37th PARLIAMENT,
2nd SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 002
CONTENTS
Tuesday, October 1, 2002
|
 |
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Petitions |
|
|
Inuit Community of Nunavik |
|
|
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.) |
|
|
Child Pornography |
|
|
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Stem Cell Research |
|
|
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Child Pornography |
|
|
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.) |
|
|
Questions on the Order Paper |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Speech from the Throne
|
|
|
Resumption of debate on Address in Reply |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
|
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.) |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
|
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Bonwick |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Bonwick |
|
|
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
|
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
|
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton |
|
|
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
|
Statements by Members
|
|
|
International Day of Older Persons |
|
|
Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.) |
|
|
International Day of Older Persons |
|
|
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Jack Burghardt |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.) |
|
|
Jack Burghardt |
|
|
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.) |
|
|
International Music Day |
|
|
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.) |
|
|
National Memorial Day |
|
|
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Aboriginal Affairs |
|
|
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.) |
|
|
International Day of Older Persons |
|
|
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ) |
|
|
Ronald Duhamel |
|
|
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.) |
|
|
Income Tax |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ronald Duhamel |
|
|
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Stuart Leggatt |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Speech from the Throne |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Ronald Duhamel |
|
|
Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
|
|
Kyoto Protocol |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Finance |
|
|
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Kyoto Protocol |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC) |
|
|
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Softwood Lumber |
|
|
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.) |
|
|
Highway Infrastructure |
|
|
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
National Revenue |
|
|
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.) |
|
|
Finance |
|
|
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC) |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Iraq |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Softwood Lumber |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Employment Insurance |
|
|
Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Agriculture |
|
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) |
|
|
Supply Management |
|
|
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Veterans Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Rey Pagtakhan (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State (Science, Research and Development), Lib.) |
|
|
Employment |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Contracts |
|
|
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.) |
|
|
Kyoto Protocol |
|
|
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC) |
|
|
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Presence in Gallery |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Speech from the Throne
|
|
|
Resumption of debate on Address in Reply |
|
|
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Larry Bagnell |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Larry Bagnell |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) |
|
|
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
|
|
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Sgro |
|
|
Mr. John Williams |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Sgro |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Sgro |
|
|
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Williams |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. John Williams |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Williams |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
|
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. John Bryden |
|
|
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. John Bryden |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. John Bryden |
|
|
Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Dennis Mills |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Dennis Mills |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
|
|
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC) |
|
|
Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Steve Mahoney |
|
|
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Steve Mahoney |
|
|
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Norman Doyle |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Norman Doyle |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Iraq |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham |
|
|
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum |
|
|
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper |
|
|
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper |
|
|
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde |
|
|
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough |
|
|
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC) |
|
|
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
|
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
|
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
|
|
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day |
|
|
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day |
|
|
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Ms. Bonnie Brown |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Ms. Bonnie Brown |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Bonnie Brown |
|
|
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Bonnie Brown |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand |
|
|
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Colleen Beaumier |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit |
|
|
Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson |
|
|
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Janko Peric |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Janko Peric |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC) |
|
|
Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey |
|
|
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey |
|
|
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Larry Bagnell |
|
|
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Darrel Stinson |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Darrel Stinson |
|
|
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Jim Karygiannis |
|
|
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Jim Karygiannis |
|
|
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Gary Lunn |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Tuesday, October 1, 2002
Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
(1000)
[Translation]
Petitions
Inuit Community of Nunavik
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition signed by residents from Puvirnituq, in Nunavik, and several other communities. The petitioners are asking Parliament to set up a public inquiry to shed light on the policy of sled dog killings in New Quebec.
During the fifties and the sixties, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Government of Canada killed all sled dogs in Nunavik, and the Inuit from Nunavik are asking for an inquiry into the matter.
* * *
(1005)
[English]
Child Pornography
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I have six petitions, each calling on the government to protect our children and take all necessary steps to ensure that all material which promotes or glorifies pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities involving children are outlawed. This petition has about 1,000 signatures in total.
