bankruptcies were in the hundreds of
thousands in almost every single sector of the economy. The
international community's confidence in our economy was on shaky
ground to a large extent. The picture was not very pretty.
The people of Canada gave us the opportunity and the mandate to
govern. This government, in a three step approach, has taken a
number of initiatives which I will put in a global setting.
The first step the Prime Minister and his government took was to
restore confidence in the institution. To that extent, the
government undertook one of the most dynamic and pragmatic
analysis ever of almost every single program at the national
level. In essence, the objective of that analysis was to find
out in terms of plans or programs what should be in the federal
domain and what should be in the provincial domain. A number of
good things came out of that objective.
Also, the Government of Canada decided to let go in excess of
42,000 public servants, which caused a lot of harm in this
community and this region. However, the government did that
because it felt that it first had to clean its own house and set
its own affairs in order.
Second, the government brought back confidence on the economic
front. To that extent, the government had an exceptionally
aggressive strategy to encourage trade and to look at every
single segment of the Canadian economy, the manufacturing sector
as well as the service sectors and others, in order to figure out
the things that were necessary to put in place in order to
support those sectors.
The government thus adopted a policy of low interest rates,
without dictating to the Bank of Canada what should and should
not be done. The government also embarked on a major
infrastructure program, which created hundreds of thousands of
jobs across the country. This program was exceptionally popular.
The federal government provided one-third of the funding, the
province put in a third and the municipalities put in a third.
The program generated an economic stimulus across Canada. It
created jobs and helped municipalities undertake projects they
would not otherwise have undertaken.
1335
The third thing for the government to do is to start investing
in the future, based on the results of the first and second steps
undertaken by the government. We have moved from a situation of
having a $42 billion deficit and a huge debt to a situation
where, for the first time in a long time, we have a surplus. When
the government started to generate the surplus we were able, for
the first time in a long time, to start, at the turn of this
century, to pay down the national debt. Our house is in order,
public trust in the national institutions has increased and is in
place and the economy is moving forward. Now that the Liberal
Party has been elected for the third time, it is time for
investment. That brings me to the third point, which to a large
extent is the Speech from the Throne, which the House of Commons
is now debating.
It makes me very proud, first as a Canadian and second as a
member of the Liberal Party of Canada, to see such a wonderful
initiative put forward by the Prime Minister and his team. It
makes me proud to be a Canadian and proud to be a member of this
House. When I heard the Speech from the Throne I felt good and I
thought, wow, it is really wonderful to be a member of this
nation, this party and this parliament.
We will bring about very positive and managed change for
Canadians over the next few years. We will see investments
accelerating in areas that are exceptionally important and close
to the heart of every Canadian. One case in point is the
investment in education and training, in lifelong learning. The
ability of a citizen to go back to school with government
support, regardless of his or her age, is a wonderful thing.
Not too long ago the government initiated a $400 maximum
investment per child for each $2,000 a parent invested in an
RESP. That was a wonderful initiative, which will go a long way.
With a situation like the one we have in Canada, where close to
25% of people have difficulty reading an application form or
properly reading, writing or performing a very simple
mathematical skill, it is high time for government at the
federal, provincial and municipal levels to take initiatives to
bring about positive change in the lives of our people. In 1986
a business study showed that the cost of illiteracy to the
economy was in excess of $10 billion annually. That is the
direct cost, but the indirect cost of illiteracy to the nation is
huge, in the tens of billions. To that extent, it is
exceptionally important for the Government of Canada to embark on
a program such as this one.
I bring up this point in order to say that it is only one good
initiative the government has undertaken. There are a number of
other initiatives on which I am sure my colleagues will elaborate
in their own speeches. I was delighted, however, to see the
Government of Canada embarking on this magnificent initiative. I
know my constituents in Ottawa Centre will be thrilled to know
that not only will they now be able to save for their children's
education and have the government provide them with incentives
and support, they can also do it for themselves.
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the member on his speech today. He is of course the
member for Ottawa Centre and Ottawa has experienced tremendous
economic activity in the last few years. I wonder if he would
like to comment on and suggest how other areas of the country
might try to emulate the success that Ottawa has had,
particularly in the Kanata area with the high tech sector, and
whether he would comment on what the innovation plans of the
government would do to assist in that regard.
1340
Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely true that
this region has done miraculous things, one of which was dealing
with the huge cuts to the public service. In excess of 40,000
people found themselves without jobs. On top of that, the
economic situation overall was not that great.
In a matter of three to five years, things turned around in this
region in an incredible way. This region is now not only the
leading economic engine in this province and in this country, but
will fairly soon lead any other city in North America and perhaps
in the world in terms of economic activity.
I am proud and honoured to be a professional engineer by
education and also a resident of this city that is so dynamic. I
am so proud to be a representative of the riding of Ottawa
Centre.
Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your guidance and
your help this morning. As well, I acknowledge and thank my
colleague from New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, who I will be
splitting my time with today.
At this moment it is important that I express my sincere
gratitude to the constituents of Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, as
they are the people who are responsible for me being in this
wonderful House of Commons. My job as a member of parliament for
my riding is that of a servant. I am very proud and humbled that
they have chosen me to represent them. The people of
Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar put their faith in me and the
Canadian Alliance Party that I represent. I know they want to
see things done differently. I know they want their voices
heard. I will do my very best to make sure that happens.
The constituency of Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar is a beautiful
part of Canada, a large rural riding with an urban component.
Agriculture is of vital importance to the people of
Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, not only in the rural communities
but also in the city of Saskatoon, where the spinoffs from the
industry are prominent. It is very unfortunate that there was
only a passing mention of Canada's agriculture industry in the
throne speech. I find it hard to believe that an industry so
important to our nation was not given more emphasis.
In the throne speech, the government says it will “help
Canada's agricultural sector move beyond crisis management,
leading to more genuine diversification and value-added growth,
new investments and high standards of environmental stewardship
and food safety”. I do not believe there are many members in
the House that know more about agricultural diversification,
value added growth and new investment in agriculture than I do.
Perhaps that is why I find the Liberal government's flippant use
of the words ringing hollow and so without meaning and true
intent.
Under the Liberal government, the farming industry has been left
in dire straits. Continuing international farm subsidies, thin
trade negotiations, low commodity prices, government indecision,
bureaucratic red tape and the gross inefficiency of farm income
assistance programs have driven farm families across the country
to desperation.
With all due respect, we have diversified. There is not one
farm family I know of that has not moved from traditional grains
to trying oilseeds and pulse crops. Some have developed
community based investment options to diversify into seed
production, seed cleaning or larger livestock operations. Farmers
are turning grain land to grass and raising traditional
livestock. Some are taking on huge debts to convert traditional
livestock operations to specialty livestock. Others are
experimenting with herbs, spices, vegetables and an assortment of
other products that boggle the mind, anything to try to make ends
meet and to diversify as their governments keep telling them they
must.
There is not one farmer I know of who relishes the fact that he
and his wife must work off the farm to keep the farm running.
There is not one farmer I know of who likes going to farm rallies
or who likes lobbying the government for help.
1345
There is not one farmer I know of who watches sons or daughters
leave the farm and is not literally heartbroken, just as my
husband and I were when both our sons, their wives and our
beautiful granddaughters left our farm and our small community
for jobs in Regina and Edmonton because they could not make a
living.
The government's loose use of catchphrases like diversification
and value added is very convenient for its speech writers and
bureaucrats, who cannot in a million years understand the
situation on Canadian farms right now.
That is precisely why it is so disappointing, discouraging and
infuriating for farm families to repeatedly be told by government
that this is what they must do to survive in agriculture today.
Yes, the agricultural industry is changing quickly, as is any
other industry affected by our fast paced, technology reliant
global economy, but do not tell us what we already know. Help us
adapt, help us get there and help us continue to be the best food
producers in the world.
In order for farmers to move past crisis management, the
government must seriously and immediately deal with international
agricultural subsidies. It has been all talk and no action from
the Liberal government. While Canada has reduced agricultural
subsidies, the American and European governments continue to
subsidize their farmers at high levels. It is a simple case of
competition, and we cannot compete.
International subsidies are crippling the agricultural industry
in the country, and while the Liberal government took a tough
stance to protect Quebec airplane manufacturer Bombardier from
international subsidies, its stance to protect Canadian farmers
against U.S. and European countries has been positively limp and
lethargic.
I would like to believe that the weak mention of agriculture in
the Speech from the Throne was an oversight by the Liberal
government. It is a very sad situation if that is the case.
However, it may very well be the start of a tough love
demonstration promoted by the Prime Minister for western
provinces. If that is the case, it is a demonstration that
affects agricultural producers from our nation's eastern shores
to the coast of British Columbia. It is an insult to the
industry that built this country and that has fed our people, an
industry that has fed the world and that needs our support.
I am committed to working on behalf of the agricultural
community in my constituency and on behalf of all Canadian
farmers. Before my term is up, I intend to make sure that each
and every member of the House understands the importance of
agriculture to the economic and social fabric of our country. The
members of the House will be diversified right up to there.
If there has been one thing that has become clear to me since my
decision to seek a position as a member of parliament, it is how
important family is. There is nothing more precious to me than
my own family. Since the election it has become increasingly
obvious that my work on behalf of families in my constituency
will be some of the most important work I do.
In my first few weeks on the job, I was approached by people
with a variety of concerns: a woman in a situation of domestic
violence who was dealing with the justice system; a couple who
were not getting any answers from the AIDA program; and an
elderly man who could no longer look after his ailing elderly
wife in their home. There were others. The one thing all these
people had in common was family, family members who were there
trying to help them and support them through their problems.
What is so discouraging about the direction of the Liberal
government over the last decade, and which continues to appear in
the direction of this throne speech, is that it continues to put
politics ahead of family. Families are forgotten. It does not
matter what one considers: health care, where families cope with
long surgical waiting lists; a mom who is a nurse and who is
hardly home because of the tremendous numbers of shifts she
works; financial issues, as families struggle to pay skyrocketing
fuel bills; justice; child poverty; and agriculture.
Canadian families need our attention, especially the members of
our family who have helped build this country. I especially look
forward to spending time with and working for the senior citizens
of my riding. They are special people who have contributed so
much to building our communities, our province and our nation.
They are our roots.
1350
I want to recognize and pay special tribute to my mom, Irene
Winacott, and to my mother-in-law and father-in-law, Roberta and
Roland Skelton, for their love and their support. They are
incredible people. The challenges they have faced in their
lifetime were great and many, but they are wonderful examples of
strength, grace and love.
I also want to thank my husband Noel for his patience, his
whole-hearted support and his hard work, not only through the
nomination process, the election campaign and consequently this
new commitment, but for the last 36 years. I want to thank my
children, my daughter Terri and sons Ted and Mark and their
spouses, for being great cheerleaders, listeners and advisers. I
want to thank my five beautiful granddaughters, Wendi, Tenille,
Victoria, Shelby and Shae, for keeping me young.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague
for her first speech in the House of Commons. Beyond what she
said, I also want to compliment her on the tone of what she said,
because she is speaking as a true representative of her
community. I hear an urgency in her voice in regard to what she
is talking about, which is the plight of her community,
especially of the farmers.
I have been around the House for long enough to know, and I have
come to understand that when it comes to big government programs,
the Liberals cannot manage. Yesterday we had the minister
answering some questions in the House of Commons about farm aid.
Basically he was saying that his hands are tied and that he is
doing the best he can in spite of a bad situation. However, he
did not offer any solutions or any hope of relief for desperate
farmers.
Last week we had tractors on the Hill. That was a sign of
desperation. We have an AIDA program and the government says
that is its answer, but I want to ask my colleague this: what is
the practical situation in the kitchens of some of these
farmhouses across her riding? Of those who are expecting AIDA to
help them, what is their situation?
Ms. Carol Skelton: Mr. Speaker, there is desperation at
our kitchen tables in Saskatchewan. People need their money. We
have people waiting who filed their AIDA forms last September.
They have been told by the AIDA office that their forms will not
be looked at—for the first time—until March. These people need
their AIDA payments at this moment. We would like the Liberal
government to make sure that this is done as soon as possible.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I too would like to congratulate the hon. member on her
maiden speech.
As we look at agriculture and listen to her comments, we
see that things are changing rapidly in agriculture. This year
alone, some of the input costs have gone through the roof, such
as fuel, energy and fertilizer costs. The costs for all of these
things are going up and will further adversely affect farm
operations.
Could the hon. member, as an active farmer, relate to the House
and to Canadians some of the difficulties she and her farm family
are facing due to this increase in expenses?
Ms. Carol Skelton: Mr. Speaker, we all know about the
soaring price of natural gas. This immediately increases the
cost of fertilizer. Any farmer who wants to get fertilizer is
finding it very hard to obtain. We have fuel dealers who are on
the verge of bankruptcy because their bills from last year have
not been paid.
Farm families need immediate assistance. Unless assistance is
given immediately, we will not have a crop put in this spring.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I too would like to congratulate the
member from Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, and I wish to ask her if
she has the same theme in her part of the province: we lost a
large number of students this year and that has effectively
closed some of our schools. The number of young people leaving
the rural areas is so large that in many areas the traditional
curling teams and hockey teams are done for, probably forever.
Is that true in the hon. member's community?
1355
Ms. Carol Skelton: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises an
important issue. In rural Saskatchewan we have lost basically a
whole generation of farm families. They have all moved away,
either to the city or to another province, because there are no
jobs available for them in the rural communities. We find that
they are having trouble getting into technical schools to further
their education because the seats are already spoken for. We are
losing that whole generation of agricultural people in
Saskatchewan.
* * *
[Translation]
AUDITOR GENERAL
The Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table the
report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons,
Volume III, dated December 2000.
[English]
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(e) this document is deemed
permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Public
Accounts.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
CHARLIE GRANT
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay—Superior North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I bring to your attention today the story of a great
Canadian, a fine citizen of Thunder Bay and a very good friend.
Charlie Grant was born in Winnipeg in 1918. His first job was
selling newspapers to help support his family. He married his
childhood sweetheart, Dorothy, in 1943. They have 5 children and
12 grandchildren whom they love very deeply.
Charlie worked for the CPR and was transferred to Thunder Bay,
thank goodness, in 1949. Every award that can be bestowed upon
Charlie Grant by the city of Thunder Bay has been bestowed upon
him. He was a builder of his church and was involved in little
league baseball, the minor league hockey, Boy Scouts, Red Cross,
United Way and so on. He was a teacher at Confederation College.
When he retired he went into business for himself and now owns
several travel agencies throughout Ontario. In his spare time he
is up at 6 o'clock in the morning and finds his way home some
time around 10 o'clock in the evening.
The real tribute to him is that like you, Mr. Speaker, in his
spare time he reads Hansard. His motto in life is never
retire. He is a wonderful person. I wish him luck.
* * *
FOOD FREEDOM DAY
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, today is Food Freedom Day, which means that it takes
only 37 days for Canadians to earn enough money to pay for their
food supply for an entire year. I salute the farmers who provide
Canada with the safest, highest quality and most affordable food
supply in the world.
However I must raise an important point: the increasing gap
between what consumers pay and the money that actually reaches
the farmer's pocket. Do we realize that by January 9 we have
paid the farmer for a year's worth of food? Nine cents is all
that a farmer receives from a $1.50 loaf of bread.
The agriculture industry is the third largest employer in
Canada. When it is hurting, all of Canada is hurting. It
saddens me to say that the only place there will be starvation
this year is down on the family farm.
Farmers have built this country. Canada must not turn her back
on them in their time of need. The government needs to recognize
these facts and be willing to take some action.
* * *
FOOD FREEDOM DAY
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, happy
Food Freedom Day. It is like Tax Freedom Day except that it
pertains to food. It is true that if we put 100% of our income
toward our basic food requirements, today is the day that we
would have our bill paid in full.
Oh happy day, unless one is a farmer. The portion of this bill
that is paid to the farmers was paid way back on January 9. It
is sad, is it not, that it takes us 37 days to pay our entire
food bill and only 9 days to pay our farmers?
In last week's throne speech the Governor General stated that
the government would help Canada's agriculture sector move beyond
crisis management. I applaud her for that. I also applaud the
Prime Minister for promising that the matter of high U.S.
agricultural subsidies would be the first order of business when
he meets with the U.S. president this month.
In the meantime our farmers need support that they can take to
the bank. I am calling upon every member to support our primary
producers with a lobby for cash. Let us make Food Freedom Day a
celebration for everyone.
* * *
DAVID IFTODY
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is with shock and sadness that I stand today to
extend my sympathy to his family and loved ones on the sudden
death yesterday of our former colleague, David Iftody.
David was a good friend to many of us. As a former roommate of
his, I knew how dedicated he was to his constituents, his
province and his country.
1400
He chaired and was an active member of the rural caucus and we
fought many agricultural battles together. David was outspoken
on behalf of the people of Provencher and we could always count
on David to be in our corner when we needed support on rural
issues.
David was a hard worker and a good parliamentarian and will be
remembered for his positive outlook on life and his cheery smile
to match.
On behalf of all his colleagues, I extend our sincere
condolences to his family. David's voice and presence will be
sorely missed in Manitoba and in the House.
* * *
FOOD FREEDOM DAY
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today is Food Freedom Day in Canada, as the annual food
bill for consumers is paid in full. As of today Canadians have
earned enough money to pay for their entire year's food supply,
food which is the safest and most affordable in the world. It
takes just 37 days for us to pay for our groceries. That is just
10% of our personal disposable income. In France, it is 13%, in
Germany 15% and in Mexico 33%.
Our farmers are the most efficient and productive in the world,
but while those who eat food celebrate today it is astonishing to
note the date on which farmers get paid for all this food. It is
January 9. It takes only nine days to pay farmers for a year's
worth of food. Statistics Canada figures show that a waiter or
waitress will make more on tips for serving the food than the
farmer does for producing it in the first place.
* * *
AUDITOR GENERAL
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today the auditor general released
his report on the state of affairs in our public service. He
warns of a crisis in the ability of the government to deliver
essential services to Canadians.
He blasted the inability of the Public Service Commission to
compete with the private sector in the hiring of the very best
personnel. Seventy per cent of senior executives are expected to
retire by the year 2008 and there is no plan to replace them.
I quote the auditor general, who states “The short term hiring
practice shows a lack of long range planning with little regard
for long range needs. There is no analysis of labour markets to
assess trends”.
The best and brightest are being courted and recruited by the
private sector while the government pays no attention to filling
their ranks. I call on the government to follow the advice of
the auditor general to end quota hiring practices and start
attracting the best recruits before this crisis cripples the
ability of the government to competently deliver even basic
government services to all Canadians.
* * *
BILL CORCORAN
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I pay
tribute to Bill Corcoran, who passed away on February 3 following
a courageous battle with cancer.
Many of the people in Richmond Hill remember Bill from his long
years of service to the town of Richmond Hill as town councillor
and hydro commissioner. He also served his country by serving
overseas with the Queen's Own Rifles and the Cameron Highlanders.
Corky, as he was affectionately known, was a generous, kind
hearted man with a wonderful sense of humour who stood by his
word. Although I did not have the pleasure of working with Bill
on council, I did have many opportunities during his tenure as
hydro commissioner to discuss with him many issues of mutual
concern to the community.
In particular, we will remember his great sense of duty, his
warmth and his propensity for telling jokes. His dedication to
public service and his concern for his fellow citizens were
hallmarks of his political career.
I express my condolences to his wife, Eleanor and to his
children, grandchildren and many friends. We will miss him.
* * *
[Translation]
SOIRÉE DES MASQUES
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, over the
years, the Soirée des Masques has become a special occasion for
focussing the spotlight on Quebec theatrical genius.
The seventh edition, held this past Sunday night at the
Monument-National, demonstrated this once again. The evening,
with actress Pierrette Robitaille as the mistress of ceremonies
and orchestrated by Fernand Rainville to the texts of
Pierre-Yves Lemieux, was a theatrical event in itself. The
atmosphere was thick with emotion.