* * *
Stem Cell Research
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition which calls on parliament to focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research rather than embryonic stem cell research.
* * *
Child Pornography
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present to the House a petition which contains 600 signatures from concerned constituents in my riding of Cambridge.
My constituents wish to bring to the attention of the House that a clear majority of Canadians condemn the creation and use of child pornography. They are disappointed and frustrated by a recent court decision related to child pornography. The petitioners call on parliament to take all necessary steps to protect our children by outlawing all materials that promote or glorify child pornography.
* * *
Questions on the Order Paper
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker:
If there are any, they will stand. I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary.
Speech from the Throne
[The Address]
* * *
[English]
Resumption of debate on Address in Reply
The House resumed from September 30 consideration of the motion for an address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to begin debate on the Speech from the Throne, my first such occasion to do so.
[Translation]
As tradition has it, it is the responsibility of the leader of the official opposition to launch the debate in reply to the Speech from the Throne, just as it is the Governor General's duty to deliver it. This is a traditional duty I am honoured to fulfil.
[English]
For this honour I owe it once again to express my gratitude to members of the Canadian Reform-Conservative alliance from coast to coast as well as to the constituents of Calgary Southwest. My gratitude in these matters is tempered only by the understanding that Laureen and I have. So many who have given so much to send us here, both in our political lives and in our personal lives, are people we will now find ourselves too often removed from. For my family and me these have been times of tremendous change, but of course we are only a small part of the story.
Only a couple of years ago the western world was still discussing the peace dividend. How things have changed. Since September 11, 2001, we have become preoccupied with military conflict and rumours of war. Boundless speculation in the stock market and boundless optimism in the economy have been replaced by the bearish retreat and deep concern about future trends. Predictions of huge surpluses by the government have been overtaken by warnings about limited room to manoeuvre. Apparent satisfaction with the status quo politically and apparent stagnation in the Canadian political landscape have turned into some rapidly shifting ground.
What has been the Liberal response to all of these developments? It has been twofold: it has been the throne speech but it has also been the emergence of a Liberal leadership race. Let me comment on that first.
The appetite for political change we are seeing has been translated into a taste for leadership change within the Liberal Party as it has been within all parties. However with the Liberals it has been different. With the Liberals we were told that we would have no ordinary leadership debate, no ordinary leadership race, but we would have an answer to the so-called democratic deficit itself.
What has that answer been so far? To start with, when we left here we were told the Liberal Party would have a leadership review. What we have seen is the cancellation of that leadership review vote because party memberships could not be sold. The fix was in.
What we heard next were rumours of the probable cancellation of the leadership race itself so we could have for the first time in our political history a true coronation of the next Prime Minister of Canada. This office, in which power is so concentrated, could be decided without a vote by the people or even without a vote by the governing party.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some excited people over there. They want to have a debate within their own party.
The pattern of behaviour that we have seen in this instance is repeated throughout the Speech from the Throne itself. We heard grandiose rhetoric delivering little or even the opposite of what it promises. We heard communication strategies that talked around real issues, ignored previous failures, gave no details, no plans and no price tags. Why? The most obvious explanation is that yesterday's throne speech was not really about anything except two men: one desperate to leave a legacy and the other whose legacy will simply be leading, if only for a short period of time.
What is a legacy? The word is bandied about a lot here. Why does the government not have a legacy after nine years? Creating a real legacy was the reason my party was founded. It was not the lure of power nor the attraction of the spotlight. It was not to pad our resumes, reward our friends or settle the family score. It was to create something that will last, something that will offer tangible and enduring benefits to all Canadians. It was something that will leave our descendants better off and inspire them to attain greater success. That is what a legacy is. It is something that will last. To build one, one must borrow from the experience of the past, deal with the realities and real problems of today and focus on what we will leave to our children and grandchildren.
Those who are serious about building real legacies are not surprised by the so-called new realities that we face. We are prepared for the fact that the world is dangerous and that peace is always precarious. We know that we must spend on our priorities and that we cannot have everything we want. We are not fooled by empty slogans that mask naked ambition, and yes I do put the words democratic deficit in that category.
(1010)
Real legacies are founded on values that work, values that have survived the rigorous tests of time, values that have been handed down from generation to generation, not values invented by communication strategists for the suppertime news. In other words, it is values that work, not values that just sound good.
What are our values? We say that taxes belong to the people from whom they were raised and that they are held in trust for the benefit of ordinary Canadians, not to build personal monuments for politicians.
We believe in creating real jobs by expanding the economy, rather than by enlarging the government. We believe that this is accomplished by selling products to customers, not by giving subsidies to contributors. We believe in helping the young, the old, the poor and the sick, not out of any superior moral insight, but because we may all be those things in our own time.
We believe in family and relationships. We know that those can never be replaced satisfactorily by institutions and programs. We believe in accountability and know that power should never be exercised without it.
Those are the values of our party. They do not appeal to the chattering classes or the empire builders. They are the values of the ordinary citizens who have joined us and built this party: workers, farmers, business people, public servants and students. From these ranks come the team that I am honoured to lead in this House today: long-standing members of Parliament with a reputation for moving our policies forward, sometimes even getting these fellows in the government to adopt a few things, such as eliminating the deficit and dealing with Quebec separatism to actually have a little bit of a legacy; former provincial cabinet ministers with a reputation and impressive records of accomplishment; and, of course, a vibrant core of the youngest, brightest and most energetic members of Parliament in the House of Commons.
The Liberal version of a legacy is reflected in this throne speech and all those that have preceded it. So-called Liberal values generally mean more money, more gigantic government programs and more grandiose schemes that will never, ever be achieved.
The Liberal modus operandi has become all too predictable. First, identify a cause that trumps all else. Second, demonize anyone who questions the truth of this instant moral insight. Third, proclaim a scheme that would produce a great leap forward. Fourth, and most important, spend heaps of public money as a measure of concern. Finally, forget about looking at the results and move on to more great ventures.
These uncontrollable Liberal tendencies have become even more pronounced in the last few months as the Prime Minister and his chief rival have tried to up one another. The problems are being identified fast and furious. Concern is being expressed with great passion and poetry. The sky is dark with expensive quoted remedies, the environment, innovation, child poverty, municipalities infrastructure, international aid and aboriginal issues. We have heard it all before.
We really have heard it all before in throne speech after throne speech, budget after budget. My office made a tally of 145 previous throne speech promises, of which 79 have been broken, unfulfilled or forgotten. A success rate of 46% would be inept in any institution I have ever attended.
In this throne speech we have 58 new promises, no less than 29 of them recycled from previous throne speeches or previous government announcements.
Let me take a look at some of the great promises that have fallen by the wayside. We all will remember scrapping the GST in 1994 and replacing it in 1996. Today, if there is any talk at all, it is of increasing the rates. Infrastructure programs were addressed in 1994, 1999 and 2001.
In every single throne speech the government is preparing leading edge innovation strategies.
There have been repeated promises to defend Canadian trade. In 1996 the government would take on trade disputes. Today the trade disputes in agriculture and forestry are worse than ever.
In 1994 the government was going to end foreign overfishing. Those of us who travel to the east coast know that it is worst today than it has ever been. The government promised to revitalize fisheries on both coasts in 1996.
Enhanced law enforcement tools to fight terrorism was mentioned in the last throne speech.
(1015)
One of my favourites is that the gun registry would cost less than $100 million and would end gun crimes. The ineffectiveness of the registry compares only to the inaccuracy of that particular cost estimate.
Regulatory reform was promised in 1994 and 1996. This year Industry Canada has launched a review to be finished in the year 2010, in other words, 16 years after the original promise was made.