Quebec is fortunate indeed to have such talented artists,
creative people, performers and production teams.
Bravo to the award winners and to all the nominees. Bravo and
thanks also to all those numerous actors and actresses who
were not nominated this time. Thank you, all the creative people
who provide us with such thrills every time the curtain goes up.
Thanks to all members of the theatrical world.
* * *
[English]
TOQUE TUESDAY
Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
homelessness is one of the greatest social problems of our time.
Sadly we are accustomed to people sleeping in shelters and on the
street. Even worse, there are far more who are invisible to us:
people who live in appalling substandard housing.
While the reasons for homelessness are many, solutions to the
problem are in short supply. Raising the Roof is a national charity
dedicated to finding long term solutions to homelessness. It is asking
that we warm our hearts and indeed our heads this winter.
Today is Toque Tuesday. Thousands of Canadians across the country
are donning toques to draw attention to homelessness.
1405
While I understand that props are not allowed and neither are
funny costumes, I hope in this case you will forgive me for
donning my toque.
The Speaker: I am sure we all admire the toque but some
of us may have missed that.
* * *
CANADIAN FOODGRAINS BANK
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today and voice my
support for a true Canadian success story, the Canadian
Foodgrains Bank.
The foodgrains bank core program involves the provision of food
to vulnerable people and households throughout the world. Started
by prairie farmers, this program is expanding rapidly in Ontario
and interest is mounting in the maritimes.
The Canadian Alliance caucus supports the work done by countless
volunteers and private sector contributors involved with the
Canadian Foodgrains Bank, who donate their time, resources and
services to help feed the world's hungry.
Canadians should look to the foodgrains bank as an example of
how the private sector can lead and how the government can play a
crucial supporting role in humanitarian assistance.
The foodgrains bank's three year funding agreement with CIDA
expires on March 31. We urge the government to renew the
agreement and continue this very successful program.
* * *
DAVID IFTODY
Mr. Tony Ianno (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise with great sadness today to pay tribute to a former
seatmate, colleague and good friend, David Iftody, on his sudden
passing.
I pay tribute to the dedication and devotion with which he
served in the House, working tirelessly for the people of
Provencher and championing many of their causes from the rural
base he was so proud to represent. He was not afraid to stand up
for what he believed in, at times when it might have been easier
to go with the flow.
He fulfilled his role as a parliamentarian on issues that were
dear to his heart. His position as Parliamentary Secretary to
the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and his
work on behalf of small business allowed him to display in the
House his sharp wit.
His love of the outdoors and his support for the rural way of
life were always evident. One could feel the pride he felt in
his grandparents' struggle to establish roots in their chosen
country. The opportunity to return to his grandparents'
homeland, Romania, as a member of parliament, along with the
Prime Minister of Canada, was an historical and emotional moment
for David.
There is so much more I could say about this great friend, but I
will end by expressing, along with my friends in the House, my
heartfelt sympathies and condolences to his family at this very
difficult time.
* * *
FOOD FREEDOM DAY
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, today is Food Freedom Day. Canadians have now earned
enough money to pay for groceries for an entire year. It takes
Canadians 37 days to pay for food for one year, but it takes only
9 days, to January 9, to pay the farmer for producing that food.
Farmers receive a small share of the Canadian food dollar. From
a loaf of bread that sells for $1.50, the farmer receives only 9
cents. From a food basket of $10.50, including chicken, bread,
vegetables and milk, the farmer receives only 73 cents. The
farmers, not the large corporations, deserve a greater share of
the food dollar.
Finally, because of the crisis in agriculture now, the federal
government needs to put an immediate cash injection in the hands
of farmers and come up with a long term farm program based on the
cost of production.
* * *
[Translation]
CHINA
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
this morning, as a democratic citizen concerned with the respect
for human rights and as the Bloc Quebecois spokesperson for the
Asia-Pacific, I took part in a press conference organized by the
Canada-Tibet Committee in order to support a demand that the
Prime Minister of Canada bring to one negotiating table
representatives of the Dalai Lama and of the Chinese government.
The Canadian government is well known for its fondness for
appearing in the eyes of the international community as a broker
of peace and an untiring defender of human rights. In that
context, our current special relationship with China offers us a
unique opportunity to put our principles into concrete actions.
1410
The Bloc Quebecois does not want to see human rights sacrificed
to the economic benefits of the Prime Minister's visit to China.
The Tibetans have the right to retain their culture, a culture
that is unique to them.
* * *
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker,
Canada's equalization system is a cornerstone of our social
policy. In fact it is the only constitutionally enshrined
spending program.
The stated goal of equalization was to provide approximately
equal levels of taxation and services across the country,
regardless of province. Yet today the provinces that have the
greatest need for economic growth are also suffering under the
highest levels of taxation. As such, clearly Canada's
equalization system is broken.
The premier of Nova Scotia, John Hamm, is in Ottawa today,
leading a crusade to fix Canada's equalization system, starting
with eliminating the clawback of offshore revenues which denies
provinces like Nova Scotia and Newfoundland the opportunity to
use offshore revenues to lower taxes, to lower debt and to create
greater levels of economic growth for their people.
I urge all members of the House, regardless of province or
party, to support John Hamm, premier of Nova Scotia, in this
legendary crusade on behalf of all Canadians.
* * *
DAVID IFTODY
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today in tribute to a young man whose life ended
at all too young an age. I had the privilege of working with
David Iftody for more than seven years. He was a faithful and
dedicated member of the House.
[Translation]
David served his fellow citizens with enthusiasm and passion,
and his extraordinary efforts in issues related to Indian and
Northern Affairs testify to this.
[English]
David had strong opinions. He knew where his constituents stood
on issues and he relayed their views with zeal. I saw how much
the people of Provencher appreciated that when I visited his
riding in 1997 in Lac du Bonnet, and most recently during the
campaign, at a high school in Oakbank.
I was disappointed when I learned that he would not be joining
us in this parliament and today I am greatly saddened by his
passing. Thank you, David. You will be missed by all of us.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I too would like to express my condolences at the sudden
death of Mr. David Iftody. I first met Mr. Iftody a number of
years ago at the University of Manitoba where he was my student.
He was a bright and enthusiastic student. It was not surprising
to me that he decided to pursue a career in the public service.
As an energetic and hard working member of parliament, he served
the people of Provencher for seven years, representing their
concerns in Ottawa and working in good faith to improve the lives
of all Canadians.
He will be sadly missed by his former constituents, his family
and friends, and by his colleagues in the House of Commons.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is with consternation and sadness that we learned
yesterday of the passing, at age 44, of our former colleague,
David Iftody, who, when parliament was dissolved on October 22,
was the member for Provencher, in Manitoba.
Mr. Iftody was first elected to the House of Commons in 1993 and
re-elected in 1997. He was the chairman of the rural caucus of
the Liberal Party, a member of the Standing Committee on Industry
and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development.
Born on June 15, 1956, in Winnipeg, Mr. Iftody studied at the
University of Manitoba where he received a B.A. in social
services and a masters degree in public administration. We will
remember our colleague as a strong person dedicated to social
justice, to which he devoted several years of his life.
I join all my colleagues in presenting to his family and friends
our most sincere condolences.
1415
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
on behalf of my NDP colleagues and as a member of parliament from
Manitoba, I too join in expressing the shock and the sadness we
all felt yesterday as word began to proceed with respect to
David's sudden death.
I join with others here in paying tribute to the work that he
did in this place; to his commitment to his constituency, the
area around Lac du Bonnet and throughout the whole area of
Provencher; his commitment to his constituents; and the way in
which he struggled from time to time, I think he would want it
said, with what he thought his constituents wanted, what he
thought his party wanted, and what he thought his church wanted.
In a time when we are talking a lot these days about free votes,
he might want it noted that sometimes, to the Prime Minister's
distress, he was one of the original free voters around here. We
honour that memory of him as well.
We join with others in expressing condolences to his family and
friends.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday we lost one of our former members at the too young age
of 44. David Iftody's untimely death was a shock to all of us in
the House who knew him. He will be greatly missed by members of
the House and the people of Manitoba.
David Iftody will be remembered best for his dedication and
commitment to his constituents, whether it was helping out the
people of Provencher during the 1997 Red River Valley flood or
voting his constituency's wishes against his own government on
gun control legislation. Members from all parties can respect
that kind of commitment.
David was first elected to the House in 1993 and re-elected in
1997. He served his constituents and his party as parliamentary
secretary of Indian affairs and as chairman of the Liberal rural
caucus. David understood rural Canada. He fought and worked for
the rural way of life in Manitoba.
I extend my condolences on behalf of the PC Party to the
surviving members of the Iftody family. On behalf of Manitoba I
thank David for his years of public service.
[Translation]
The Speaker: I invite hon. members to rise for a minute of
silence for our former colleague, David Iftody.
[Editor's Note: The House stood in silence.]
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
AUDITOR GENERAL
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the auditor general's latest report
was tabled just minutes ago in the House. Sir, if you are
looking for a good sleep tonight, I would not suggest that you
read this book before retiring, retiring for the evening that is.
It says that Canadians are justifiably upset about scandals,
about mismanagement and about waste. The auditor general states
that things are getting worse and that he shares the frustrations
of Canadians.
So do we. This is wasted and lost money that could have gone to
health care. It could have gone to helping students with high
debt loads. It could have gone to community agencies. It is
lost forever.
The Prime Minister promised year after year that he would clean
up his act. He has not. This is a mess. Why is it that way and
why does he not care?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have an auditor general who reports four times a
year. Previously the auditor general reported once a year.
He is there to find out where we have problems in the
administration. We receive the report. We study it very
seriously and we implement the recommendations that he makes. It
is a very good process. It is public and it is done to make sure
that taxpayer dollars are well spent.
1420
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, that just does not reflect reality. I
am quoting the auditor general. He says that the problems are by
no means exclusive to one program or to one department. He goes
on to say:
It is discouraging to witness new incidents of waste and
mismanagement crop up hydra-like after older ones have been
discovered—
New and ongoing mismanagement. In the red books that we hear
about from time to time there is a promise that the Prime
Minister will hold ministers responsible for waste and
mismanagement. Which ministers is he holding responsible?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, they are all responsible for their departments and they
are very diligent.
I would like to inform the Leader of the Opposition that when we
came to office in 1993 the federal government was spending
something like $121 billion on programs every year. Since that
time we have reduced the level of spending on programs by 20%.
After seven years we are not back to the $121 billion.
This is great testimony that the government is taking public
spending extremely seriously. Whenever there is an error we
correct it as quickly as possible.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, that math is very scary. The Prime
Minister says he has reduced spending 20% but the problems have
increased. So with less money he is creating more problems.
The auditor general has some simple advice for the government:
“Don't waste public money. Do nothing illegal. Act
impartially, honestly and fairly”. The auditor general goes on
to say that while these principles may seem self-evident, most of
us would agree: “don't waste public money. Do nothing illegal.
Act honestly”. Yet he goes on to say they are self-evident and
not clear enough to have prevented breaches.
Would the minister responsible for HRDC tell us if she thinks
these are fairly clear principles? If so, why does she not
follow them?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very tempted to go through the list of all the
things that were given to his riding when he was a member of the
assembly in Alberta. Money was given to hair salons, Dairy
Queens, limousine services, and even to a tuxedo rental company.
* * *
GOVERNMENT GRANTS
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the auditor general says that—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. It is difficult for the
Chair to hear the questions and the answers, and I have to ensure
they are in order.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, these kinds of answers
have nothing to do with the real problem. The auditor general
says that new incidents keep cropping up. I asked the industry
minister about one yesterday. He did not even know of this
latest one.
He knows that Mr. Lemire and Mr. Pepin have been charged with
fraud and theft in their handling of government grants in the
Prime Minister's riding. They are also involved in a
questionable Shawinigan scheme that allowed them to qualify for
$600,000 more by using previous federal grants for seed money.
Something is wrong with that. The Prime Minister's chief of
staff was warned in writing, yet the deal slithered through
anyway. Has the industry minister contacted the RCMP about this?
Yes or no.
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on any matter that the RCMP should be involved in, the
RCMP will have its own volition to take whatever action it deems
appropriate.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, surely the industry minister, if he has a handle on
his department, would of his own volition have some problems with
some of the things that have gone on for years, not only in this
department but in many departments across the way, evidently with
full sanction from the Prime Minister.
The fact that the industry minister has announced that he is
trying to demand money back from Lemire and Pepin proves that
there was impropriety with taxpayer dollars. That is why we sent
these documents to the RCMP last December 8 as soon as this was
revealed.
Why did the government make $600,000 available without ensuring
that absolutely all criteria were met?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member opposite keeps mixing up a variety of
different files. It appears to me her only purpose seems to be
to want to try to malign the reputation of people without proper
examination of the facts.
The reality is that there was an overpayment which has been
dealt with. Funds are now in the process of being returned by
the agreement of all sides.
With respect to the RCMP, if the member has any evidence
whatsoever that she thinks warrants an RCMP investigation, she
should pass it on to the RCMP. If she is interested in justice,
she should allow it to do its job before she attempts to carry on
as she has, smearing on the floor of the House the reputations of
many people. It is—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Roberval.
* * *
1425
[Translation]
CINAR
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the
resolution of a tax dispute, Revenue Canada has two ways of
negotiating an agreement with a delinquent company. The first is
through voluntary disclosure, where the error is admitted before
it is discovered. The second is through a decision based on the
discretionary authority of the Minister of National Revenue.
My question is addressed to the Minister of National Revenue. I
am not asking for the confidential details of the agreement
between Revenue Canada and CINAR, but can the minister confirm to
the House that this agreement was indeed based on a ministerial
decision taken by virtue of his discretionary authority?
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 have said this several times
in the House.
First, it is obvious that the Income Tax Act prevents the
Minister of National Revenue from commenting on any individual
file.
Second, there are many more ways of resolving files than those
mentioned by the opposition member.
Third, the Minister of National Revenue must not get involved in
any of the investigations being conducted by the department.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary for the Minister of National Revenue.
Since there are so many ways for the Department of National
Revenue to arrive at a resolution, I ask him, without wishing to
know the details of the agreement with CINAR, what method he and
his department decided on to reach an amicable agreement with
this corporation?
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 once again repeat
what I said.
As the Minister of National Revenue, I cannot comment on any
individual case involving the department. I think most
Canadians appreciate this fundamental principle of
confidentiality underlying the Income Tax Act. I think
everyone here supports this principle.
Second, when investigations are under way, if there is a
hypothetical reference to a particular case or to any of the
cases that we may be processing, the Minister of National Revenue
does not become involved. All files are handled by the
department's investigators and they do an excellent job.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it would appear that, under the agreement reached in
December between CINAR and the Customs and Revenue Agency, there
will be no proceedings in this matter.
However, La Presse noted this morning that the Minister of
National Revenue, before his entry into politics, was associated
with the law firm of Smiley, Cauchon, which specialized in
copyright and credit arrangements in the area of film and
television production.
Out of a concern for transparency, would the minister tell this
House that he never had any professional link of any sort, prior
to 1993, with CINAR, subsidiaries of it or companies or
individuals connected with CINAR?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in tax terms, as the public
knows, I cannot comment on a specific file, especially the file
referred to.
Now, if we are talking about my situation when I was a lawyer,
have I acted as the lawyer for the company being referred to,
that is, CINAR? To the best of my knowledge, I have never been
CINAR's lawyer, and I know that this has been stated publicly and
that CINAR was approached on this.
I imagine that CINAR was approached on this question. But I, to
the best of my knowledge, have never acted as counsel for CINAR,
and, once again, I do not get involved in the investigations of
Revenue Canada.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I do not know if it was intentional, but the minister
forgot part of my question about whether he had acted as the
lawyer of any of CINAR's subsidiaries, or companies or
individuals linked to CINAR.
That said, in this particular case, could the minister confirm
for this House that he does not intend to grant any form of
immunity once the current police investigation of CINAR or its
former directors has been completed?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and
Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the
Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the answer is simple.
The Income Tax Act is clear. There is a specific section on the
matter of confidentiality.
I consider confidentiality one of the key elements of the Income
Tax Act, and I intend to respect it, regardless of the number of
questions I am asked on all of the files that may come before
Revenue Canada. I will stand firm as the Minister of National
Revenue on the matter of respect for confidentiality. The
members of the opposition know that I cannot comment.
* * *
1430
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the auditor
general has presented his report. Clearly, the employment
insurance commission has no explanation of how it sets
contribution rates. These high rates have helped to increase the
surplus in the employment insurance fund.
Could the government explain what factors are used to determine
contribution rates and why the rate is higher than the one
proposed by the chief actuary of the commission?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the auditor general raised this question
before the Standing Committee on Finance. The committee
suggested that we review the rate setting procedure with regard
to EI premiums.
The hon. member will know that the bill before the House
actually proposes a two year review of the rate setting process.
I am sure she will want it passed and that she will support it.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is
clear that the auditor general keeps raising it. So does the
public but the government does not deal with it.
The unemployment insurance surplus has ballooned to a massive
$30 billion and it continues to grow. According to HRDC's chief
actuary, that is twice the reserve that is needed. The auditor
general and all Canadians want to know why the EI bank account is
so fat.
I ask the minister, how fat does the EI account have to become
before she starts investing it where it belongs, namely on
Canadians who want to get back to work?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to remind the hon. member
that every year since taking office the government has reduced
employment insurance premiums. Today the savings to Canadian
employers and employees is $6.4 billion.
I would like to add that in the House there is a bill that
specifically deals with the auditor general's recommendation that
we review the rate setting process. I again ask the hon. member
to enjoin her party to get this bill passed very quickly so we
can do just that.
* * *
ENERGY
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister. It concerns the North
American free market in energy, which he has discussed with
President Bush.
Could the Prime Minister tell us whether that proposal includes
water, and in any event, would he give a commitment to the House
of Commons that before there is any serious discussions with the
United States of America for free market in energy, that issue is
discussed in the House and in committees of the House?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, energy is covered by the free trade agreement. There is
nothing new to that. It is not an area of restriction. Canada
sells a lot of energy to the United States, especially from
Alberta. We profit a lot because we have a policy that permits
us to export energy resources to the United States. I hope that
the member from Calgary is not opposed to the fact that Canadians
are selling energy to the American market.
* * *
AUDITOR GENERAL
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
hope the Prime Minister will take a look at the question and
answer, particularly those portions that relate to consideration
in the House.
Let me ask him a question about the auditor general's report as
it relates to crown corporations, particularly the method by
which the boards of crown corporations are appointed.
The auditor general says that the bible that is used now is the
worst model available. It is a model that allows patronage
appointments by the Liberal government. He recommends that there
should be a change that would rely more upon search communities.
Will the Prime Minister give us a commitment now that that kind
of change in the appointment of members of the boards of crown
corporations will be adopted by the government?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister and the cabinet make appointments
based on the laws passed by parliament. We of course have some
discretion on the appointments because we want to ensure that
every part of Canada is represented.
We made a lot of appointments to increase the number of women on
these boards that did not exist before. We make sure that a
proportion of francophones are represented according to the
population. We make sure that the people from visible minorities
can have the occasion to serve their country on those boards.
1435
The Speaker: Order, please. I just want to draw to the
attention of members that we have stretched the limits on
questions and answers throughout so far and I would ask for
co-operation in ensuring we stick within the limits.
* * *
GOVERNMENT GRANTS
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, as a result of questions we asked in the House
yesterday, we now know that the industry department is demanding
the $100,000 grant back from ARC. Obviously the funds were
used improperly.
Can the Minister of Industry tell the House exactly what the
problem was with this file? Why did the government demand this
money back?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a routine audit of the program, as is done on a regular
basis, demonstrated that some $98,000 worth of expenditure funds
that had been transferred had not yet been accounted for. The
department, taking routine measures, sat down with the receiving
organization and came to an agreement to recover those funds.
This is the purpose of the audit process when it is done on an
ongoing basis.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it seems like the auditor general and the routine
auditors will have to work overtime to keep up with the
government across the way.