In this particular throne speech we have a multitude of initiatives on aboriginal affairs. Let us not forget that we have had repeated promises in throne speech after throne speech, in fact it is the Prime Minister's career dating back to his early days as a cabinet minister, to deal with aboriginal problems, poverty and governance. The typical solution is to spend billions of dollars even though the billions we are already spending has too little accountability.
However what we lack, which is still the case on many reserves, is that we have no common standards of democratic accountability and the Office of the Auditor General does not apply. We have no common standards of financial or electoral accountability. We do not have the chief electoral officer supervising elections and, of course, aboriginal people continue to lack, by and large, property rights and are unable to have things like basic ownership of housing and the accumulation of wealth.
The difference between what we offer and what the Liberals stand for is clear and unmistakable: on the one hand, inflated Liberal rhetoric coupled with grandiose big government solutions versus our Canadian Alliance approach, which will be responsible, achievable plans based on practical values to deal with critical priorities.
(1020)
[Translation]
This difference in approach is clearly illustrated in the throne speech delivered in this Parliament yesterday. I would like to briefly go over the various issues raised in the Speech from the Throne: Kyoto and the environment, the health care system, the policy on children and families, international affairs and defence, democratic reform, and financial and economic policy. we see the same thing happening in every one of these areas: pompous rhetoric, past failures, new programs, more money and grandiose plans that will never become reality.
By contrast, we will set out the priorities of the Canadian Alliance so that concrete measures can be taken regarding major priorities, along with a plan for economic growth.
[English]
Let me begin with the Kyoto energy accord. This is, if anything, the great shining example of what I am talking about, if not the centrepiece of the throne speech. This purports to be nothing less than a grandiose scheme to save the planet itself, but in the end the throne speech tells us more about the government's political strategy on Kyoto than anything about how it intends to implement it and the real cost to Canadians. After all, it is easier to demonize a single province than to explain to Canadians what the Kyoto accord is, how it will work or what it will cost.
Let me just address those matters quickly. What is the Kyoto accord? We understood it was to be about global warming but we do not even say that in the throne speech. We say instead that it is about something much vaguer called climate change. It deals with, not as most Canadians believe, air pollution or controlling smog, but with so-called greenhouse gases, in particular with emissions of CO2, carbon dioxide, the breath of life, the gas used in respiration of plants and animals.
I hear the member for Fundy—Royal yammering away back there. Maybe he should straighten out with his own leader what his position is on that accord. This party is opposed to that accord.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker:
Order, please. I know there is a lot of enthusiasm for the debate but we do have to be able to hear the person who has the floor and it happens to be the Leader of the Opposition at the moment. I would ask for a little order so that we can hear what he has to say.
Mr. Stephen Harper:
Mr. Speaker, I am amused to see how an attack on the Tories is taken so hard by the Liberals. I guess they really are the same party after all.
By the time the Kyoto accord is fully implemented Canada will be required to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 30%. Eighty per cent of the cost of that will be borne by consumers, not producers. How? The government will not tell us. Apparently, according to press reports, it will not even tell its own senior cabinet ministers.
We do have some estimates. Canadian manufacturers and exporters estimate that the cost of gasoline may have to rise by up to 80%, going as high as $1.10 a litre. We are looking at 50% increases in the cost of heating and electricity in a typical Ontario home.
Will these kinds of sacrifices at least have some global environmental impact? The answer is no or, in all likelihood, no. Nations exempt from Kyoto's provisions or not ratifying it produce 80% of the emissions of greenhouse gases.
Furthermore, the agreement sets up an international emission trading scheme that ensures that countries like Canada, which are required to cut emissions, actually subsidize emissions in countries with far worse environmental records. Therefore jobs and production will almost certainly move to those kinds of jurisdictions as global emissions increase.
What is the record of the government on all this? It is funny that the government, with all the yammering we are getting today about its commitment to Kyoto, which it promised before and was party to the negotiations that signed on to Kyoto in 1997, still has not ratified it. Ratification has been promised only now in this throne speech and still there is no implementation plan and no clear idea in the throne speech on how or when the implementation plan will come about.
However, it is more than just not having an implementation plan, it is not actually taking any measures to deal with the problem. Unlike the European countries that have ratified Kyoto, or the United States and Australia which have not, the federal government has taken virtually no initiative to deal with reductions in greenhouse gases.
What would we do as a political party? First, we believe that we must take the environment and these environmental problems seriously. Notwithstanding the uncertainty of the science, some of the concerns are real. God has given us stewardship of this planet as our sole resource. We must be concerned when large scale human activity results in large scale atmospheric change.
What we need to do is develop and proceed with a realistic plan to control some of these emissions and to further understand what the problems may be in the future. However we must control, not just greenhouse gases like CO2. We also must have a plan to reduce emissions of critical gases that contribute to pollution, smog and acid rain. We also must continue to develop and monitor the science of all this to understand what may or may not be happening in terms of global warming or in terms of other environmental problems.
Second, all these things must be done in a way that is consistent with the economic needs of ordinary people. That requires us to be consistent with the plans being developed by our provinces and our trading partners.
Let us take some areas where beyond merely controlling emissions, where the government should be dealing with the intersection of environmental and economic matters and is not. There are industries in the country, like farming with its drought problem this summer, and the fisheries problem that has been going on for years, where we have serious environmental difficulties and periodic disasters. The government should have practical plans to respond to these practical difficulties of real people.
As for the Kyoto accord, we will stand alone in the House, not just opposing ratification but urging blockage by the provinces and anyone else who is able to of implementing the accord and we will repeal the accord at the very first opportunity. In this I will be assisted by the members of Parliament for Red Deer and Athabasca, veteran members with a wealth of experience in these areas.
(1025)
Let me turn to health care. What was proposed that we do about health care in the throne speech? Three things: nothing, nothing and nothing; just rhetoric. We have heard it all before. Appoint a commission and wait for it to report.
In 1997 we were promised better access to medically necessary drugs. In 1994 the government appointed the National Forum on Health to deal with the emerging crisis on health care. It reported in 1997 and no action was taken. We have the Kirby committee appointed by the government in the Senate. Now we have the Romanow commission and we are told we must wait for the Romanow commission to act.
While we are waiting month after month, year after year for these various commissions to report, we get endless speeches from the federal government about its role as the protector of health care and health care values. In the meantime, there is no plan. There is a long history of lack of cooperation and open periodic confrontation with the provinces and, of course, the elimination of the deficit in which the cutting of health care transfers was a major priority. In fact, instead of reducing the $16 billion the government spends on grants and contributions, the Prime Minister and the former minister of finance have slashed $6 billion annually from health care transfers to the provinces as part of the deficit reduction strategy.
Not surprisingly, these actions and 10 years of excessive rhetoric have resulted in the continual deterioration of our health care system. Today, according to data from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Canada ranks 18th in terms of access to MRIs, 17th in terms of access to CT scanners and 8th in terms of access to radiation machines. In terms of risk of death by breast cancer, for example, Canada ranks 6th among OECD countries.
According to the Fraser Institute, across Canada “The total waiting time is high, both historically and internationally. Compared to 1993, the waiting time in 2001-02 is 77% higher in this country”. The waiting time has increased in all but one of the past eight years. Canadians deserve better health care than that, much better.
There is all this talk going on and that is typical. As soon as I point out their deficiencies in health care, the Liberals attack the provinces. The provinces are the ones that are trying to run the system and increase spending on health care. There is no responsibility, no honesty and grandiose rhetoric.
Let me talk about our approach to health care and our values on health care because it is very important that when we talk about health care that our values are clear. In this political party, we represent ordinary people. the people we represent depend on this system. They have real concerns and these deficiencies are not a big federal-provincial game. They have real impacts.
My wife, Laureen, and I ran our own small businesses. We had to pay our own health care premiums. We had to purchase our own supplemental health care coverage, like most people in the country. We cannot afford to fly to clinics in the United States to get health care when things go wrong and we certainly cannot afford to get on Challenger jets to do it.