The fact remains that $100,000 of grant money was misused by the
same two men charged in two other cases of fraud and theft. If
he will not ask the RCMP to get involved, will the minister table
a full accounting of this matter with a complete explanation as
to the improper use of taxpayer funds? Will he table it in the
House?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would be quite happy to invite the member to meet with
me and I will give him a full briefing. I also would be happy to
table before the House a full briefing.
Perhaps the member opposite does not realize it, but today he,
and yesterday his colleague, mixed up several different files and
several different organizations.
The fact of the matter is that the CCIP is a good program.
Shawinigan was only one of 22 communities across Canada that
received funding for this program. According to today's Globe
and Mail, its own analysis shows that Shawinigan deserved—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Lotbinière-L'Érable.
* * *
[Translation]
AUDITOR GENERAL
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
according to the auditor general's report, 25% of the boards of
crown corporations are totally out of their depth, because the
government appoints members according to political criteria
rather than competency.
My question is for the Prime Minister. How can he justify the
fact that, for his government, political allegiance holds more
weight than professional competency, when the time comes to
select people who will be administering billions of dollars
through crown corporations?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I invite the hon. member to take
care in making such allegations.
He must be aware that the government has appointed competent
people from all over Canada as board members.
Is he telling us that someone like Julie Payette, the well known
astronaut, ought not to be on the natural science board, that Dr.
Dyane Adam ought not to be the commissioner of official
languages, that Beverley McLachlin ought not to be the chief
justice of the supreme court, that Phil Fontaine ought not to be
a member of the Canada millennium foundation board?
These are the kind of allegations he seems to be making.
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, by making appointments on the basis of political
allegiance instead of competency, is the Prime Minister not
demonstrating that, for his government, it is more important to
ensure that it has influence over the crown corporations by
appointing Liberals, than that they be properly administered by
appointing competent people?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there are things we do and one thing we do not do.
This was the case of the Parti Quebecois, which required Quebec
representatives outside the country to formally declare that they
were separatists or lose their jobs.
Here we appoint competent people. Certainly, we appoint
Liberals, because there are far more Liberals in Quebec and in
Canada than members of any other party.
* * *
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, there has been much speculation that the Russian
government is trying to sweep the Knyazev drunk driving case
under the diplomatic carpet.
Ten days have gone by since this tragedy occurred and not only
are there no charges in Russia against Knyazev, but there does
not even appear to be a criminal investigation under way.
1440
My question is, has the Prime Minister been in touch yet with
President Putin to ask him personally to move the case along, and
if not, why not?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as recently as this morning I received a communication
from our embassy in Moscow confirming once again that in their
discussions with the Russian foreign ministry it has been
confirmed that they are living up to the commitments that they
made previously.
To me there is an internal investigation going on. It will lead
to the request for the relevant documents to be forwarded by
Canadian police to Russian authorities, which would then enable
charges to be laid.
At this point I have every reason to continue to have confidence
that they will meet the commitments they have made to us.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I will have to switch gears here to talk about
the case of Canadian William Sampson who is sitting in a Saudi
Arabian jail right now facing murder charges and, if convicted,
the death penalty.
Does the minister have confidence that Mr. Sampson's confession
was not coerced, that our officials will have immediate access to
him and that in fact he will get a fair trial?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have been in contact with Saudi authorities. I have
asked the ambassador to deal not only with my counterpart, the
Minister of Foreign Affairs, but also with the interior minister
with a view to obtaining renewed consular contact with Mr.
Sampson. I really have no basis upon which to judge the alleged
confession, nor do we have information about the case.
We would expect and request that any Canadian accused of
criminal wrongdoing would receive a proper trial before an
impartial arbiter.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the auditor general today confirmed in his
report that the surpluses accumulated as at March 31, 2000 in
the employment insurance fund amounted to $28 billion, twice the
figure the chief actuary of Human Resources Development Canada
deemed sufficient to build a reserve for the plan.
Is the auditor general not confirming in his remarks what the
Bloc Quebecois has said for a number of years, namely that the
government is unacceptably dipping into the employment insurance
fund, thus making off with money that does not belong to it?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me remind the hon. member again of a
number of things. First and foremost, unemployment numbers in
Canada today are at record lows. More people are working, more
people are paying premiums and that is good for us.
I would remind the hon. member that there have been times in the
recent past where we have been in deficit and so we have to
manage that account wisely.
I would also remind the hon. member that there is a bill before
the House that will allow us to review the premium setting
process. I am sure he will want to support that bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, did the minister not just acknowledge that the
employment insurance bill, which will now enable her to use the
fund surplus as she will, is intended to escape such scathing
remarks by the auditor general in future reports?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it seems like the hon. member is asking
us to review the process by which employment insurance
premiums are set. In the bill before the House that is precisely
what we are recommending.
Surely he will support that bill when it is in committee and we
will move on.
* * *
HEALTH
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the health minister allowed the
Sagkeeng Solvent Treatment Centre to receive over 40 times the
average funding for native addiction treatment. This enormous
windfall was given in the face of his own auditors looking into
corruption and misspending beginning in 1995.
Can the minister explain to Canadians why he poured such
extraordinary amounts of the public's money into a group with a
long track record of questionable practices?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first let me congratulate the member on her appointment as the
health critic for her party.
Let me first say that she should know we have ordered a forensic
audit of the centre to which she has referred. In fact, we are
before the court this week to ensure that we get full access to
all the records so that we can trace all the public moneys.
I share her concern that there be a full accounting for all
public moneys spent. We have stopped funding the centre. We
will get to the bottom of this. We will do everything possible
to recover any funds that were misspent.
1445
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the point is that the minister
ignored an earlier audit which showed incredibly questionable
practices by this group.
Here are some of the warning bells in the audit that the
minister slept through: more than $1 million in payments to
companies owned by clinic directors; a whopping bill of over
$300,000 for just one client; questionable vehicle payments;
unsupported travel claims; and money spent on trips to Las Vegas,
Australia and Hawaii. The list went on and on.
Why did the minister fail so badly in his duty to protect the
public interest?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
some of the transactions the member refers to and the entire
activities of the centre are now under careful scrutiny, not only
by Health Canada and auditors but where appropriate by police
authorities.
I share her concern that those public funds be accounted for
fully. I assure her we will do everything to make certain that
occurs.
* * *
AUTO INDUSTRY
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
DaimlerChrysler has announced it is reducing its operations in
Canada as part of its restructuring plan. In particular, Windsor
and Brampton are the subject of job losses.
As one in seven jobs in Canada depends on the automotive
industry, could the Minister of Industry inform the House and all
Canadians today what action the government is taking?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the member for Essex for her question. I
acknowledge the interest of the member for Brampton Centre and
many others in this place about the health of the auto industry.
Yesterday I spoke with the international president of
DaimlerChrysler. I met with Mr. Buzz Hargrove from CAW last
night. I offered the assurance of the government that we want to
work with both the industry and the union to assist in the
transition for those who for the moment have lost their jobs
because of the downturn.
We stressed quite strongly with DaimlerChrysler our interest in
seeing both R and D in Canada continue and a new product line for
the Pillette Road plant.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the auditor general today issued several alarming
reports showing serious negligence by the government regarding
food safety and health protection.
One example is that Canadian meat exporters to the United States
must meet certain standards regarding salmonella and E.coli. If
the standards are not met, the establishment cannot export but
can continue to produce for Canadian markets.
Given everything we know about salmonella and E.coli and now mad
cow disease, how can it be that the government has no such
standards? Will it immediately introduce a pathogens reduction
program?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I confirm to the hon. member and everyone
in Canada that the explanation of how this system works is being
given to the auditor general.
The United States asks that we use its system of inspection to
reach a certain point. It is a different way of getting there.
If we get there exactly the same way, only we use a different
track with the Canadian inspection system, I can assure her that
if a product is not suitable to be exported it will not be
provided to the domestic food chain either.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the health minister who has ultimate
responsibility for food safety.
The auditor general showed that the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency has unilaterally and arbitrarily decided not to regularly
inspect non-federally registered establishments. We are talking
about infant formula, unpasteurized juice, peanut butter and
other products in a sector where about half the recalls in terms
of food happen and which only gets about 5% of the food safety
resources of the government.
This is a violation of the Food and Drugs Act. The minister is
in dereliction of duty. Will he correct this matter immediately?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I explained to the House before, the
role of the food inspection system in Canada is to monitor and
enforce regulations set by the ministry of health. The ministry
of health monitors the actions of the Canadian food inspection
system.
We have federally inspected plants. By the Constitution, we are
not involved in the inspection of food produced in provincially
inspected plants. That is the role of the municipality and the
provincial governments.
1450
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. Recent
disclosed information tells us that the Virginia Fontaine clinic
in Montana received $37 million and is owned by Perry Fontaine.
There is evidence of highly questionable funding and spending
practices. An exorbitant amount of money was approved by Paul
Cochrane, an assistant deputy minister at health who resigned two
weeks ago, and whose wife purchased condos at Mont Tremblant on
behalf of Mr. Fontaine.
Could the minister explain how his former ADM could authorize
such an enormous amount of cash with little or no departmental
scrutiny?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the transactions referred to by the member are the subject of an
inquiry, either by the police, by auditors or by both.
As I mentioned in response to an earlier question, we are before
the courts in Manitoba this week to make sure we get access to
all the documents necessary to understand how public funds were
spent.
I assure the member and the House that we will do everything
possible to trace every one of those public dollars, and if any
were misspent to recover them on behalf of the public.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, it certainly begs the question when did the minister
first become aware of it and why did he wait so long to act.
Given the staggering amount of taxpayer money that has been
handed out by his department while hospitals across the country
continue to struggle under his government's cuts, will the
minister confirm that this matter, if warranted, will be turned
over to the RCMP? Will the forensic audit also include an
inquiry into why his department delayed so long before acting?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on the question of timing, I can tell the member that some months
ago when these matters were brought to my attention I directed
the department to suspend further payments to the centre until
all questions were answered.
On the subject of the RCMP, I can tell the member that the RCMP
is already very much involved in investigating many of the
transactions to which he has already referred.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, native people all across the country are looking for
financial accountability.
Let us take the example of the Sayisi Dene nation in Manitoba.
The Virginia Fontaine treatment centre sent its staff on a
Caribbean cruise. Guess who went along? The assistant deputy
health minister who was wheeling and dealing with the president
of the treatment centre to buy condos at Mont Tremblant.
The band council reneged on a $100,000 payment to the Russell
Funeral Home. It continues to owe $3 million to Wing
Construction and band members still do not have decent housing or
schools for their children.
How much evidence does the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development need to initiate a forensic audit on this
band's books?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have already talked about some of these issues. I share the
member's concern. I too am troubled by what we see at this
centre.
That is why we have undertaken a forensic audit. In fact we
have stopped funding the centre, cut off further funds. We are
in front of the court to make sure we get access to all the
documents we need. I have assured the House, and I do it again,
that we will do everything possible to trace every public dollar
that went to that centre, and if any were misused to recover that
money.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, this is much more than a matter of the health
department. This is really under the jurisdiction of the
minister for aboriginal affairs. This issue continues to grow
and grow. It is just the tip of the iceberg. Unfortunately it is
one of the many cases across the country.
In the throne speech the government stated that it would support
first nations communities, implementing more effective and
transparent administrative policies. I recently heard the
minister say “It is time to stop the talk and start the walk”.
If he is serious about walking the walk, will he today order his
department to initiate a full forensic audit of this band's
affairs and offer its members and all Canadian taxpayers full
financial accountability of taxpayer money?
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome our new critic.
The first thing he probably should do is get himself a full
briefing by the department.
If he had bothered to take us up on our offer of a full
briefing, he would already know that the department has put the
Sayisi Dene under third party management. The department is
looking after the books on behalf of the members of that band
until their financial situation is rectified.
* * *
[Translation]
SOFTWOOD LUMBER
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister met with the new American
president. We know that softwood lumber is one of the most
contentious issues between Canada and the United States.
Could the Prime Minister confirm that the position he presented to
the American president on the softwood lumber issue is a complete
return to free trade?
1455
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is the position that our government has always advocated.
However, we must also take into account the fact that the
Americans have some responsibility.
I think the president very clearly indicated that he was in
favour of free trade and that one of his main concerns at this
point was to make sure that the free trade that exists between
Canada, the United States and Mexico was extended to the other
countries of the hemisphere.
I then pointed out to the president that the principle which he
was upholding should also apply to softwood lumber.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, could the
Prime Minister tell us whether the American president gave him
the assurance that, when free trade resumes on April 1, the
United States will not impose countervailing duties on Quebec
exports of softwood lumber, as they did in the past?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I did not get any such indication. We undertook a dialogue with
the Americans and we hope to find a solution by March 31 of this
year.
We know full well, however, that under the free trade
agreement the Canadian government does not provide any subsidies
to any lumber producer and that Canadian products can enter any
part of the United States at no cost.
* * *
[English]
AUDITOR GENERAL
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, first it was the billion dollar boondoggle at HRDC. Then
it was the Shawinigan problem in the Prime Minister's riding.
Then it was the problem with the native treatment centre in
Manitoba under the Minister of Health. Now it is the Minister of
Canadian Heritage.
The auditor general said today that an internal audit by the
department states that 19% of files reviewed did not meet minimum
standards of due diligence. It goes on to say that 37% of files
are borderline acceptable.
Is the end of the line with the Minister of Canadian Heritage,
or is everybody involved in incompetence and mismanagement?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the audit which the auditor
general refers to occurred last year, almost a year ago. All the
recommendations which the auditor general made have been
implemented.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, that is totally unacceptable. The auditor general said
in 1998 that they could not assure themselves that departmental
officials had exercised due diligence. In 2000 he said they
found that while some remedial action had taken place, it was not
good enough. He went on to say that the department's response to
the audit was unsatisfactory. I do not believe the minister—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: It is most unhelpful for the member to
suggest who he believes or who he does not believe. I know he
would not want to suggest anything else. Perhaps he will put his
question directly and avoid that kind of reference in his
remarks.
Mr. John Williams: I will put my question directly to the
Minister of Canadian Heritage. What does it take to light a fire
under her to get the job done right all the time?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the hon. member
thinks it is unacceptable to have implemented all of the auditor
general's recommendations.
* * *
[Translation]
ASBESTOS
Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am a little ways away and there is a lot of noise.
My question is for the Minister for International Trade and has
to do with the safe use of asbestos.
The asbestos industry and its workers in Canada are being
threatened by the arbitrary and unjustified decisions by a number
of countries to ban asbestos, thus breaching the rules of
international trade.
What is being done, and what does the Government of Canada
intend to do to ensure that the rules of international trade are
respected? Is the World Trade Organization the only avenue
open to the Government of Canada to protect the asbestos industry
and its workers?
1500
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Frontenac—Mégantic
for his interest in this matter. I also wish to congratulate him
on getting elected, and welcome him to the House.
In October of last year, we appealed the ruling by the WTO panel
on chrysotile asbestos. The panel should hand down its ruling
sometime in March.
I would emphasize that our government worked hand in hand with
the industry and the Government of Quebec on the wording of the
appeal, and we can be proud of this close co-operation.
* * *
[English]
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians are growing increasingly more concerned over
the violence associated with youth crime. Over the past three
decades violent youth crime has increased by over 300%.
Since 1993 the government has promised substantive reform but it
has failed to deliver. The minister's recycled act is simply the
same old book with new covers and will be impossible to enforce.
What is the point of introducing an act that cannot be enforced?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know
better than most in the House that the act will be enforced.
The act is based upon three fundamental values shared by
Canadians regardless of where they live. First, we prevent youth
crime. Second, we hold young people accountable. Third, we make
sure we rehabilitate them and reintegrate them into Canadian
society.
The hon. member should know that is the only way we will truly
create a safer and more secure society.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the Ontario attorney general says that the new youth
justice act is bad news because it does not deal with the reality
on the streets, in the courts and in the hospitals.
The Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario attorneys general say that
there was a failure to consult on the bill. If the minister has
been consulting, why is she not listening?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have consulted on this
legislation. We have been consulting for some three years and we
have listened.
However, if the hon. member is suggesting that we on this side
of the House will simply accept the solution of the attorney
general of Ontario for youth crime, which seems to be let us put
more young people in jail for longer, I am sorry but he can
forget it.
* * *
[Translation]
WATER CONTAMINATION
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the water in the municipality of Shannon is contaminated and the
source of this contamination appears to be on the Valcartier
military base.
Yesterday, the Government of Quebec announced the measures it
intends to take to rectify this situation.
Given that the pollution appears to originate on the Valcartier
military base, does the minister intend to work with the
Government of Quebec to identify its specific source?
[English]
Mr. John O'Reilly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, DND officials are aware
of the contamination in the municipality. There remains a number
of questions about the source and severity.
DND is very concerned about the health and welfare of the
residents of Shannon and other communities near Valcartier. As a
landowner, employer and community member, the department is
working closely with provincial and local authorities to ensure
the safety of area residents, many of whom are current or retired
Canadian forces members and civilian employees of the Department
of National Defence.
* * *
PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of the Honourable Tim Stevenson,
Minister of Employment and Investment of the province of British
Columbia.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
1505
PRIVILEGE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a question of privilege related to a committee. I want
to point out that last March the Standing Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs studied a matter dealing with confidentiality
of the work of legislative counsel. In fact the matter was
referred to the committee by the House.
During a series of committee meetings, which started on March
28, 2000, the committee heard from a number of witnesses. In
fact, on March 30 two employees in the office of legislative
counsel, namely Louis-Philipe Côté and Diane McMurray, appeared as
witnesses before the committee at the request of the committee.
Before making any statements, one of the witnesses asked:
Is the committee in a position to offer any safeguards against
future reprisals for our wish to fully assist the committee in
its deliberations with respect to the rights and privileges of
members of Parliament as they relate to solicitor-client
confidentiality?
In an examination of the transcript of that meeting, it is
clearly evident from the witnesses' testimony that they
alleged—and I want to emphasize alleged—chastisement and
harassment for a period of some four years prior to this event
before the same committee of the House. In fact, there was an
harassment complaint laid by them at the committee on March 30,
2000 which had still not been resolved.
In the course of the discussions that ensued among committee
members regarding the request for the granting of protection, the
member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough stated:
On this point, Mr. Chair, I would strongly urge you to give them
certainly the assurance that they will if they tell the truth,
which I fully expect they will, there is going to be no backlash
or effect on their jobs or any sanction or any interference with
their careers by virtue of coming before this committee—
After an examination of the transcript of that meeting, it was
very clear and evident that the committee had afforded to them
the protection of the committee.
It is extremely interesting to note that after their appearance
these witnesses, as employees of the House, were shuffled. In
fact, during early April they were told one would be seconded to
the Library of Parliament and the other would be seconded to the
Senate effective April 18. That was about two and a half weeks
after they appeared before the committee.
There were a number of complaints later regarding this. On
April 16 it was agreed that the two of them would go on sick
leave for a short period of time. On June 9 they offered to
return and were told no. They were put on leave with pay,
notwithstanding their offer to work immediately.
In September, with a view to returning to work, the harassment
charge, which was outstanding, was withdrawn. Again, they
requested to return to work. They were not working, they were
being paid but they were not allowed to return to work. It
appears that they were ready, willing and able to return to work
but they were being denied.
On Friday, October 13, after approximately four months of not
working but being paid, and just as the election writ was
descending, they received individual letters of termination.
They were fired.
I want to suggest that the shotgun firing failed to relay or
specify in any way specifics. There were no details or
particulars. There was nothing but allegations and a push out on
to the street.
There was no severance package and no specific reasons. There
was just a forced exit out onto the street on the eve of the
election.
1510
Beauchesne's 6th Edition, article 853 on page 237 states:
Every witness attending before the House or any committee thereof
may claim the protection of the House in respect of the evidence
to be given.