We do not need lectures from these guys about preserving the health care system. We understand the key value of this system. It is not the Canada Health Act. It is not the federal status in health care. The key is that necessary health care must be available to every Canadian regardless of ability to pay. This cannot be accomplished by delaying critical treatment by rationing and we cannot saddle ordinary people with enormous bills for catastrophic health problems.
To achieve these things, the federal government must work with the provinces and it must begin to act now. I would suggest that it begin by reversing the damage the government did to the health care debate and to the evolution of dealing with health care problems during the 2000 election campaign.
In that campaign the Liberals opposed provincial efforts to broaden health care delivery within publicly paid health systems by not just fighting plans for private facilities in various provinces but by demonizing the provinces pursuing these reforms. This was wrong.
(1030)
A government monopoly is not the only way to deliver health care to Canadians. Monopolies in the public sector are just as objectionable as monopolies in the private sector. It should not matter who delivers health care, whether it is private, for profit, not for profit or public institutions, as long as Canadians have access to it regardless of their financial means.
We must become innovative in how we deliver care while holding fast to the principle of universal care regardless of ability to pay. The federal government must be absolutely clear on this point. It must remove any barriers, any chill to increase private capital investment plans that the provinces have for our health care system.
This is only a start in this caucus. Our member of Parliament from Yellowhead, a brand new member of Parliament with a long background in health care governance and in his local regional health authority, will have more to say about this in the next few weeks.
I will now turn to the children's agenda. The children's agenda is another typical set of throne speech promises, a bunch of recycled promises from throne speeches in 1996, 1997 and 1999.
In a way this whole approach, the values behind this approach, is only the kind of agenda that the Liberals could advocate; institutions and programs with no focus at all on what children need most, and that is strong families.
The Canadian Alliance policy begins by recognizing that the family is the essential building block of a healthy society and that government legislation and programs must first of all nurture and respect its role. As Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain once said, “A strong country cannot be morally neutral about the family”.
One practical thing we can do to begin strengthening the family starts with tax reduction and tax reform, lowering the cost burdens that put so many pressures on the lives of ordinary people and to do this in an equitable manner.
First, we will continue to advocate in this party a universal child deduction for all families with children, a child deduction that does not discriminate between types of families or the choices families make for the care of their children. These choices need to be made by families themselves without implied financial penalties.
Second, we will continue to push for the concept of shared parenting when there is parental breakdown. This was proposed in the December 1998 report of the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access. It is still gathering dust contrary to the best interests of both parents and children.
Third, we will continue to advocate strongly concrete measures to protect children from the violent and the vile, which the government has not done. The age of consent for sexual activity should be raised and we must take stronger steps to fight child prostitution, child pornography and pedophilia.
In this regard of course the throne speech is vague. It does not deal with what specific measures the government may take. It instead hints, in our judgment, at excessive general control over child rearing.
For children and for all citizens, we will also continue to advocate a general philosophy of crime control and the punishment of crime; another area in which we have continued promises and little action or change.
In all of these matters we will have many people in the caucus who will contribute but we will be led I believe first and foremost by the member of Parliament for Provencher, an accomplished former provincial attorney general from the province of Manitoba.
I will turn now to international affairs and defence. What are the proposals in the throne speech? Absolutely nothing, except more study on defence needs and very little to say about the current Iraq conflict other than the government positions itself very carefully on both sides of the issue. On foreign aid the government is promising a doubling of foreign aid by 2010 with the focus on Africa.
What is the government's record on these things? The original Liberal red book 1993, followed by the government's 1994 defence white paper, promised to ensure an effective Canadian Forces and pledged to maintain an increased combat capability. More reforms were promised and more money was promised in throne speeches in 1997, 1999 and 2001.
(1035)
The record is well documented. It is one of chronic underfunding and an increasing inability of our armed forces to protect territory or mount serious missions abroad. Instead the government is covering this by stretching multiple activities thinner and thinner around various places in the world. Of course, foreign aid in this period has also fallen relative to even what the last government did.
The neglect of our armed forces in particular has meant an increasing loss of relevance to our allies in Europe and the United States, but most of all the loss of Canada's ability to protect its sovereignty. Canadians see the irony of it, even if the Prime Minister does not, in blaming the United States and the west for world terrorism while at the same time starving our forces to such an extent that we have effectively turned over Canada's defence to our allies and to the Americans in particular.
All of this does reflect the values of the Liberal Party, not just a weak defence but a moral neutralism in international affairs, a tendency to see moral equivalency between the strong actions of our allies and those who would attack us. Our values are very different. They are values of strength and of a strong country. We will not just advocate a strong defence. We will pursue defence and foreign policies that give Canadians hard power, capabilities that allow us to support our friends and to aggressively advance our values in the world.
On foreign aid we will advocate that we follow the lead of other donor nations to reward developing countries that reform their institutions and market with increased assistance. Canada continues to underwrite too many countries that resist reform and have high levels of corruption. We will have, as I have said in many other areas, capable veteran MPs who will handle these portfolios for defence, such as our member of Parliament for Lakeland, a three-term veteran of this House, and in foreign affairs the member for Okanagan--Coquihalla, with a wide range of experience in a number of provincial government portfolios.
Let me turn to ethics and democratic reform. What are the proposals in this throne speech? We have two paragraphs on ethics and democratic reform, even less than the pathetic proposals that were tabled earlier in the spring. The record here is clear. On parliamentary reform the government promised more power to MPs and improved procedures in the House repeatedly in 1994, 1996 and 2001, but today it promises none whatsoever.
On ethics in the 1993 red book, we will never forget the Liberal Party promise for an independent ethics commissioner who would report to Parliament. Obviously in 1994 it broke that Parliament. The appointee we have today apparently spends his time writing question period responses for the Prime Minister to the numerous times his ethical behaviour comes into question.
We reached a low point in 2001 when the government, not just the Prime Minister but the member for LaSalle--Émard, the author of the red book, voted against the motion to adopt an ethics counsellor, a motion that was, word for word, taken straight from the 1993 red book.
In 1997 we had an ethics committee of this Parliament struck to report on a code of conduct. It did so. No action was taken. We remain one of the few developed democracies that have no clear rules of conflict for ministers and MPs and we are also the last jurisdiction in Canada to have them.
There is more to the government's record on this than those failures. The government has used closure and time allocation more frequently than any previous government. On campaign finance reform that it raised in the throne speech, it actually did bring in some measures in 2000 but not to control the relationships between politicians and their donors. Instead they were measures to control the free speech of private citizens and private organizations through the media.
We even have to look at the rules the Liberals have set out for this leadership race, this constant smoke and mirrors, a constant claim to be reforming, a constant claim to have disclosure. What do we actually have? In this Liberal leadership race one has to disclose everything except if one, like the current Minister of Finance, runs it through the riding association or decides to take the donations in pledges instead of cash. Now we have the setting up of a blind trust.
This is an interesting twist of a turn: putting donations into a blind trust. The purpose of a blind trust is to manage money after it has been received. A blind trust in no way prevents politicians from finding out who contributed to their campaigns in the first place.
(1040)
Once again, it is grandiose plans and empty rhetoric.
How would we handle campaign finance reform? We would handle it the way we generally run this party and the way I ran my leadership campaign. We would try to finance our campaigns from modest contributions from a broad range of voters, not a few contributions from people who receive government contracts. I would personally prefer to see contributions come only from individual voters. I would like to end union and corporate contributions and let union members, corporate directors and shareholders make their own decisions as to which political parties they contribute to.
It is perfectly appropriate to have limits in the amount of money politicians receive from private citizens and to end the loopholes that allow contributions to be funnelled through non-individuals. To the extent that the government would demand public funding, as there is already plenty of public funding for our political activities this funding should be tied to things like support to contributions, not simply blanket grants from the government or grants in response to our spending.