It is patently clear that this privilege was requested by these
witnesses. It is patently clear it was given to these two
people. That having been done, I would submit that the House
cannot, should not and will not tolerate this type of
interference with witnesses who have appeared before it.
I would also submit that their careers have been poisoned after
26 years of collective service to the House. I would also submit
that if these dismissals are allowed to stand, we will never
again see or hear an employee before a committee giving any
evidence. I would have to ask who would blame anyone?
Finally and most importantly, I would submit to you, Mr.
Speaker, the temporal connection between their appearance before
the committee, their workplace shuffle, the secondment and then
out the door and their ultimate firing on the eve of the election
call is far too coincidental to be ignored.
In closing, I submit that this is a prima facie question of
privilege and I await your ruling as to whether I can put the
question.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this question
of privilege. I am sympathetic to some of the points raised by
my hon. colleague. I think many members of the House of Commons
are asking for increased resources, especially in legal counsel.
It seems that some of the institutional knowledge and the
historic understanding of how we do business has been lost
because these very experienced lawyers are not here to serve us
daily. Therefore, I understand the need to have increased
resources in the legal department. It is something that the
Board of Internal Economy and members should be concerned about.
I hope they will continue to raise the issue of how best we can
serve all members of parliament on both sides of the House who do
not have access to the government resources.
Let us hope that the promise in the throne speech that talked
about increasing research dollars for the library also includes
legal services to members in a way that helps us to do our jobs
most effectively.
However, I have a problem with raising personnel issues on the
floor of the House of Commons. I hope we can come to a speedy
resolution or even an understanding of all the complexities that
go into this sort of an issue.
When these two employees of the House appeared before the
standing committee and asked for protection of the House, we did
not understand that there were outstanding grievances between
management and the employees about the working conditions and
different things. We ended up hearing a kind of a rehash of the
ongoing problems for which we did not have the background
knowledge to deal with. In my opinion, it was not appropriate
for the standing committee to hear the grievance process. It is
not what the union agreement calls for. We should not handle a
grievance process, in a public forum, on the floor of a committee
or on the floor of the House of Commons.
Individuals certainly have the right of protection before a
standing committee when they bring testimony and they should be
allowed to speak freely. However, there is a question which
needs to be asked before their testimony is heard. If it deals
with an issue that has proper process in place, as long as the
process is going ahead, then we should allow the management, the
union and the representatives to move that forward.
Although I am sympathetic to many of the concerns raised by the
member, especially in regard to resources to members in the area
of legal services, I do not think that we should try to solve it
on the floor of the House. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you
also take that into consideration in your ruling.
1515
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I must say that I am disturbed, to say the least, by the
matter raised by the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.
I am well aware that, as a member of the House of Commons Board
of Internal Economy, I am held to a certain degree of
confidentiality as far as the decisions taken are concerned.
I believe my colleague, the House leader of the official
opposition, has taken care to point out that there were two
overlapping subjects, if I may say so. First, was the
administrative problem, a personnel management problem, and on
top of that, the matter of the appearance of two legislative
counsels before the procedure and House affairs committee.
A number of decisions were taken subsequent to the first
problem. I must acknowledge right at the start that the outcome
described to us here by the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton does
not seem to me to be in line with what the House leader of the
official opposition calls the standard administrative procedure
for dealing with a personnel management problem.
I must admit to being very surprised at the outcome of this
so-called standard administrative procedure relating to a
personnel management problem.
Returning to the other overlapping question, immunity of
committee witnesses, perhaps there is no connection between the
decision taken on the administrative level and the appearance of
the two people before the procedure and House affairs committee.
It must be admitted, however, that there appears to have been a very
obvious connection between the appearance of the legislative
counsels before the procedure and House affairs committee and
what led to the standard administrative procedure, as the
parliamentary leader of the official opposition called it.
In that regard, I wonder about the very legitimate issues raised
by the member for Sarnia—Lambton. While parliamentary committees
may not be the forum or the arena to deal with administrative or
personnel issues, I must admit, in the defence of the two
legislative counsels who appeared before the committee and who
asked for and received the committee's protection, that it was
not so much because they wanted to do reveal all that they did,
but because the members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs asked them to do so.
Perhaps it was not prudent on our part to ask the questions that
we asked. Perhaps we should not, as members of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, have exposed all that.
But the fact remains we did ask questions and the two
legislative counsels answered them.
Indeed, some of the answers provided were disturbing to say the
least. If we were, and this is in reference to the comments made
by the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton, to accept what happened,
we would send to these House officials or to public servants who
may be called to appear before committees the message that, if
they do their job may be on the line.
There may not be any connection, but some will make one. Our
parliamentary institution would lose if House or departmental
officials were afraid to appear before our committees to answer
questions put to them by parliamentarians.
In that sense, I agree with the opposition House leader when he
says that this situation is to be deplored.
Mr. Speaker, you know better than anyone that some in this House
have for a number of years criticized the lack of resources at
members' disposal to draft motions, bills and amendments. At the
end of what appeared to be the conclusion of what my colleague
the opposition House leader called the usual administrative
process, it seems that we must assume we have lost, as my
colleague the leader put it, part of the institutional memory of
the House of Commons.
1520
It must be acknowledged that, in recent years, we have lost a
number of elements of the House's institutional memory. Be they
services of the clerks, legal services or legislative counsel, we
have lost these resources.
Do we have the means, as an institution, to do away with some of
these resources? Mr. Speaker, I put the question to you.
I think the question of privilege raised by my colleague from
Sarnia—Lambton should be considered and given a positive answer.
I submit this for your consideration, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: I am very grateful for the members' interventions
on this matter.
[English]
I know the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough is
rising on the same point, and others may rise as well, but I
wonder if members could direct themselves more to the question of
whether the privileges of this House or of its members have been
breached. That seems to be the issue raised by the hon. member
for Sarnia—Lambton. I would appreciate it if members would
direct their comments more to that point rather than to the
events that led to the claim.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I will try to follow that direction. Since this is
an issue that really strikes at some of the grander issues and
those that flow from parliamentary privilege that were discussed
in the context of the committee, there is a tendency to go far
afield.
However I think the member from Sarnia—Lambton is speaking
specifically of two individuals whose careers have been
sacrificed on the altar.
Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Board of Internal Economy, you
will recall some of the specifics of this issue, so there is
little need to delve into its history. However those individuals
were given a false sense of security when they testified before
committee. This perhaps touches on the larger issue of
protecting the integrity of witnesses who appear before a
committee.
Although the individuals were there on a personal matter, the
issue was of great importance to the House as it bore directly
upon the ability of individuals to draft private members'
business and partake in matters of a legal nature. Those
employees of the House provided a very valuable service, and that
department provides, I would submit, a crucial service to members
of parliament.
We realize, Mr. Speaker, that the matter was dealt with at
committee in the last parliament. While some would argue that it
may be administrative and reserved for the Board of Internal
Economy, I would suggest that a broader issue must be examined
here. When House employees are subject to reprisals for
providing valuable information that may affect them or others, or
members of the House, it creates an intimidating atmosphere.
Many have suggested that we should be looking at whistle blower
legislation. Many internal, and some would deem labour, matters
come before us as members of parliament, members of the board and
on committees. We should be concerned about the atmosphere of
intimidation and the fear that heads will roll. No one should
feel that while seeking the truth about a matter, whether a
personal labour matter or one pertaining to privileges of
members, that there will be reprisals.
I believe there is such an air about this matter. Two
longstanding public servants, valued members of the legal
counsel, were dismissed and there does not appear to be a forum
in which to settle this.
I would suggest, given some of the circumstances here, that this
should go back to committee. We should perhaps examine all the
circumstances and bring all the facts forward because the fear is
there. The fear is in the ranks.
1525
I spoke to employees of parliament as recently as today who are
embarking on similar exercises and trying to have matters
addressed. I will be very frank. Members of the language staff
provide services in terms of helping individuals to become
bilingual. It is a very important service that is available to
members. They are not satisfied, yet there appears to be no
forum to address their issues.
I suggest that what has happened here was born out of
frustration. It was a matter that had festered for some time. We
must be concerned about the ability to get at the truth and the
ability to get at the facts.
The hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton has raised the issue now.
The Speaker has the prerogative to delve further into what has
occurred. If in your wisdom you deem it appropriate, I suggest
there are grounds for the matter to go back before committee so
that there could be a proper resolution. At the very least
members and the individuals affected would have peace of mind as
to what took place so that we might avoid such situations in
future.
When it comes to labour matters and the treatment of employees
of the House of Commons, we should set a higher standard. We
should set a standard for all Canadians to look at as a model. We
should not be mired or back away from situations that arise
because of the connotations or the potential personalities that
are often involved. We should be very prudent and proactive when
approaching these matters.
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I too
will try to focus on the precise issue of whether or not this is
a matter of privilege which should be dealt with at this time or
at your discretion later.
In my view it is not. While it is an issue that members have
commented on and have concerns about, I do not believe it is a
matter that directly or even indirectly involves the actual
privileges of members of the House.
It looks more like a matter of employment conditions,
termination of employment, or issues of that nature. Those
generally, I think all members will agree, are taken care of by
the Board of Internal Economy. If it is an employment related
issue, the Board of Internal Economy should see to it. If it is
not, it is the circumstances of employees that are at issue and
not the privileges of members of the House.
There is another perspective. In the event, Mr. Speaker, that
you see this as a committee issue involving the protection of
witnesses at committee, I suggest it is perhaps an issue that
should be taken up at committee first.
If the issue has arisen in committee and is one the committee
would want to look at—perhaps the committee should; I do not
know—then the matter should be taken up by members at the
committee. It should be looked at there first and, if necessary,
brought back to the House.
I respectfully suggest that while the issue is of concern and
while other discussions may be had elsewhere at committee, it is
not a matter of privilege which the House needs or could or
should take up at this time.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will withhold my comments with regard to
congratulating you until a more formal time in terms of a speech.
I wish to concur with my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton as well
as with the comments of the House leader of the Progressive
Conservative Party. I believe this is a matter that raises the
issue of the ambit of privilege.
I am concerned that the circumstances, although dealt with by a
committee, may not have had ample hearing from all members of
parliament who at the time knew a bit more about the situation
and were concerned that the two individuals, in my view and the
view of many members of parliament such as those who have drafted
successful private members' bill, were very capable and able
individuals that were perhaps too good at their job.
I am concerned about the narrow question of the dismissal. I
believe the House has an obligation to look at the reasons behind
it.
1530
I understand there are two other people who have now been
replaced, one from western Canada. I am not convinced, when it
comes to drafting private members' bills, that the individuals
there can necessarily respond to and replace the effectiveness of
those two individuals.
I would ask your consideration, Mr. Speaker, that this be duly
treated as a matter of privilege and that the appropriate action
be taken.
The Speaker: The Chair would like to thank all hon.
members who have intervened on this matter and offered their
advice and opinions to the Chair. I will take the matter under
advisement and get back to the House in due course.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[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 and of the amendment.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is February 2001 and we
have heard from the government, at least in a circular way. The
throne speech offered thin gruel of leftovers to a nation starved
for administrative substance and political inspiration.
If Liberal backbenchers had the courage to truly speak up for
their constituents, there would maybe be a New Westminster-like
springtime in this cold town. Today, the lawns are green; the
tug boats ply the mighty Fraser River; and the schoolchildren
need no mittens as they play in my riding.
My former high school teacher, Mr. Morrison McVea, still warms
to the challenge to remind me that Canada needs participatory
democracy. These are concepts that he has talked about since the
earliest days of his teaching career. He longs to see the
realization of his vision of a political springtime for all of
Canada, which sadly remains frozen in the past.
Canada needs a springtime of ideas. We should not be afraid of
more democracy and accountability. That is what the Canadian
Alliance offered in the last election, but too many frozen hearts
could not feel it.
With a new Speaker and a renewed government mandate to hang on
to power, we in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition will keep trying
to raise the standards of governance and to do our best to
require the government to justify itself to the electorate.
Along the way let us pray for a thaw on the government side to
allow the House to blossom with parliamentary reform and to lift
the nation out of the grey mediocrity and missed opportunity that
we see today.
Since I have been privileged to be in the House since 1993 I
have observed Liberal backbenchers allow the inner few who are
close to the Prime Minister to stumble along with disjointed
incrementalism. I challenge those backbenchers to get some fire
in the middle, to realize that no laws need to be passed and no
standing orders need to be changed for the House to come alive.
All they have to do is gather the courage, empower their
constituents through them, and simply take charge and live
democratically.
They should refuse to co-operate with the corruption, the
patronage, the lack of candour and the defending of their club at
all costs. Backbenchers should empower themselves and all of
Canada to give the nation a balanced, credible, citizen's
initiative process law. That is what some of my constituents
want from parliament. They want and expect higher standards of
governance. They deserve to have mechanisms in their hands to
ensure that it happens.
As long as the government backbench refuses to go along to get
along, there will be little improvement and the nation will
remain politically frozen in time.
British Columbians are provoked and resentful of the
government's poor performance. They recoil from the political
expediency of how all federal programs are refracted through a
prism of regional advantage deliberately designed to shore up
government support in the marginal constituencies needed to win a
majority in the House of Commons.
That is why New Westminster residents sent me here to help fix
it. However, because there was no change at 24 Sussex Drive,
sadly many will just continue to pack up and move to the United
States. They cannot bear the thought or cost of lost
opportunity, of another four years of unnecessarily high taxes,
wasteful programs, billion dollar boondoggles and pork barrel
politics. They do not like cheaters, especially the smug
political cheaters.
If Quebec thinks itself a nation then British Columbia is an
alienation for we understand how so few determine so much in
decision making. It is not simply that the cabinet drawn from
the party of most members in the House and the Prime Minister
have so much unaccountable power, for indeed they do. The
tragedy is that too few Canadians take the time or find it worth
while to get involved in federal governance. It is for good
reason.
They have found that it does not make much difference.
1535
The Liberal Party of Canada is an amalgam of local riding
associations, many with just a few hundred members at best. Of
them 80,000 are national card carrying members, but only 2%
attend a so-called national policy meeting as voting delegates
where the planned script unfolds. A few thousand put on a show
for television and elect a leader, who will then rule and not be
accountable to those delegates.
When the local candidates for parliament are chosen, they might
be appointed or perhaps elected by a few hundred delegates or
less. Too few Liberal ridings in the run up to the last election
had full blown secret ballot contests for nominations.
Then the victorious candidate goes to Ottawa because perhaps
15,000 or 20,000 voters went that way locally for a number of
reasons. From the crop of 172 Liberal MPs, the Prime Minister
approves a list of a small group of MPs to become ministers, who
will then be run by an even smaller number of perhaps unelected
operatives close to the Prime Minister. Even the cabinet has its
power subgroups, its Treasury Board, et cetera.
Only a few hundred people or less in Canada dictate the Liberal
platform, choose the leader, and even fewer run for government.
Consequently the time to care about our country is not when a
minister introduces a bill for the dye is cast, especially
according to the Prime Minister. The critical time is when a
party is deciding what it stands for, who its leader will be, and
what will be the rules for policy development.
It has been admitted many times everywhere that the Liberals
stand for nothing more than getting power and keeping it. They
have hurt Canada for so long in that way. That malaise must be
overcome.
Canadians under the Canadian Alliance banner seek to remedy that
national plight. We cast the net widely to permit as many
Canadians as possible to participate in policy development and
every member in Canada could directly vote for the leader. We
are doing it right. We have the processes and the plans. We are
ready to repair the nation. It all comes together under the
broad themes of national fairness and the need for wealth
creation.
The record shows that the government has failed to make that
kind of leap forward. Our national productivity rates and the
work ethic are not leading the world. We do not lead in
technology or science. The government climate hurts the
operation of the markets and the velocity of ideas and
investment. We are far from the top. Fortunately we are not at
the bottom. We are mediocre. We are in a daze.
The government's lackluster program remains dreary, and Canada
could do so much better. That is what British Columbians said in
the last election. That is why the west is not content with
merely old style Liberal and Conservative governments.
What is there to inspire young people anyway? What will lift
them? We must lift up our eyes and engage global competition
with a national economic political machine that can fight like an
army but yet nourish like a family.
We must better protect our natural environment for future
generations while we more appropriately derive sustenance from
its diminishing bounty. Polluters receive unfair subsidies.
Failing to deal with environmental factors is deficit financing.
Canada has been there and we must forsake it.
The talk around this place is of finding a legacy. The Prime
Minister wants to be well thought of historically. I would
oblige him, for I could not help myself if he delivered on our
change the system package of expanding the present boundary
limits of democracy within the House and for the voter.
We need to empower Canadians democratically by giving them
responsive parliamentary systems that give MPs the freedom to
represent their constituents. We need to build a federation
based on equality, respect and co-operation.
I close with this observation. Trudeau's legacy is the charter.
The next step up is right before us. Let us have a real
democratic country. It is called participatory democracy. That
possible legacy is lying right there before us. Who is
positioned to pick it up and carry it forward or higher? I say to
the Prime Minister that Canadians are waiting.
The Liberal backbench should find the courage our country needs.
The Prime Minister should use the gift of power wisely and make
a legacy for the country, not for himself. We have enough people
who think they can tell it like it is. What we need are more of
those who can tell it like it can be.
1540
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is
getting tedious to hear yet another Canadian Alliance speaker who
had no comment on the Speech from the Throne. I guess it is that
good. They suggest that we should speak up on the Speech from
the Throne. I would implore him to listen because I for one
already have.
On the day of the Speech from the Throne I released a press
release in my riding that explained a number of the excellent
items in the Speech from the Throne. For the first time in a
long time a number of issues dealing with social policies were
addressed.
The throne speech is a great move forward for this country. It
is great for my constituents because aboriginal children were
addressed and emphasized in the speech. The speech helps those
in poverty. It is great for businesses to improve trade
investment. It is great for the science community and the new
knowledge based economy. It will assist in the movement in
trade and investment. It is good for the education system
because lifelong learning has been addressed. It is excellent
for our first nation people because there is support for first
nation businesses. It is excellent for the municipalities
because there is more support for infrastructure, for improving
water and for improving the environment.
As a past president of our literacy association, I was delighted
to see that literacy was being covered and supported in the
Speech from the Throne.
The Canadian Alliance should stand up with courage, not us, and
start to deal with the poor and the disadvantaged.
Mr. Paul Forseth: Madam Speaker, there we have it, a
typical repetition of the mantra of the Speech from the Throne. I
was talking about going beyond the banalities of a predictable
throne speech and empowering Canadians so that they would be
truly reflected here.
We need to have true participatory democracy. The throne speech
vaguely alluded to parliamentary reform. We should continue to
expand the bounds of democracy and that long tradition of great
reform bills in England where it had the revolutionary idea of
actually giving the vote to more citizens. We eventually gave
the vote to women, but we continued to expand on those bounds of
democracy by, believe it or not, giving aboriginal Canadians
voting rights in 1960.
What I am talking about is the continuation of that tradition.
Canadians should be empowered to participate and test what they
want in a secret ballot box on national issues where a government
has to be accountable on an ongoing basis to Canadians.
If we do not follow through on that vision, Canadians will not
show up on national voting day because they know that they will
have more of the same thin gruel for a nation that is starving
for leadership and vision.
What we have been talking about in the House for a long time is
empowering Canadians and expanding the bounds of democracy, not
continuing to limit and not having top down control but bottom up
liberation.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I have a question for my colleague on his excellent
presentation. I certainly agree with everything he has said.
The previous speaker from the Liberal side of the House talked
about the throne speech, about all the wonderful ideas, about
what they are planning to do and about all the new programs that
they will implement. A lot of that is good news for a lot of
people.
However, the most practical way of bringing these things about
is that one presents not only the programs, but a budget and the
cost to implement them.
Everyone across the country has applauded the throne speech.
Everyone thinks it is wonderful. However, what we have done is
given the government a blank cheque to do what it darn well
pleases. Canadians are tired of this.
Does the hon. member believe that what he is talking about fits
in terms of how we cost out these ideas?
1545
Mr. Paul Forseth: Madam Speaker, I am not the most senior
member of the House but I have experienced at least four throne
speeches. I have some experience in listening to the
generalities and banalities of throne speeches that have come
from the government since 1993. There is a disconnection between
nice sounding phrases and practical, sound and wise management of
government administration, especially at the street level.
We heard in question period today of how the government cannot
manage. Today the auditor general has said again how the
government cannot manage its money. We must change the system
somehow. Instead of continuing the political rhetoric in the
nation, we must provide real political power to Canadians through
the ballot box so that they can drive the agenda and hold the
government accountable.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
first of all, I want to thank the people of the riding of
Westmount—Ville-Marie once again for giving me the mandate to
represent them for the third time.
I must say that it is, I think, the title of which I am most
proud. I am committed to working relentlessly for the social and
economic development of that riding, which, through its diversity
and its vigour, is a true reflection of Canada.
Just a few months ago, Canadians from coast to coast went to the
polls. The result was a clear endorsement of the program set out
by our government for the future of this country.
During the recent election campaign, we explained to Canadians
the values that we believe in and for which we stand. Our platform
was clear and our commitment, unequivocal.
Canadians embraced these values, the values of an open and
receptive government that cares about the quality of life of
people and communities across the country.
As we begin our third mandate, we will continue to build an even
stronger and ever more inclusive Canada; a country full of
opportunities where the quality of life is unparalleled; a
supportive country that is respected throughout the world and
cited as an example to show all the things people of various
origins can do when they are bound together by common values and
by a firm commitment to the welfare of the community.
In our two previous mandates, we were able to lay the foundation
that will bring prosperity to Canadians. We must now protect what
we have while continuing to build our future together.
In the new economy, success will come to those who concentrate
on ingenuity, innovation and education. Canada remains a
relatively young country within the international community. It
is a young, vibrant and energetic country where ideas abound.
We need to encourage our scientists and our businesspeople to be
daring. The government and the private and voluntary sectors have
to work in partnership to provide the tools needed so that each
of their projects can be carried out.
To improve the quality of life for Canadians, we have to move on
several fronts. Each and every department and government agency
has a role to play.
The Treasury Board Secretariat is no exception to that rule.
Granted, my department is not well known to the public. More
often than not, our fellow citizens just have a vague idea of its
main purpose. But the Treasury Board Secretariat does play a
crucial role in the government. It ensures sound fiscal
management, acts as employer for all civil servants and even
oversees management reform.
In the last few years, we have also assumed increasing
responsibility regarding some Canada-wide initiatives, like
government on line and Infrastructure Canada.
1550
[English]
I would like to discuss some of these activities in the context
of the Speech from the Throne. Infrastructure is one of the most
concrete and tangible programs we administer. It is also a
central part of our strategy for laying the foundation of
Canada's economy in the 21st century.
We can all agree that a strong national infrastructure base is
essential to Canada's competitiveness and long term growth.
Investing in our infrastructure is a direct investment in
improving the daily quality of life for citizens across the
country.
The government set aside $2.65 billion for a new physical
infrastructure program. The new program has two components: a
municipal component that will account for $2 billion and a
highways component that will account for $600 million.
Over the last few months we have signed agreements for municipal
infrastructure with all provinces and Yukon. We have put
together partnership programs where we share costs and decision
making and work together to ensure that funding will go where it
is needed most.
These agreements demonstrate the full potential of what can be
accomplished when federal, provincial and municipal governments
work together collaboratively for the common good. When we sat
down with our partners we made it clear that we wanted to take a
grassroots approach. We wanted the municipalities to be at the
heart of the new program because they were in the best position
to understand the needs of their communities and establish
priorities.
We are already seeing positive results from our partnerships.
As part of Infrastructure Canada we have set aside $2.5 million
for an important national initiative identified by stakeholders
involved in the construction and upgrading of municipal
infrastructures.
We are working with our partners on the production of a national
guide to sustainable municipal infrastructure. Municipalities
have told us that this is something they desperately need. It is
a compendium of best practices that will be a source of
information for municipalities on infrastructure planning,
construction, maintenance and repair.
We are projecting that the adoption of best practices and
innovations will save municipalities across the country anywhere
from $800 million to $1.5 billion a year on infrastructure
maintenance costs.
When we factor in our $2 billion commitment with that of our
provincial, territorial, municipal and private sector partners,
we are looking at an investment total of approximately $6 billion
over the next five years.
[Translation]
Another equally important commitment made by the government is
to help Canadians to fully take advantage of the technological
revolution. We have reiterated our commitment to put our services
on line by 2004 so that Canadians can have quick and easy access
to information and services provided by the Government of Canada.
To better use the technology, we have to make it more accessible
and available. We have taken major steps to make Canada one of
the most connected countries in the world. We have also promised
to continue to help Canadians gain access to the Internet and to
the world of new possibilities it has created for future
generations.
There is an incredible potential for developing programs and
services which are more open and more people-centered.
1555
Our new website is an example of the kind of opportunities
providing Canadians quicker and easier access to government
information and services in the language of their choice.
Canadians want and deserve efficient, reliable and cost
effective services from their government. They are also entitled
to receive services in the official language of their choice,
whether they are anglophones in Gaspé or francophones in
Winnipeg.
I am particularly pleased about our government's firm and
reaffirmed commitment to linguistic duality, a value that is
fundamental to our Canadian identity.
Our government firmly believes that the official languages
policy is a matter of mutual respect and that it shows our
willingness to use our diversity as a driving force.
Building on the heritage of its predecessors, the government
will revive efforts to promote and preserve this precious
heritage and to allow Canadians of all ages to acquire a better
knowledge of it, to contribute to it and to benefit from it.
Our government intends to develop an action plan in order to
meet its objectives. Above all, we want our fellow citizens
across the country to recognize linguistic duality as a value
that is unique to us and that sets us apart, and to support our
efforts in a concrete way.
We will see to it that government on line and other developments
of this kind do not dilute support for both official languages,
but rather that they result in increased services.
We will work actively to ensure that French has its place on the
Internet so that the French language and the French culture can
remain strong within a Canada where linguistic duality is
considered an asset.
[English]
None of our initiatives, projects or objectives will be realized
without the continued hard work and dedication of public service
employees throughout Canada and abroad. After all, the best
intentions and ideas amount to little without the talented and
professional workforce to translate them into reality.
Canada is blessed to have an exceptional public service. The
Public Service of Canada is a vital institution and the
government is committed to ensuring its long term health and
vitality.
The Speech from the Throne was clear. We will take the
necessary measures to ensure that the public service is
innovative, dynamic and reflective of the diversity of the
country, and that it is able to attract and develop the talent
needed to serve Canadians in the 21st century.
There can be no doubt that the government faces some very
serious challenges. Demographics are changing and the workforce
is aging. Competition for the talent we need to meet future
challenges is becoming more and more intense. We are focusing on
building a more inclusive and supportive environment, a working
culture where people feel like they can make a meaningful
contribution.
We are striving to fashion a new, more productive and mutually
beneficial relationship between unions and management. We have
engaged several outside groups such as the Advisory Committee on
Senior Level Retention and Compensation, the Task Force on the
Participation of Visible Minorities in the Public Service of
Canada, and the Task Force on an Inclusive Public Service to
identify areas where we can and should make improvements to our
human resources management regime.
Much more work remains to be done but I am very confident that
we have the will, the talent and the energy to effect the
necessary positive changes. As President of the Treasury Board I
have made this a personal commitment.
1600
[Translation]
I have tried to quickly go over some of the elements of the
throne speech that are more directly related to my department. I
want to conclude however by saying that these are only a few
elements of an ambitious program.
Canadians have once again put their trust in us, because they
realize that our balanced approach, and dare I say our Liberal
approach, has helped us to gingerly step into the 21st century.
They also realized that in a world of quick technological and
economic changes, we did not intend to leave anyone behind. We
firmly believe in equal opportunity, and that is the vision we
expressed in the throne speech.
This Speech from the Throne forces us to provide the people of
Canada with good government. What does that entail? A government
with ambitious goals that focuses on results. A government that
listens to the people. A government that shares the values of the
people it serves.
That is what Canadians want and they deserve no less. This is
exactly want our government intends to do during this new term.
[English]
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Madam Speaker, I thank
the minister for her comments on the throne speech and
specifically her comments on infrastructure. I should like to
ask her about something that is concerning the people in
Dartmouth and Halifax.
The harbour solutions project is a major infrastructure project
to clean up the harbour. It will cost over $300 million.
Traditionally such infrastructure programs have been split
one-third, one-third and one-third municipal, provincial and
federal.
Is the federal government prepared to provide one-third of the
cost for the harbour solutions project? Major environmental
projects such as this one cannot be funded by a municipality.
Often municipalities can go nowhere near that kind of funding.
Where is the infrastructure program now in terms of this
paramount project for Atlantic Canada?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Madam Speaker, as I said in my
speech, we have already signed the agreements with all of the
provinces and Yukon. It is clear according to the agreements we
signed that the priority of the program should be on green
infrastructure. This is an important element of the program with
all provinces.
What is clear also is that the choices should be made by the
municipalities. The municipalities should bring the project to
the table so that we can study it and decide if a project is
accepted or not. They have to decide their priorities.
There is a limit to the amount of money that each province
receives. Even if it is a $6 billion program for the country
there is a limit. It is a matter of choice, but I would say that
the project is eligible according to the infrastructure Canada
program.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Madam Speaker, I find it
incredible to hear a speech such as this one. I am not used to
it yet. I heard things such as “firm commitments” and “trust
us”.
The President of the Treasury Board was there. She must have
gone through my riding of Châteauguay on her way to
Beauharnois—Salaberry.
1605
At that time, she promised $357 million to build two bridges as
well as money for a little piece of highway.
I am wondering why, when the announcement was made only a few
days before the election, such an important announcement, when
one knows that the throne speech will be in force for three or
four years, no mention was made of this important aspect, this
commitment?
The minister talked about her government's firm commitments and
said voters should trust the government. But voters in
Châteauguay and in Beauharnois—Salaberry were also to trust
comments and promises made by the government.
What I am asking the minister is: How can she say that people
can trust the government? Is she willing to make a commitment
and say “Yes, these $357 million will be reinvested in bridges
and in the economic development of the Châteauguay area and the
Beauharnois—Salaberry riding”? I would like the minister to
answer my question.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Madam Speaker, voters trust us so much
that they reelected us with a huge majority across the country
and especially in Quebec. We saw how great was the trust of
voters in every region of Quebec, including Montérégie.
We are very happy that Beauharnois—Salaberry is represented by a
new member who is going to join the members of this government
in improving the social and economic development of the south
shore of Montreal.
This is very clear. We had an election platform and we presented
it to the electorate. As a matter of fact, voters knew more or
less what to expect. They have seen us govern the country for
the last seven and a half years. They know this government is
competent and they know this government is always true to its
words. It is very clear, we presented our election platform to
voters. They put their trust in us, and we are undertaking,
during our mandate, to fulfil the promises we made in our
platform.
[English]
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I congratulate you on your elevation to an esteemed
position in the House of Commons. I wish you all the best in
your deliberations. I will be splitting my time with the member
for Dartmouth.
I thank the voters of Regina—Qu'Appelle for having confidence
in me and re-electing me as their member of parliament. This is
my ninth parliament. I was first elected in 1968. Over those
years I have seen many changes in the House of Commons. There
are a couple of general themes that I am really concerned about,
the themes of democracy and equality.
I remember the sixties and seventies when there was a tremendous
move in the country for better social programs and greater
equality among people. There was a real fight in the student
movement and others to have a more democratic society. I
remember Pierre Trudeau and the talk about a just society and
participatory democracy.
The word inequality or equality was not even mentioned in the
throne speech last week. Some 30 years later we find that the gap
between the rich and the poor, after narrowing in the fifties,
sixties and throughout the seventies is now starting to widen
again.
Recently there was a study of the family by the Vanier Institute
which showed that the gap between the rich and the poor is now
widening throughout the decade of the 1990s. That should really
concern us as a country and as policy makers in Canada.
I should like to place a couple of very worrying trends on the
record of the House of Commons in terms of the growing gap
between the rich and the poor. If we look at the wealthiest 20%
of Canadians, in the beginning of the 1990s compared to the
latter part of the 1990s their share of the national income went
up from 37% to 39%, an increase of 6.6% of their share of the
national wealth.
1610
If we look at the poorest 20% of the Canadian people, their
share of the national income went down in the nineties. At the
beginning of the nineties they had 7.6% of the national income
and national wealth. At the end of the nineties they had 7.1% of
the national income and national wealth. As we can see, the
incomes of the wealthy went up while the incomes of the poorest
went down. This is a sad commentary on the progress we have made
as a society as a whole, not just at the federal level but at the
provincial and municipal levels.
I want to mention a couple of other statistics that are
interesting. In 1989, 29,200 households in Canada went bankrupt
compared to 85,000 in 1997. This again is growing evidence of
the widening gap between the rich and poor in Canada.
In terms of savings, the household average in 1989 were $6,250.
In 1998, household savings on average were $1,664. This
represents a tremendous drop throughout the decade.
According to the Vanier Institute, by the end of the 1990s 40%
of the poorest Canadians spent more than they earned. The middle
20% spent all that they earned by the end of the 1990s. If a
dollar was earned, a dollar was spent. However, the wealthiest
40% of the Canadian population had increased savings in the 1990s
while the average went down radically throughout that decade.
Once again, we see the redistribution of wealth and income
widening. It seems to me that the challenge of a parliament in
any country is to govern on behalf of the common good, to create
greater conditions for equality and opportunity, and to
redistribute wealth so that people have a better opportunity to
pursue what they want in their individual lives.
An example more specific to my riding concerns the farm crisis.
The grain and oilseed farmers today are facing the biggest crisis
since the 1930s. Farm income is dropping. Between the fall of
1998 and the fall of 2000, 22,000 prairie farmers left the land.
However, we have a federal government that provides very little
assistance to farmers in comparison to what is happening in
Europe and the United States. That is another example of the
widening gap between the rich and poor.
People are homeless and living on the streets. We have young
people who are poor. The Vanier Institute stated that among
single parent families and the young, the poverty rate was
increasing while take home pay was decreasing compared to wealthy
people in Canada. It is our obligation as members of parliament
to address those issues.
The other issue I want to address is the issue of democracy.
Democracy in Canada is in a crisis today. We have to look at
electoral democracy, parliamentary democracy and economic
democracy.
In terms of electoral democracy, the Prime Minister will soon be
naming 12 more people to the Senate, a legislative body that is
not elected, not democratic, not accountable and supported by
only 5% of Canadians. Yet, as parliamentarians, we do nothing
about it. The time has come to abolish that unelected body and
bring the purpose of the Senate for checks and balances into a
reformed House of Commons. That should be done as soon as
possible.
We should also look at bringing our democracy into the modern
world. We should bring in an element of proportional
representation, as have other countries in the world with
populations of more than eight million people, such as the United
States and India. Most countries in the world have some element
of proportional representation that treats all voters as equal.
This means that a vote is a vote and no vote is wasted. Those
are some of the things that have to be done. If we do not do it
soon we will have a tremendous crisis.
The turnout in the last election campaign was barely 60% of the
population. In 1997 it was 66% of the population. If we go back
to the fifties, sixties and earlier seventies, it was closer to
80% of the population.
There is no doubt that we are sleepwalking toward a crisis in
democracy on the electoral side, on the parliamentary side and on
the economic side.
1615
In terms of parliament, the power of the Prime Minister is much
too great in our constitution today. We need stronger committees
that are more independent. We need to have fewer confidence
votes in the House of Commons.
The power of the PMO to make appointments, whether it be the
Senate, the Supreme Court, the RCMP or every important
legislative body or important institution, should be thwarted and
democratized. Perhaps we should have appointments nominated by
the Prime Minister but approved or rejected by the relevant
parliamentary committee.
The Prime Minister should not have the power to set election
dates. There should be a fixed and set election date. Perhaps
we should even have a term limitation for the Prime Minister of
Canada. These are ideas that many countries around the world
adopt.
When it comes to economic democracy, the trade deals today and
the large transnational corporations are really an assault on
democracy. They take away a lot of the political power which
nation states used to have to make important decisions over the
lives of individual citizens. That is an area we have to address
as we begin a brand new parliament.
To that end, I want on behalf of our caucus to move a
subamendment. I move:
That the amendment be amended by adding, after the word
“provinces” the following:
“and further that this House strongly condemns the government
for its support of the proposed U.S. National Missile Defence
System as well as undemocratic trade deals such as the WTO,
NAFTA, and the proposed FTAA that do not ensure respect for human
rights, labour, and the environment”.
In other words, it is an assault in democracy by these trade
deals. We have lost democratic control.
It is not a question of being for or against trade. We are all
for trade. We are a great trading nation. In the process of
doing that let us make sure we reassert some national sovereignty
and democratic control so that in these trade deals we can have
minimum standards or a waiver for social programs, for the
environment and for health. That is what we should be building.
Also within those trade deals in the context of transnational
corporations we should not give away our sovereignty and
democracy.
There is nothing democratic about some of these large
transnational corporations that have an economy bigger than these
nation states. Wal-Mart has about the 10th or 12th largest
economy in the world. That is bigger than nation states. These
big transnationals are not run by entrepreneurs or free
enterprise. They are run by technocrats and bureaucrats. They
are like big icebergs that bump around the world destroying the
economies of nation states.
The time has come for people to reassert democratic control when
it comes to the economy of the world and the economy of our own
country as well.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The Chair will take
the amendment to the amendment under advisement.
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I was struck by a comment that the
member opposite made in his speech that household bankruptcies
had more than tripled in the last 10 years according to the
figures he saw. I wonder if that seems to correlate with the
rise of gambling in the country.
In the last decade the gambling revenues coming from the general
public started at zero and now account for more than $1 billion.
1620
Would the member opposite consider whether the rise in household
bankruptcies may be connected with gambling which seems to be
directed, particularly if we look at the casino in Winnipeg,
toward the people who have the least to spend and who are
probably the poorest in our society, and yet these are the ones
most in jeopardy with the rise in gambling?
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I have never seen a
study connecting gambling to household bankruptcies but I suspect
there is probably a correlation there.
If we look at the number of people who become addicted to the
practice of gambling, more damaging than casinos, and I am
familiar with the casino in my home city of Regina, are the VLTs
that have sprung up like mushrooms all over the country. The
VLTs are sort of the crack cocaine of the gambling world. A lot
of ordinary folk without much cash can go in and spend a lot of
money. They get addicted to that particular practice. That is
something we should probably take a look at as a parliament and
at the provincial jurisdiction as well. That may be one of the
factors.
Whether it is or not, the fact of the matter is the gap between
the rich and the poor is widening instead of narrowing in a
society that is very wealthy. As a Canadian that really disturbs
me. We have to look at how we can turn that around. We were
doing that particularly throughout the sixties but also into the
seventies with some of the new social programs and changes in the
tax system. Now all of a sudden we have gone in the other
direction.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, there were very passionate comments made by the member
for Regina—Qu'Appelle. I was very interested in his comments
with respect to transnationals which are part of his amendment to
the actual amendment.
I was interested in his comments with respect to Wal-Mart. No
doubt he is aware that other nations have taken it upon
themselves to look at dominance by various retailers,
particularly with respect to the impact on consumers and
obviously the impact on competition. In Germany, for instance,
even though Wal-Mart only had a few per cent of market share it
was told to drive its prices up so it would not snuff out small
business.
What I am concerned about and the question I want to ask the
member deals more with the bigger question that he tried to
illustrate under several points. He referred to bankruptcy,
farms, poverty, democracy and the question of wealth in the
nation.
We heard about a study this morning that almost counteracts and
countermands the issue of people living in poverty with the
assumption that for the first time since the 1960s, and certainly
in this decade, we have seen actual incomes for Canadians rise,
and there is a necessity now for two people to work in order to
make ends meet.
Has the hon. member looked at this recent study? How does it
reflect on the Vanier study with respect to poverty and families?
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I had a chance to take
a glance at it. Indeed the average income of Canadians has
increased over the decade. If my understanding is correct, it
has increased mainly because we now have two people working in a
family and sometimes three. It has also increased because people
have been working extra hours or have an extra or part time job.
The family income has gone up because of the extra hours that the
family puts into the workplace. I am not sure that is the way we
should go.
Through a technological society and innovation we were supposed
have more leisure time. I remember these debates about 10 years
or 15 years ago when technology started to become the thing to
talk about. One of the advantages of technology and computers
was to reduce the time at work and free up more time to pursue
leisure, arts, sports or whatever one wanted to do. The fact
that we have more and more part time jobs and fewer full time
jobs, and probably fewer jobs in the general sense that are
unionized and have good benefits and wages, people are generally
making less per hour and putting in more hours. At the end they
make more money but what happens to the quality of life.
These are all things we should look at. We are beginning a new
parliament which is really a new phase in the development of our
country. It is important that we look at the issues of equality
and how we close the gap rather than see it widen. I really mean
it when I say the issue of democracy is one that is really
important. Our electoral and parliamentary system and the
thwarting of democracy or the assault on democracy by big
transnational corporations is really quite a thing.
It is not really a free enterprise thing either. Free enterprise
and entrepreneurs believe in the marketplace. A lot of the big
corporations are run by technocrats and bureaucrats with little
sensitivity to anything called a free market or fair market.
Again, that is a thwarting of democracy.
1625
These things are sort of fleeting away from our hands. We have
to look at ways to return power to the people, empower them and
make our society and our country more inclusive. I think that
can be done.
One way to do that is to make this place a little less partisan
through fewer confidence votes and stronger committees, and by
electing the chairs of committees and letting them have the right
to timetable things out. These are not radical moves. These
things happen in countries around the world that are advanced
democracies.
Let us look at the idea of proportional representation as well.
The time has come. We are one of only three countries in the
world with populations of more than eight million people that
does not have it. That would create the situation where all
votes are equal, no votes are wasted and people would genuinely
be empowered.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The Chair has had
occasion to examine the subamendment proposed by the member from
Regina—Qu'Appelle and the motion is in order. Debate will
continue on the subamendment.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Madam Speaker, I would
like also take this opportunity to congratulate you on your new
appointment.
I would like to thank all of the members who ran in this
election, the people who won and those that did not. It is an
important place to be and I value the struggle that everyone went
through.
I would also like to thank the people of Dartmouth, Cole
Harbour, the Prestons, Cherry Brook and Lake Echo who have once
again returned me to this place.
Maybe I should also make a comment with respect to Her
Excellency the Governor General. She is doing a most excellent
job and is a credit to her office and her country. I would not
like it to be thought that my comments on her speech reflect
poorly upon her.
This is the third Speech from the Throne which I have witnessed
since being elected in 1997. Like the others, I believe the
speech was long in rhetoric and short on specifics.
I would like to use my time to comment on two things which are
the skepticism created by failed Liberal promises and the lack of
overall vision to deal with the problems facing us in the years
to come.
I am from Dartmouth. People in Dartmouth are not usually
satisfied with good intentions. They want to know what we are
going to do. They are skeptical and, given past Liberal
performances, they have a right to be.
A current example of how Liberals created this feeling is the
so-called home heating rebate, which is now being received by
some of my constituent. People were led to believe they would
get help. Page 5 of the Liberal platform said “we will provide
fuel tax rebates of up to $250 per household to help low and
modest income Canadians cope with the higher costs of fuel prices
this winter”.
What has been delivered instead is a slightly augmented GST tax
credit which does nothing to rebate anyone. The cheque is being
given to people based on their eligibility for the GST tax
credit, not on their heating cost. This program also does not go
to any modest income families because they make too much to
qualify for the GST rebate. In short, the program has no bearing
on the ability of a person to pay his or her heating bill.
While I have always believed that tax support for our lowest
income families has been too low and support an increase to this
tax credit, calling this a home heating rebate fails every test
of good public policy or even common sense. It does not deliver
what has been promised because there are working families facing
desperate economic circumstances but receiving none of the
promised help from the federal or the provincial government.
There is also a social division being exploited as those with
high heating costs get no help and many who are getting help do
not directly pay for their heating.
This policy is not helping my community get together, it is
dividing it. My riding office phone has been ringing off the
hook. I sympathize with the callers. As I said, this kind of
thing keeps them skeptical.
The Minister of Finance said that this happened because the
government was anxious to get the cheques out quickly. However,
the timing of the rebate only seemed to allow an announcement
before the election and then to release the flawed details after
the election. I am not convinced by this explanation.
1630
Millions of Canadians are now on the verge of filing their taxes
as they do every spring. If the government were serious about
actually getting help to those facing huge increases in heating
costs this winter, it could have used the tax system to help them
when the mini-budget was announced last fall and people would
have received rebates when they filed their taxes.
After all, the oil companies, which are reaping record profits
because of the increased fuel prices, received help on their
corporate taxes in last fall's budget. Their cheques, a real
rebate in the form of reduced corporate taxes, will soon be in
the mail. However hard working, modest income families in
Dartmouth have been left with a promise, not a cheque.
This is simply one example of how the government has made
choices under the cover of platitudes. I believe the other
modest initiatives mentioned in the throne speech will suffer a
similar but predictable fate.
The mention of support for employment programs for persons with
disabilities will probably do nothing for the millions of
Canadians who have a disability but are currently unable to
qualify for EI or CPP because of their tenuous relationship to
the labour force.
The building of broadband access does not say how low income
Canadians will be able to afford this service, let alone buy a
computer. It seems predestined to support bigger dot com profits
before providing support to the people who are not willing to
line up at community access sites.
The cultural initiatives in the throne speech are likewise
vague. While artistic creators still receive no targeted tax
relief and exist at minimum wage levels, my constituents and I
remain skeptical.
My most important concern is the lack of a real vision of Canada
in the Speech from the Throne. Last year we saw the passing of
the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau, someone who had a vision for
Canada. He could inspire us. We did not always agree, but we
always had some respect for him. He was not ambiguous. He saw
our country's problems on the horizon, brought them to our
attention and offered his opinion.
The current throne speech has failed to do that. There are huge
problems facing the people with which we have to deal. Our
democracy is declining. Voter turnout is plummeting. Alienation
is growing in many regions and among our young people.
There is a wide belief that the powers of this place have been
subverted to those in the Langevin block. Above all, there is a
growing sense that the powers of Canada as a state have been
subverted to the powers of trading blocks, transnational
corporations under NAFTA, the WTO and, maybe worse, the proposed
free trade of the Americas regime.
The throne speech is silent on how to reintegrate young people
and the disaffected of Quebec or the west into our democracy. It
is silent on how to reassert our national sovereignty when
foreign companies demand our resources at a lower price, demand
access to our water, and demand an end to public delivery of our
health services, our education system and our public
environmental protections. In my humble way I will be bringing
forward suggestions on how to give us some protection in
parliament.
I believe the government should limit the concentration of
ownership in our private media and restore its past support to
the CBC so that information can flow to citizens as ideas for
public debate, not just as content dressed up to attract
advertising dollars. Any parliamentary package which neglects
this aspect of our living democracy is flawed.
The lack of any mention of our need for cultural, environmental,
labour and public service safeguards, while talking about new
trade agreements including the free trade of the Americas
initiative which the throne speech so proudly supports, is
shameful.
Has the government forgotten the humiliation which we suffered
two years back when we surrendered control over our magazine
sector because the cultural carve out in the FTA and NAFTA proved
to be worthless?
Has the work of the Minister of Canadian Heritage on building a
separate international agreement on culture already been
sacrificed to the Americas so the Prime Minister can go bass
fishing in Texas or host a banquet in Quebec City in April?
Is the fact that government subsidies to public broadcasters are
being threatened in Europe under the free trade rules being
forgotten by officials in the Langevin block, or have they simply
decided that private media conglomerates should control all
information for the Canadian public?
1635
We need to take a stand saying that we are a rich people with a
great and vast country and that we will trade fairly with the
world. At the same time we must tell our trading partners that
this country is ours and this parliament should make our laws,
not some NAFTA trade arbitrator and not a transnational
corporation.
The throne speech should have made it clear that until we have
binding protection for our culture, environment, education and
health care systems, we will not expand our trading agreements.
We must make it clear to all abroad that only we as members of
parliament are accountable to our constituents. We should be
saying to Canada: let us work together; let us prosper; let us
defend our country together from the onslaught of corporate
power; and let us revitalize our democracy together. That should
have been the primary vision of the throne speech. The
government had the opportunity to give us this vision but it
declined. I hope that over the life of this parliament we can
get the government to change its mind.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I too congratulate you on your appointment. I think the
Prime Minister made a very good choice. I have worked with you
in the past and I know you will do a very good job.
I wholeheartedly support the throne speech given by the Governor
General last week. My question to the hon. member deals with
rebates that she mentioned she opposed.
I campaigned at the same time as her but in different provinces.
My riding of Brampton Centre was happy with the rebates. I do
not know what is the complaint. She says that we are giving
rebates to those who have low incomes and receive the GST rebate.
We did not hear about a government giving rebates to those with
high incomes.
Would she support giving rebates to those with high incomes and
high taxes? I do not know what her objection is regarding giving
rebates to those with low incomes who receive the GST rebate. I
am confused. I do not know which way she will go. Maybe it
should be changed again and the rebates given to those with high
incomes and those who pay high taxes to the federal government.
Ms. Wendy Lill: Madam Speaker, I believe that the $250
maximum tax rebate being given to people who are eligible for the
GST tax rebate is a start. We accept the minister's statement
that this was a speedy method of getting some money out to
people.
We simply do not believe that it went far enough. Many Canadians
are now facing a 38% increase in fuel bills and have no way on
earth of paying these increased costs. The government should
create a much more substantial support program to help Canadians
with these home heating fuel costs.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for clarifying her position with
respect to the home heating fuel rebate. She will remember in
the last parliament that it took almost three and a half years to
try to convince everyone in the House that it was the best way to
provide people with an opportunity to fend off a particularly
cold winter.
Given that oil companies have a tendency to add 20% margins in
Canada on home heating fuel over and above what the U.S. market
would allow, I was glad and comforted to hear that the government
had taken a good first step. It was validation of the work this
member of parliament had undertaken for a couple of years.
Further to the member's concern about Canadians being able to
fend off the high and unusual increases in non-discretionary
items like heating, would she comment on the level of
concentration in Canada's energy industry? That may be at the
root of her concern.
Would she also comment on the good work done by the Competition
Bureau in removing the restricting covenant on the Come By Chance
refinery, which has now permitted the possibility of having yet
another competitor come in and provide home heating fuel in the
Atlantic provinces?
1640
Ms. Wendy Lill: Madam Speaker, I must say I cannot
comment on that. I am not familiar with that regulation.
Although I have stated that the particular rebate is giving some
comfort to Canadians, some of the are things that were absent
from the throne speech would have given much more comfort to
Canadians. New Democrats are very concerned about a national
child care program. We did not see it in the throne speech and
we will still be fighting for it in the 37th parliament. It
would go a long way in buffering the harsh economic climate out
there. We need a pharmacare program and a home care program.
People with disabilities need adequate income support programs.
The throne speech mentioned an increase in training programs for
persons with disabilities. It is limited to people who are
eligible for EI. Many Canadians with disabilities, up to 70% of
them, are not in the labour force and not even eligible for EI.
Many people live in quite a vulnerable state and are totally at
the mercy of such things as increased heating oil. That is the
kind of issue we have to deal with.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for
Etobicoke—Lakeshore. I congratulate you and your fellow
Speakers on your appointments. The positions that you occupy are
of paramount importance for decorum in the House. Some 301
representatives debate the issues of the day and try to ensure
that Canada remains one of the best countries in the world in
which to live.
I thank the electors of Kitchener—Waterloo for the great honour
they have bestowed upon me by electing me as their representative
to the Parliament of Canada for the third straight time since
1993.
I thank all the volunteers who assisted candidates of all
political parties in the last election for involving themselves
in the democratic process which has resulted in the 37th
parliament. The volunteers in Kitchener—Waterloo who assisted
in my re-election as their representative to the Chamber give a
deeper meaning to the democratic process for me. I am certain
these sentiments are shared by all candidates in the last
election with respect to the thousands of volunteers across
Canada who worked on their behalf.
I would be remiss if I were to forget to mention the support of
my wife Nancy and my daughter Erin who have been my partners on
this journey.
I give my first speech in the 37th parliament with a sense of
humility for the privilege of being a member of the Chamber and
with a new sense of collegiality and respect for all members who
are here representing their respective constituencies.
While I will vigorously debate the points or differences of my
colleagues based on differences in policy, I hope I will do so
with respect, in recognition of the fact that we have all been
sent here by our respective electors as temporary guardians of
the public trust. We are here to serve our constituents to the
best of our abilities and to contribute to building a strong and
united Canada, a Canada that works for all Canadians from coast
to coast to coast.
When I was first elected to the House in 1993 the fiscal
challenges we faced as a national were most daunting. We had a
$42 billion deficit, the highest in the nation's history, coupled
with an ever increasing national debt in excess of $500 billion.
These fiscal circumstances threatened the economic sovereignty of
our country. Due to the hard work of Canadians and the sound
fiscal management of the government, the deficit has been
eliminated and the debt is being paid.
Because we have put our fiscal house in order, we have been able
to cut taxes fairly. This will serve us well in meeting present
economic challenges. By having effectively addressed our fiscal
reality we have struck the right balance of investing in health
care, families and children, investing in protecting the
environment, and investing in research and innovation.
My riding of Kitchener—Waterloo is a good example of what is
entailed in the new economy: innovation, research and
development, and investing in Canadians through higher education
and skills training. The economic profile of my community is
based upon insurance, education, high tech companies, many medium
size businesses and the service sector.
1645
In the area of insurance we have the head offices of Clarica,
Equitable Life, Lutheran Life, Economical Mutual and the Canadian
headquarters of Manulife.
Since my time is limited I will focus on the importance of
post-secondary education, skills training and research and
development from the perspective of my community. I want to
share with the House how education benefits my community at the
local level and how it contributes to our national economic
well-being.
Conestoga College, the University of Waterloo and Wilfrid
Laurier University are all in my riding. The excellence of our
post-secondary institutions is well known worldwide. They are
the engines of our economic growth. They provide occupation
opportunities to Canadians and contribute to the economic output
at the local, provincial and national levels.
The work of the visionary pioneers in Kitchener—Waterloo who
invested their time and effort in starting up our post-secondary
institutions has resulted in great contributions to and are at
the core of the community's cultural, social and economic life.
When the University of Waterloo was started in 1957 in a
farmer's field, it inspired a book titled Of Mud and
Dreams. The university established the first co-operative
engineering program. The pioneers who started that co-operative
program were called heretics, as one did not take a professional
program like engineering and debase it with a blue collar
component such as work terms. Co-operative education, which
offers an academic term matched by a work term, is now common
practice throughout Canada and the world.
Since its inception, the University of Waterloo has also
embraced computerization. It now has the biggest computer and
mathematics faculties in the world and is world renowned.
The three post-secondary educational institutions in my riding
are equipping Canadians with the cutting edge skills and learning
that they will need to prosper. This will enable them to realize
their unique potential and through lifelong learning to succeed
in the new digital economy.
This government's record of supporting achievement in education
is reflected in our having developed the Canada millennium
scholarships, the Canada education savings grant, the Canada
foundation for innovation and increasing the education tax
credit. All of these will build upon our goal of having at least
one million more adults take advantage of learning opportunities
during the next five years.
The economic spinoffs from our post-secondary institutions are
found in the association of Canada's Technology Triangle and
Communitech.
I recall how the Atlas Group, representing the largest
information technology companies in my community, made its first
visit to Ottawa in the fall of 1994. Today the group has evolved
to over 200 member companies of the technology industry within
Cambridge, Guelph, Kitchener and Waterloo. Counted among its
members are software developers, system integrators,
telecommunication companies, Internet companies and more.
Names such as Research in Motion, Open Text, Dalsa, Descartes
and Mitron are just a few of these companies, and they are world
renowned
I remember visiting the company Research in Motion in Waterloo
with the Minister of Industry in 1994. The company had just 40
employees operating out of rented space. Since then, it has
received two Technology Partnership Canada loans totalling less
than $40 million.
Today Research in Motion employs over 1,000 people in high
paying jobs, owns its facilities, has produced two billionaires
and hundreds of millionaires in my region. Its product is the
blackberry, a wireless e-mail device that many of my colleagues
in the House now use.
The Prime Minister sent his first e-mail on the device, and the
new Minister of External Affairs was the first cabinet member to
have one. The blackberry is the favoured communication tool of
people such as Bill Gates of Microsoft, Michael Dell of Dell
computers and former vice-president Al Gore.
Research in Motion is a world leader in wireless communications.
Besides creating a tremendous amount of wealth and providing
employment opportunities to a large number of people, it has also
given back to the community.
Two former Research in Motion employees, Louise MacCallum and
Michael Bamstijn, donated $12 million to the community foundation
in the Waterloo region and $1 million to the Waterloo Regional
Museum. This was to celebrate their retirement at the ages of 39
and 41 respectively.
1650
Some $100 million was donated by Michael Lazaridis, along with
$10 million from Jim Balsillie and $10 million by Douglas Fregin,
for a total of $120 million to establish a world class research
institute for theoretical physics. It is believed to be the
largest private donation in Canadian history.
More important at the time, much criticism was made of research
in universities being driven by company priorities. Here we have
a record donation made by Research in Motion, with no strings
attached, to expand the boundaries of pure research. In
establishing the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics,
Mike Lazaridis, Jim Balsillie and Douglas Fregin from Research in
Motion more than met the challenge issued by the Prime Minister
for corporate sponsorship of research.
In the new economy, knowledge and technological innovation are
the cornerstones of new prosperity and better quality of life.
Research and development are the lifeblood of innovation.
As one of the founding members of the Liberal caucus on
post-secondary educational research and development, I am excited
that we will at least double the current federal investment in
research and development by 2010. That will strengthen the
research capacity of Canadian universities, government
laboratories and institutions. I also strongly endorse our
commitment to ensure access to affordable post-secondary
education and to work toward making Canada a country that
embraces lifelong learning.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, let me say how pleased and proud I am to see you in the
chair. I congratulate you and all of your colleagues on their
appointments. It is great to see you there. I have no doubt
that you will preside with the fairness and wisdom you have
garnered over the years.
I thank the people of Etobicoke—Lakeshore as I begin my initial
speech in the House. In returning me for a third term to the
House they have placed their confidence in me to represent their
interests in parliament. It is my privilege to represent the
people of this riding. I can assure them I will do my very best
to make their concerns heard in the House.
I also thank my family, friends, campaign team, the many
volunteers and all those who worked so hard to ensure a
re-election victory. I say to them and to the House that I am
indeed very grateful.
I am honoured to respond to the Speech from the Throne, to take
this opportunity to speak at the beginning of the 37th
parliament. I will focus my remarks on the theme of creating
opportunities for Canadians, as this is central to the Liberal
government's plan for building a progressive and dynamic Canada.
Let me say a few words about my riding of Etobicoke—Lakeshore.
Situated in proximity to Lake Ontario, my riding is as diverse as
Canada itself. It is the southernmost of three federal ridings
in what was formerly the city of Etobicoke. Over 360 small and
medium size businesses in Etobicoke—Lakeshore cut across the
manufacturing, retail trade and business service sectors of the
economy.
The Speech from the Throne gives me the opportunity to assure
the people of my riding that they can count on the government to
create a brighter future, a Canada that will have an even
stronger economy in this century, a Canada in which every
Canadian will have a higher quality of life, a Canada in which
all Canadians will have the opportunity to harness their skills
and talents. This is the Canada the constituents of
Etobicoke—Lakeshore envision.
The challenges and the pace of the new global economy put a high
value on knowledge, research and innovation. The member who
spoke prior to me brought to the fore the research and innovative
things in his riding.
1655
Canada cannot afford to be unprepared to meet the challenges of
the new economy and of the future. We must ensure that the doors
of the new economy are open to all Canadians. We must continue
in our efforts to ensure their talents, ideas and skills are
utilized in building our country in the global economy.
Throne speech 2001 outlines the next steps in the government's
moderate, balanced plan to create opportunity for all Canadians
in the 21st century.
The federal government will make good on its commitment to make
education accessible to my constituents and to all Canadians. It
is important to the government that no man, woman or child is
left behind as we move forward in building economic prosperity
and sharing opportunities. That is why we continue to promote
skills and learning as part of our plan to create opportunities
for Canadians.
I spent many years in education and can say that skills and
learning are essential, especially to our young people. Equipping
Canadians with marketable, cutting edge skills will ensure they
have the tools to prosper and to realize their potential.
This is reassuring to many young people in my riding. They will
not be caught in the never ending cycle of no skills no jobs, no
jobs no skills. The government will continue to help young
Canadians contribute to their country, gain employment and apply
their business and creative skills.
Building a skilled labour market is not an easy task, which I
think the government realizes. We know that many Canadians have
difficulties finding the resources to commit to learning and
skills upgrading. We know that youth at risk are more vulnerable
to being left behind.
The government's commitment to skills and learning in the 2001
throne speech will meet these challenges. As the Prime Minister
indicated, the government wants to help at least one million more
Canadian adults take advantage of learning opportunities.
To this end, the government outlined in the throne speech that
it would create registered individual learning accounts to assist
Canadians to finance their learning needs, to improve loans
available to part time students and to help workers learn while
they earn.
We will work in partnership with the provinces, the private
sector and voluntary organizations to ensure that young people
who are at risk, who need help staying in school or getting their
first job, will receive that support. We will work to ensure
that persons with disabilities and aboriginal Canadians are able
to realize their full potential.
These are laudable goals, but I want to address the issues of
one group at this point. I am referring to immigrants who have
contributed to our economy and our quality of life since the
formation of Canada. Every year Canada receives newcomers. They
are eager to put their skills and talents to work in our economy.
Like so many other Canadians, they want to participate fully in
the various sectors of our society.
We cannot afford to have highly skilled, well educated
immigrants languish on the margins of Canadian society. We
cannot afford to watch them toil away at dead end jobs,
especially when they could put their skills to use for the
betterment of Canadians.
In Etobicoke—Lakeshore many well trained, highly skilled new
Canadians are not realizing their full potential. Some come from
various parts of Europe and Africa with degrees as lawyers,
doctors and engineers, to name a few. They come with the hope
and dream of continuing to practise their professions and to
create a better life for themselves and their families. Sadly
they are often disappointed when they learn their foreign
credentials are not recognized in Canada.
1700
I am very pleased that the Speech from the Throne addressed that
issue. I will work, and I am sure you will work with me, Madam
Speaker, as will all members of the House, to ensure that we find
a way of working with the provinces and with the various authorities
to ensure that Canadians' experience and credentials and
those requested of newcomers will in some way be recognized as
well as the credentials of
those individuals. I thank the government for that initiative.
I also want to address the issue of the high speed broadband
Internet access, which will be available to the residents and the
businesses in Etobicoke—Lakeshore by the year 2004. My
colleague, the member for Winnipeg South, who has some expertise
in that area, spoke to that this morning. This issue has some
resonance for the businesses in my area.
I congratulate the government again on that part of the speech
that addresses the issue and that would put us in that forward
global economy and provide the kinds of experiences Canadians
will have as we build the kind of society in which young people,
those at risk, new immigrants and newcomers to our society, each
and every one of us, will have the opportunity to grow, develop,
build and have a country that will continue to be one of the
countries in the world that is admired by all.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Madam Speaker, I as well must say what a
pleasure it is to have you in the chair. Congratulations on your
position.
In regard to the hon. member's comments on the throne speech, I
must preface my remarks by saying that I highly value the
contribution the member has brought to the House of Commons, but
earlier we heard from one of the members on the backbenches of
the Liberal side who gave us a great discussion about the crisis
in our farm industry. Right now we have a grave situation facing
our family farmers throughout the country. It is the same
situation that is facing our family fishermen. I would like the
hon. member to address why the throne speech was so silent on
those very important issues which face so many rural Canadians in
Canada.
Ms. Jean Augustine: Madam Speaker, I have admiration for
the member and his concern for the issue of farmers and farming
and the situation of subsidies and the comparative nature of our
agricultural base as we look at what is happening in other areas.
I know and have sat with so many of the farmers who have come to
my constituency. Although we are in an urban area, the issue
that is of concern to them is an issue of concern to all of us as
Canadians. As legislators I think we have to do everything
possible to assure the farmers who provide food and sustenance to
our entire country that we support all of their efforts.
It is difficult at this time to begin to discuss the issue of
subsidies, of what we need to do and how we need to do this, but
I think a good scrutiny of the Speech from the Throne will also
show that the words are there that do address themselves to the
issue of agriculture.
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Madam Speaker, it
gives me a great deal of pleasure to say a few words in this
debate. Let me congratulate you on your elevation to the chair.
I will be sharing my time with the member for Fundy—Royal.
1705
In the throne speech debate today, let me touch briefly, if I
may, on three very important points as they affect the province
of Newfoundland and Labrador.
During the last parliament I spoke repeatedly about the
devastating effect that cuts to the federal transfers for health
and post-secondary education were having on the smaller provinces
in Canada, but especially on the province of Newfoundland and
Labrador. For many Canadians, those transfers have been restored
to early nineties levels with the new agreement on health and
post secondary education. However, in the case of Newfoundland
and Labrador, we will not return to nineties levels until the
year 2006. That is having a very devastating effect on poorer
provinces. It is having a devastating effect on the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador. That is one issue that I hope the
regional minister for Newfoundland will be able to address. He
is a very good friend of the Minister of Finance and the Prime
Minister, so I know that he will be quite happy to deal with this
particular item when it comes across his desk.
As a matter of fact, when he was premier of Newfoundland just a
short time ago, he described the agreement that the federal
government signed with the provinces as being no bonanza for the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador. He pointed out that the
funding formula was done on a per capita basis. When the
population is declining like it is in Newfoundland and Labrador
and when health care is funded on a per capita basis, that is
bound to have a detrimental affect.
The old EPF funding formula in place prior to the CHST always
had in place an equalization component that could be used for
areas with small populations. The equalization formula in the
old EPF scheme of things also took into account geographic
differences. For instance, the province of Newfoundland and
Labrador has hundreds of smaller communities scattered along
thousands of miles of coastline. The old EPF formula ensured
that an equalization component was built in so that it could take
into account the geographic differences we have. We do not see
that today in the CHST.
A second item I want to have a word on is an important item, an
environmental problem currently being experienced in my riding in
St. John's. It has to do with the cleanup of St. John's Harbour.
This is an issue that is not only a very important environmental
issue but an issue that came to the fore in the recent election
campaign and I would be remiss if I did not say a few words about
it. It is a matter I raised in the House on a number of
different occasions in the last parliament and is an issue that I
raised on a number of different occasions in the media. Of
course in November it became an election issue.
I was pleased to hear the regional minister for the province of
Newfoundland and Labrador, who is the present Minister of
Industry, make the statement that he would be working very hard
with the Prime Minister and with the Minister of Finance, who is
a very close friend of the regional minister, to secure funding
for the St. John's Harbour cleanup.
1710
It is only a $100 million project, and the province has
committed its $30 million. The city of St. John's, Mount Pearl,
and the surrounding area, Paradise, have committed their $30
million. The only holdout in this whole funding problem is the
federal government. I note that the federal government made
available, just before the election campaign, $1.5 billion for
the cleanup of Toronto Harbour.
None of us would begrudge Toronto its right to have its harbour
beautified and what have you, but I would ask for similar
treatment to be given to the province of Newfoundland and
Labrador in the area of harbour cleanup, a very important
environmental issue that needs a measly $30 million.
I note that the federal government had no problem coming up with
$2 billion a couple of days ago for Bombardier. Again, we do not
begrudge Quebec or any other province their windfalls, but surely
an environmental problem of this proportion needs to be looked at
very closely by the federal government. Hopefully the regional
minister can get together with his good friend, the Minister of
Finance, and have this problem looked after immediately.
The other subject that is very close to the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador is the current equalization formula
that we happen to be under. The Canadian equalization system is
a really good system. It will keep us from drowning but it falls
far short of helping us swim by ourselves. This is where the
equalization formula, in the way it is drafted right now, fails
the poorer provinces that have to be recipients of it.
Let me elaborate a little. Under the current equalization
formula, new resource revenues raised by the provincial treasury
are clawed back dollar for dollar by the federal government. That
is not a very good way of doing business. A province is trying
to develop resources, but for every dollar in resource revenue
taken in by the province the federal government comes along and
takes a dollar back. There are not too many incentives built
into that kind of system for any province that wants to develop
its resources in the manner it wishes.
I am very encouraged by the fact that today we have the premier
of Nova Scotia, Mr. Hamm, in town to talk about the current
equalization formula. Hopefully he will put forth a series of
recommendations to help rejig or retool the formula we have at
present.
In Newfoundland we had the Hibernia project, developed just
recently. We were able to do a deal with the federal government
in which the federal government said it would take back 70 cents
instead of a dollar, thus allowing the province to develop the
resource base a little more and to keep some of the revenues
associated with that. On top of that, the federal government
came up with a $1 billion loan guarantee and a $1.5 billion
grant. In spite of that, it was able to say that we needed some
kind of a better deal as it pertained to the Hibernia
development. Of course that was done by the federal PC
government.
1715
We have had virtually no recognition from the federal government
since that time that the equalization formula should be retooled
and rejigged to help provinces like Newfoundland, Prince Edward
Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Saskatchewan and
Manitoba. Only at the point when we have a new deal on
equalization for Newfoundland and Labrador will we be able to
rise above a beggar.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to note that the zone guarantee was not
moneys that were directed toward Bombardier as loan guarantees.
My hon. colleague knows that.
I listened very carefully to what the he had to say. We have
agreements to help less productive provinces, which basically is
the member's point today? How would the member respond to Mr.
Klein's accusations that too much money is coming out of Alberta,
that it is not getting its fair share and that Atlantic Canada is
getting a tremendous amount? There seems to be a different
philosophy in the member's party from one area of the country to
the other.
Mr. Norman Doyle: Madam Speaker, it is great if one
happens to live in a very affluent province. Alberta is rapidly
becoming a very affluent province and probably already is. It
has its own set of problems to deal with.
Atlantic Canada constantly gets criticized for the kinds of
regional programs it has to prop up its economy. The Liberals,
the Alliance and other parties criticize the kinds of regional
development programs there. They say that they do not work and
that we have to do something new.
We are now in the year 2001. The have not provinces, the
provinces that are the recipients of equalization payments, want
to be net contributors to this country. The only way they can do
that is to have some kind of an incentive to develop these
resources. The only way to do that is to retool and rejig the
equalization formula.
There has been some recognition. When the Minister of Finance
came to Newfoundland during the byelection campaign in St. John's
West, he made some very good comments about equalization. He said
it was time to have a look at it and see what could be done to
help out the poorer provinces. A couple of days after he got
back, I questioned him on that particular issue and he skated
around it. I had reason to believe that he was not really
serious about what he had said in Newfoundland.
If the current regional development programs in Atlantic Canada
are not working, and maybe some of them are not, then I believe
it is time to try something new. The various provinces like
Newfoundland, Labrador and those that are the recipients of
equalization payments need to have a rejigging and retooling of
that formula.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Madam Speaker, I
would like to ask my hon. colleague if he shares with me a
certain excitement about the future of Atlantic Canada.
If we look at Ireland 10 years ago and compare it to Atlantic
Canada today, I think the House would agree that a lot of
comparisons that can be drawn.
The fact is that a tax based strategy, largely based on the
transfers from the EU, allowed Ireland to transform itself over
that period of time.
1720
We could change the equalization to make it more effective and
enable provinces such as Nova Scotia and Newfoundland to keep
more of the offshore revenue to lower taxes and debt. Would the
hon. member agree that transforming Atlantic Canada by using
economic development strategies we know work in other parts of
the world would be a great legacy? Can we not change
equalization to work now instead of dilly-dallying and doddering
around and dealing with old economic development strategies that
have failed?
Mr. Norman Doyle: Madam Speaker, how could I not agree
with the hon. member? He is such a forward looking individual
and such a sound thinker. How could we not agree with him?
We have a very exciting future in Atlantic Canada but we have to
have a forward thinking government to take advantage of the
opportunities that are in Atlantic Canada.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Madam Speaker, before
I begin, I have to take care of three very important orders of
business.
First, Madam Speaker, I would like to compliment you on your
appointment to Acting Speaker. I know it is something you are
going to appreciate. You will get to learn from the learned
member from Kingston. I wish you all the best throughout this
term in your capacity as Madam Speaker.
I have this opportunity to speak in the House of Commons, the
sacred place that as parliamentarians we all should embrace, due
to the privilege that has been bestowed upon for the second time
by the electors of Fundy—Royal. I want to thank the electors
who reside in my fabulous riding of Fundy—Royal for this
opportunity.
I would also like to pay tribute to two individuals who have
made an immense contribution in the last parliament with respect
to getting the EI issue for seasonal workers on the political
map. Lots of other individuals played a role in that but I would
like to pay particular tribute to Jean Dubé and Angela Vautour.
They spoke out for the seasonal communities who really needed a
voice in this parliament. They were clearly magical components
in the recipe that got that bill tabled. We now have the bill
before us again. Their legacy will benefit many citizens who
reside in their communities for many years to come.
I would also like to pay tribute to my colleague Jean Dubé who
was successful last evening in a byelection. He is now the
member of the legislative assembly in Fredericton and for the
riding of Campbellton. He is going to continue that public
service commitment. I also want to pay tribute to Mr. Moore,
another Tory, who was successful in the riding of Caraquet. The
legislature only got stronger last night in New Brunswick.
I referred to the EI bill which has just been reintroduced. The
bill with respect to immigration has also been reintroduced. We
are also going to see the government make its third attempt at
bringing forth legislation with respect to protecting species at
risk. Also, there was a bill on the order paper with respect to
financial services. The government tabled it five years after it
said it was a priority however it died on the order paper.
1725
It would be quite appropriate to say that the government is a
government of improvisation. It makes it up as it goes. No
longer are we seeing that with respect to the Marshall decision.
The government was not ready for that particular incident,
despite the fact it must have had people in the Department of
Justice saying the decision may not have gone the way the
Government of Canada had expected. We saw that in 1995
referendum, in the postal strike and in the farmers' crisis as
well. It is a government that manages by crisis and not by
vision.
In the throne speech there was no real commitment to developing
and augmenting health care in the country. Basically, the
government reflected back upon the agreement it signed with the
provinces in September or what I call the postdated cheque bill.
The government returned the money that it gutted from the health
care system in 1993-94 and agreed to return descending levels to
that threshold again. When? Not today but three years from now.
When I campaigned in the recent election, they said
categorically that given the government was in a surplus and if it
had its priorities in order, before it did anything else, it
would have returned that money to the health care system today, not
three years from now. This fact may not be known, but
the province of New Brunswick will not return to the 1993-94
threshold for health care funding until the year 2005-06. New
Brunswick actually waited five years for the government's
postdated cheque on health care.
I challenge the Minister of Health to return that money now and
to escalate the accord that was signed in September as opposed to
the take or leave it deal that it left the provinces in that
regard.
I also want to talk about one perspective. We have seen a lot
of economic indicators in the last little while that would say
the North American economy is starting to slow down. It is
unheard of and unprecedented that the Minister of Finance would
not have the fortitude to provide the leadership that the country
fundamentally needs to ensure that Canada will make the necessary
investments in our economy to ensure that it maintains its place
in the world economy.
Why do we not have a budget tabled that would recognize the fact
that Canada has the second highest corporate and personal income
taxes as a per cent of its GDP in the industrialized world? Why
would we not have a budget right now that would send a signal
that Canada is going in the direction of lowering its taxes so it
can have more growth to keep up with its principal trading
partner, the United States?
Moreover, we categorically have to make investment for the
younger generation. The best investment we could possibly make
for younger generations right now is to set out a methodical
strategy about paying down our national debt. That is the least
we owe to our future generations.
There was no clear signal that the government will in a prudent,
methodical way pay down debt. If we want to send a signal to the
international investment community that Canada is getting its
economic fundamentals in order, that it is a place to grow and
invest those important dollars in, no signal would be more
valuable than a methodical approach to paying down national debt.
I want to pay tribute to the member of Kings—Hants, our finance
critic, who played a fundamental role in ensuring that that
element was in the platform we bestowed upon Canadians in the
recent election.
There is one issue that I was very shocked by and that the Right
Hon. Adrienne Clarkson did not utter the words because they were
not placed before her in the throne speech. The member for
Burin—St. George's obviously does not think my next point is
going to be all that important.
I know students who live in Burin—St. George's. When the member
was a Tory, he actually thought this was a problem. Now that he
is a Liberal, he has forgotten about the students.
1730
Can you, Madam Speaker, go to a high school, a community college
or a university near your riding and say that post-secondary
education is accessible to everyone? We cannot do that right
now because we do not have the guts to invest in post-secondary
education to the level that we should.
The message I want to send throughout this debate on the throne
speech is that this is a government of improvisation. I want to
be a friend of Fundy—Royal and a friend of Canadians as a
parliamentarian who advocates these particular issues. I want to
be a friend to farmers to ensure that we actually have an income
stabilization system that would address catastrophic loss of
income.
I want to ensure that we are friends to students. I want to
ensure that we do things in terms of being a friend to the
environment, to safe air and safe water, to protect species at
risk and to address climate change. Those are the issues that we
had in our platform. I am sure, Madam Speaker, that you actually
read our platform with wholehearted intensity during the course
of the election.
I am a friend of the environment, of farmers, of students and,
above all, I pledge today that I will be a friend of my great
riding of Fundy—Royal.
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment to the chair.
I want to ask a question of my colleague from Fundy—Royal. Is
he suggesting that the government should totally neglect and
forget about the $42 billion deficit that the former
administration left this country with before the Liberals came to
power in 1993?
Does the hon. member not realize that student debts and problems
with student loans is a result of the mismanagement and
overspending of the former administration led by former Prime
Minister Mulroney?
Is the member for Fundy—Royal advocating that we should return
to blind spending, to increased student debt and to not dealing
prudently with the finances of this country? I would like to
hear the hon. member's response to those questions.
Mr. John Herron: Madam Speaker, a lot of my friends who
have been in public life before have always said that the second
term is always more enjoyable. If I get more members on the
other side leading with their chins like that, it will indeed be
that much more enjoyable.
Mr. Flip-Flop, as we refer to him right now, understands that
economies such as Great Britain, the United States and most of
the industrialized nations were in a worldwide recession at that
time. The only reason we are in a surplus position right now is
because of initiatives brought forward by the Progressive
Conservatives.
I would remind the member that when he was the chair for the
Brian Mulroney campaign he actually had some good sense. The
initiative that was brought forth during that era was something
called the free trade agreement. Some of my colleagues here
might remember that.
We left a legacy for this country in terms of economics. In
1988 our trade with the Americans was about $90 billion.
Compliments of the free trade agreement, today trade with
Americans is $320 billion.
I am not advocating that we go back into a deficit scenario,
because systematically what this country needs is a debt
repayment schedule. That is the least that we owe future
generations.
1735
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Madam Speaker, as I would say in your native
language, evha risto and kali nehta to you as well.
I heard the member of the Conservative Party talk about health
care, education and the environment. I was just about to sign
him up for the NDP because those are what we have been preaching
about for years and years. It is nice to see them turn on the
light.
He keeps harping on about the great amount of trade we have done
with the United States and what a great thing it is for Canada.
The fact is that child poverty has increased in Canada. When they
were in government in 1989 Ed Broadbent moved a motion in the
House to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000 that was agreed
to by all parliamentarians.
Regardless of free trade, NAFTA, deficits, debts and surpluses,
child poverty has increased by four times. The Conservatives
were in government for four of the years. The Liberals were in
government for nine of those years.
The fact is the throne speech is silent on what they will do to
help the children and the parents to get out of child poverty.
What immediate answers does my good colleague from Fundy—Royal,
in the beautiful province of New Brunswick, have to address those
serious issues at this very important time?
Mr. John Herron: Madam Speaker, the question is quite
long to give an appropriate response. Clearly we should be
sending some signals such as raising the basic personal
exemptions for working poor individuals. It sends a very wrong
signal that we tax individuals who make about $14,000 less than
the poverty line. Raising the basic personal exemption would be
a step in the right direction.
There are some other things we should be doing, such as doing
away with the HST and GST on home heating fuel. Those are the
kind of initiatives that we should be doing. We should be doing
those initiatives rather than sending a fuel rebate tax to
prisoners.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I congratulate you on your new appointment. I know that
your experience in parliament and all the work that you have done
will lead you as an excellent Speaker in the House. I look
forward to listening to you and working with you throughout this
parliament.
I thank my constituents in Chatham—Kent Essex. I appreciate
the support they have given me in returning me to the House. I
know that I will work as hard as I can to help with the
confidence they have given to me and the Liberal Party in
returning a Liberal government for a third mandate. I will be
sharing my time with the hon. member for
Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.
As I listened to the comments made by hon. members in response
to the Speech from the Throne I was struck by the comment made by
the Leader of the Opposition. He said that reducing taxes and
debt and investing in the needed economic and social
infrastructure were complementary goals. By reducing taxes,
reducing the debt, invigorating our economy and increasing
revenues, it is with an invigorating type of fiscal position that
we can help with social programs for Canadians, social programs
that Canadians need.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for endorsing the Liberal
plan. This is exactly the approach the Liberal government has
taken. It is an approach that has received overwhelming support
from people across Canada in three successive elections. The
Liberal vision has long been based on striking the right balance
between prudent fiscal management and smart investments in key
economic and social priorities.
This vision has served Canada extremely well. It is no
coincidence that for the past seven years in a row the United
Nations has proclaimed Canada as the best place in the world to
live. There is absolutely no question that since 1993 our nation
has come the distance step by step.
In 1993 our public finances were in a mess, with spiralling
debt, a record $42 billion deficit, high interest rates, combined
with more than an 11% unemployment rate and continuous tax
increases.
Together we have eliminated the $42 billion deficit we inherited
and the Liberal government has recorded three consecutive
surpluses.
Last year we reduced the national debt by more than $12 billion,
the largest paydown in Canadian history.
1740
The Speech from the Throne reaffirms our commitment to rock
solid, prudent, fiscal management. Our extraordinary fiscal
turnabout has allowed us to introduce the largest tax cut in
Canadian history of some $100 billion. This means more money in
the pockets of every Canadian, particularly moderate and middle
income Canadians.
The unemployment rate has fallen to 6.8%, its lowest level
in over two decades. Over two million new jobs have been created
under the Liberal government.
Canada's economy is doing well. In fact our economy is enjoying
the longest run of growth since the sixties. At the same time
the Liberal government has been investing in our youth, our
children, our families, health care, knowledge, innovation,
infrastructure and environment. Together we have built a strong
foundation, but we cannot rest on our achievements. We must and
will do more.
Many challenges and opportunities lie ahead for us as we enter
the new millennium. We will continue to build a stronger Canada,
secure a higher quality of life for all Canadians and ensure all
citizens have a chance to participate fully in making our society
the best it can be.
Our success today and in the future is in the hands of our
children. The Liberal government takes this investment seriously
with the early childhood development agreement and the national
child benefit, and by doubling the length of maternity and parental
benefits our investments in families and children have been
second to none.
The government believes there is no higher priority than the
welfare of Canada's children. That is why in the throne speech
we have committed to developing new measures to help single
parents, to working with provinces to modernize the laws for
child support, custody and access, and to improve the support to
parents and caregivers in times of family crisis.
Our health care system is also cherished by Canadians. Canada's
health care system embodies the values we share as a nation. It
reflects a society that is caring and compassionate with a strong
sense of justice. It provides quality service to all citizens,
not just those who can afford to pay for it.
The recent health action plan agreement, agreed to by all first
ministers, marked a historic step forward to renew our health
care system for the 21st century. The Speech from the Throne
echoes the deep commitment of the Liberal government to
universal, publicly funded health care, to upholding the
principles of the Canada Health Act, and to ensuring our system
better meets the needs of Canadians.
The Liberal government plans to invest in health care more than
$21 billion over five years, including $8 billion in Ontario.
This means shorter waiting lists, more doctors and nurses, better
delivery services and improved access. This is important for all
Canadians, especially those who live in rural and remote areas.
Another aspect of the throne speech which is of particular
relevance to rural Canadians, including those of my own riding,
is the government's pledge to help Canada's agricultural sector
move beyond crisis management.
Many farmers are facing a crisis beyond their control. High
foreign subsidies and historically low prices are making it
difficult for farmers to survive and compete. It is incumbent
upon us to commit to doing more to support our farmers to enable
them to compete on equal footing with their American and European
counterparts.
Many Canadians face the challenges of this intense competition.
We live in a fast paced, technology driven, global economy. The
government has developed bold programs to ensure that all
Canadians have access to the education, tools and information
they need to develop skills that are in demand. Prospering in an
economy requires being connected to the technologies that will
drive the future.
To date our government has achieved an enormous success with
initiatives such as SchoolNet and community access programs which
help communities, public schools and libraries across Canada get
on line.
1745
Many communities in my riding, including Blenheim, Chatham,
Highgate, Leamington, Merlin, Ridgetown, Tilbury and Wheatley,
have benefited from the national strategy for connecting
Canadians across the country. I am pleased to see that the
federal government will continue to support this strategy and
build on its progress.
The throne speech sets forth bold goals in the areas of skills
and lifelong learning as well as research and development. We
intend at least to double the current federal investment in
research and development by the year 2010. Over the next five
years we will help at least one million more Canadian adults take
advantage of learning opportunities and improve their skills.
We will make it easier for Canadians to finance their learning
by creating the registered individual learning accounts. By
supporting our youth employment programs we will help our young
people make the transition from school to work where they can
apply their creative talents. By working with our partners we
will assist persons with disabilities who face barriers to full
participation in our economy and society. We will invest
aggressively in the skills and talents of Canadians to ensure
that no one is left behind.
Building a skilled workforce also requires attracting skilled
labour from abroad. I am pleased the government intends to
reintroduce changes to the immigration legislation. It wants to
facilitate the entry of temporary workers to allow for the
immediate needs of employers to be met very quickly. It also
wants to modernize the system to attract the world's best and
brightest to Canada. Canada is a nation of immigrants. It is a
country that was built by immigrants, and everyone knows that
diversity has made Canada strong and will continue to make us
strong.
Strong communities are the goal of the Liberal government and
continued work to make our communities strong is the goal the
Liberal government will attempt to achieve over its mandate. The
throne speech makes it clear that every Canadian should have the
opportunity to share in the prosperity of the country. We will
do our best to make sure that happens for every Canadian.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we are talking about agriculture.
There is one sentence in the throne speech about agriculture and
it referred to moving beyond crisis management. What is meant by
the phrase moving beyond crisis management? No one from the
Prime Minister downward has specified exactly what that means.
Would the member explain what he thinks it means? Also, would
he be specific on what steps the government is taking to move
beyond the income crisis that we are in today?
Mr. Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, when we look at Canada's
safety nets we look at the programs that have been developed and
the programs that have evolved over the last many years. The
programs have been focused on crisis management, the management
of time when there is a great deal of problem. We have not
really taken the lead in moving beyond that.
Canada must take steps with our international partners to make
sure that rules for fair trade, rules for access to products of
other countries and rules of subsidies need to be challenged and
need to be met. There is no question that we need to set
agreements that will ensure our farm community has the right and
the opportunity to compete on an equal footing and on an equal
basis.
When we talk about the kinds of strategies that are needed, the
Prime Minister had the opportunity to talk quickly with the new
President of the United States this week to bring forward some of
the issues that have to do with trading in softwood lumber,
industry or agriculture.
The fact is that Canada has farmers who are technically well
advanced in production, who have a tremendous ability to produce
food, and who are under the gun in unfair trade subsidies at this
point in time. We have always arrived at situations where our
farm community or others have run into those kinds of pressures
and problems.
I believe going beyond crisis management means that we manage a
program that puts them on a fair footing with everybody else in
the world, and that is most important. I have not met one farmer
who does not want the opportunity to farm and compete on an equal
square footing base with everyone else. That is what our farm
community is demanding. That is what our Liberal government must
deliver.
1750
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the reality is that 22,000 prairie
farm families left the farm just last year alone.
Who does the member think the future farmers of the country will
be? Will it be the children of those farmers who have left or
will it be the corporate farms that are coming on stream very
quickly?
Mr. Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, I obviously cannot
identify exactly who will be farming what areas in the country. I
can say that there has been a major problem in the oilseeds
industry.
There is no question that grains and oilseeds have taken the
brunt of difficult times. First, the prices have been low.
Second, the competition has been difficult and American and
European subsidies have distorted the markets and the farmers'
abilities to get a proper price out of the commodities they sell.
Third, Canadian food prices are lower than anywhere else in the
world. However, it is very clear and important to realize that
we have to negotiate agreements in agriculture that will put our
Canadian farmers back on track in a fair, competitive face.
I do not think for one minute that anyone is ignoring this
issue. It is a matter of bringing people to the table. In the
past it has always been a competition where larger countries such
as the United States—
The Deputy Speaker: The
hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment.
It is a pleasure to take part in this historic throne speech
debate as we set a course for the new millennium. I first want
to express my appreciation to the constituents of
Lambton—Kent—Middlesex for their continued support on my third
consecutive election. They can rest assured that I will continue
to put their views and concerns first and foremost.
In this, my maiden speech in the 37th parliament, I want express
my sincere thanks to my family, Terry, Sandy, Michelle, Paul and
my husband Louis for their dedication and support. Without them
I could not do this job. To my friends, my staff, my campaign
team and to the many volunteers who believe in me and continue to
believe in me and support me, I certainly appreciate it.
This throne speech proposes an action plan to move Canada
forward as a nation that creates opportunity, rewards excellence
and ensures all citizens are full participants. We will focus on
our efforts of ensuring that all share in the benefits of a
strong economy and to create a workforce that is ready to meet
the challenges of the new economy.
However, it is the current state of agriculture and its future
that is most notably on the minds of many of my constituents.
With my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex harvesting more crops
than all the maritime provinces combined, agriculture is without
a doubt the economic backbone of southern Ontario, indeed Canada.
As agriculture goes, so goes our rural areas. If rural Canada
has a future, we must work to ensure a positive future for
agriculture.
To put this in perspective for everyone, I will present some
numbers to summarize the vital importance of agriculture. For
example, of Lambton county's nearly 600,000 acres, 491,000 acres
are devoted to growing crops, representing 14% of the total jobs
in that county. this results in over $773 million in annual
sales. That is nearly a billion dollars of positive economic
activity in one county.
The employment and sale expenditure multipliers indicate that
for every job in agriculture there are an additional 1.28 jobs
outside agriculture, and for each dollar in sales in agriculture
there are $1.57 in agriculture related businesses.
1755
Kent county produces 25%, one-quarter of Ontario's total corn
crop. In Middlesex county in just one month over 20 million eggs
will be produced. There is enough wool produced from sheep each
year to knit 19,000 sweaters. The swimming pool at the London
Aquatic Centre holds nearly one million gallons of water. There
is enough milk produced in the county of Middlesex each year to
fill 22 pools that size.
Almost 4,500 acres of land are used to grow fruit such as
peaches, pears, cherries, grapes and strawberries. Most of us
enjoy a good steak. There are 13,500 beef cattle in Middlesex,
producing not only meat and milk but car polish, medicine,
leather, camera film, crayons, candles and sports equipment.
The feather industry in one county of my riding has nearly two
million chickens and turkeys. In all counties of my riding of
Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, wheat, oats, barley, mixed grains,
corn, alfalfa, soybean, tobacco and potatoes are the cash crops
which are grown. Bike tires, suntan lotion, toothpaste, fuel,
makeup, ink and bread can be made from these crops. Tomatoes,
mushrooms, asparagus and cauliflower are grown as well.
Lambton—Kent—Middlesex is truly a diversified riding.
When we talk of a growing economy it means many things.
Agriculture is not just food but value added products that we all
use in our daily lives whether we live in downtown Vancouver or
Toronto or in the villages of Alvinston, Eberts or Melbourne.
Some individuals may be indifferent to the farming crisis.
However everyone must recognize the three necessities of life:
clean air, clean water, and a safe and abundant food supply.
Agriculture is the third largest employer in Canada, generating
about $95 billion in domestic retail and food services sales each
year. That is why I was pleased to see that agriculture was
mentioned in the throne speech last week. It was a recognition
of the essential place agriculture has in the economic success of
Canada.
I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister state that we must
address the subsidy problem. There are problems on the farm. Low
commodity prices, coupled with bad weather, high input costs and
overproduction due to high subsidies in the U.S. and the European
Union, are putting our farmers in a financial vice, wounding the
industry by cutting off its circulation as the lifeblood of our
rural and urban economies.
The current three year $5.5 billion national safety net
agreement is a positive factor in support of our farmers. Our
agriculture minister worked very hard with the provinces to
finalize this agreement, but we as Liberals know that more must
be done. Unless and until the U.S. and EU drop their subsidies,
all industries must be treated fairly in the face of
international subsidies.
National and provincial farm groups are suggesting that an
additional $300 million to the farm safety net for Ontario would
be reasonable, with 50% from the federal government. I stress
that what is happening today in agriculture has nothing to do
with bad farm management decisions. It is out of the farmer's
hands.
It is also important to point out that the Ontario government
has a role to play here as well. Quebec farm support, for
example, is 2.35 times greater than similar funding for income
support and stabilization in Ontario. Over the past three years
Quebec has spent $457.3 million on farm support. Ontario spent
just $194.8 million, and that is going down.
Since 1995 federal support has increased by 85%. We are moving
in the right direction. While the current Ontario government
spends less than one-half of one per cent of its budget on
agriculture, it is eight per cent of Ontario's gross domestic
product.
Today, February 6, is Food Freedom Day. It is a day of
celebration for those who eat at least once a day, but it is not
as happy for those who produce our food.
1800
Today Canadians have earned enough money to pay for their entire
year's food supply. It takes just 37 days out of the whole year
for the average Canadian consumer to pay for his or her
groceries. In 1999 Canadians spent 10% of their personal
disposable income on food. That compares to 13% in France, 15%
in Germany and 33% in Mexico.
Farmers are earning just a fraction of the average food dollar.
While Food Freedom Day is February 6, January 9 is the day on
which we have paid for the farmers' amount. That is right. It
takes only nine days to pay the farmers for a year's worth of
food. Nine cents of a $1.50 loaf of bread is returned to the
farmer. Sixteen cents goes to the dairy farmer on a $1.50 glass
of milk. A waiter or waitress in a restaurant earns more on tips
for serving the food than the farmer who produces it in the first
place.
The throne speech of this new session is an important document.
While it outlines the goals and proposals of the government on
many fronts, it is agriculture that needs our immediate
attention.
Our nation is a success, with a strong and viable agriculture
industry. Ontario has always been a leader in agricultural
production and agribusiness in Canada, and our nation's farmers
are the most efficient in the world.
The Liberal government recognizes agriculture's value, not only
to the Canadian economy but also to the quality of life in rural
communities. I support the action we have taken to support
agriculture through research and development, the Canadian
adaptation and rural development fund, enhanced farm income
programs and support for rural communities through such excellent
programs as community futures, but we can and we must do more.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6 p.m. it is my duty to
interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question
necessary to dispose of the amendments now before the house. The
question is on the subamendment. Is it the pleasure of the House
to adopt the subamendment?
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the subamendment lost.
The next question is on the
amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
1830
[Translation]
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Benoit
| Borotsik
|
Breitkreuz
| Brison
| Burton
| Cadman
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Clark
|
Cummins
| Day
| Doyle
| Duncan
|
Elley
| Epp
| Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
|
Gallant
| Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Harris
| Hearn
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hinton
| Johnston
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Mayfield
| McNally
|
Meredith
| Merrifield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Obhrai
|
Pallister
| Penson
| Peschisolido
| Rajotte
|
Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Schmidt
|
Skelton
| Solberg
| Sorenson
| Spencer
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Toews
| Vellacott
| Wayne
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Yelich
– 69
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Allard
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Asselin
| Augustine
| Bagnell
| Baker
|
Barnes
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Binet
| Blaikie
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bourgeois
| Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Cardin
| Carignan
|
Carroll
| Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
| Crête
|
Cullen
| Cuzner
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dion
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
| Duceppe
|
Duplain
| Easter
| Eyking
| Farrah
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fournier
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laframboise
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lanctôt
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lebel
| LeBlanc
|
Lee
| Leung
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marceau
| Marcil
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McTeague
|
Ménard
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
| Neville
|
Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
| Paquette
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proctor
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Rock
|
Roy
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Savoy
|
Scherrer
| Scott
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
|
Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
|
Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tirabassi
| Tobin
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Venne
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 199
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the amendment negatived.
* * *
WAYS AND MEANS
FINANCIAL CONSUMER AGENCY
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial
Institutions), Lib.) moved that a ways and means motion relating
to assessments of expenses of a financial consumer agency,
notice of which was laid upon the table on Wednesday, January
31, be concurred in.
The Speaker: Pursuant to the order made on Monday, February 5,
2001, the House will now proceed to the deferred recorded
division on ways and means Motion No. 1.
1835
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. If the House would agree I would propose that you seek
unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion
be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House,
with Liberal members voting in favour.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
such a fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
will be voting yea on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
members of the Bloc Quebecois will vote against the motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, NDP
members will vote against the motion.
[English]
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, members of the
Progressive Conservative Party will be voting yes to this motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Allard
|
Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bagnell
| Bailey
|
Baker
| Barnes
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Breitkreuz
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Burton
| Caccia
| Cadman
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carignan
|
Carroll
| Casey
| Casson
| Castonguay
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
| Clark
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
|
Cummins
| Cuzner
| Day
| DeVillers
|
Dion
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duncan
| Duplain
| Easter
| Elley
|
Epp
| Eyking
| Farrah
| Fitzpatrick
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallant
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goldring
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harris
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hinton
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Keyes
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Longfield
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Macklin
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Manning
|
Marcil
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
|
Mayfield
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
| McNally
| McTeague
| Meredith
|
Merrifield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
|
Neville
| Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
|
Pallister
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Penson
| Peric
| Peschisolido
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Rajotte
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
|
Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
| Richardson
| Ritz
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Savoy
|
Scherrer
| Schmidt
| Scott
| Serré
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Skelton
| Solberg
|
Sorenson
| Speller
| Spencer
| St. Denis
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Tirabassi
| Tobin
| Toews
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vellacott
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Wilfert
| Wood
| Yelich – 223
|
NAYS
Members
Asselin
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Bourgeois
| Brien
| Cardin
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| Dubé
| Duceppe
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
| Guay
| Guimond
| Laframboise
|
Lalonde
| Lanctôt
| Lebel
| Marceau
|
McDonough
| Ménard
| Nystrom
| Paquette
|
Perron
| Plamondon
| Proctor
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Roy
| Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
|
Stoffer
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Venne
|
Wasylycia - Leis – 45
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
It being 6.36 p.m. the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.36 p.m.)