These rules need to be fair to new small parties and independents. Every time there are Canada Elections Act changes, we make it more difficult for people to organize new political activities. Importantly, because the government keeps shouting about this, the kind of reforms we propose would limit politicians in political parties. They would not limit private citizens. They would respect free speech. It is very different to control the contributions given to politicians than it is to control the ability of the citizenry to express their views through a free media in a free society. When those guys opposite are serious about democratic reform, they will actually understand the difference between the two things.
We also continue to favour broader democratic reform. In the House of Commons there should be more free votes beginning with free votes and votes on every item in private members' business. That will be a priority for us in this session.
The Senate should be selected from people who have been picked in free elections, beginning in the province of Alberta with Bert Brown, who received more votes in his Senate election than the Prime Minister received in his riding. We should have fixed election dates. We should have a system of direct democracy. That system of direct democracy should be put into effect so that the citizens of Canada can express their judgment on how to reform our outdated electoral system so we end the unrepresentative results that elections produce and end phenomena such as vote splitting.
Democratic reform has been a core of this political party for 15 years. Unlike the party opposite, we did not develop a temporary itch for democratic reform when we were seeking approval of backbenchers, or in a leadership struggle, or when we go to the voters every so often. It has been a constant theme of this party since 1987. Just recently our party reissued our “Building Trust” document. Reissued by our current House leader, the member of Parliament for West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast, “Building Trust II” goes over our proposals for parliamentary and democratic reform in a wide range of areas.
I will just take a minute to acknowledge not only the contribution that the member will be making to this debate over the next few months, but to indicate how much we here, all of us on both sides, miss the MP for West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast. I know he is watching in the hospital and we all wish him very well.
Let me turn at long last to the area where perhaps we are most different, finance and economic policies.
(1045)
[Translation]
There is, however, probably no area in which the differences between the Liberal Party and the Canadian Alliance are more obvious than that of financial and economic policy. That is where the throne speech attains the peak of its grandiosity.
The government is passing itself off as one that is fiscally prudent and that plays a lead role as far as economic growth, productivity and innovation are concerned. These themes have been repeated regularly in all this government's throne speeches and all of its budgets since 1993. The reality is different, and disquieting.
For instance, over the past three years, under the direction of the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, program expenditures have risen close to ten billion dollars annually, comparable to the worst excesses of the Trudeau government in the 1970s. The same thing is happening this year. The measures set out in the throne speech, in all areas, will mean billions of dollars of additional expenditures, although of course the price tag is not shown.
Finally, the budget process is so disorganized that there will be no budget for this entire year. There will be a full two years between budgets. This government's rhetoric has even redefined the word annual. It is not just a matter of budgets. I also want to talk about the economy in general.
Looking at the economy as a whole and not just the finances of this government, it will be seen that our productivity and our position continue to decline under this government, along with our dollar. We have, in fact, maintained our declining competitivity only because of our declining currency. The government has turned us into a cut rate wholesaler, one of those businesses that keeps on slashing prices in order to stay in business, thus devaluing everything that Canadians have built up.
The government speaks of its intention of making strategic investments in the economy, but its politicized infrastructure, its funding to businesses and the corruption scandals are indications of its inability to make the distinction between investing in a project of public interest and spending money on a private donor.
At any rate, it is on the wrong track. The most important thing the government can do for the economy is to create a neutral environment at the lowest possible cost to business. The government's priority should be, as it should have been in the past, reducing the tax burden, not raising the level of general expenditures.
The Canadian Alliance will reject any major spending initiative in all areas, with the exception of a few key areas such as national defence and health.
(1050)
[English]
We will insist that our priority should not be to ramp up federal spending in federal programs and federal commitments across the board or to micromanage economic development. It should be to lower rates of personal and business taxation across the board. In fact we believe that our national goal should be to make Canada the number one jurisdiction in North America in taxes, ahead of the United States. As unrealistic as I admit this may sound, in the context of the Liberal government, it is achievable given that in the United States there are much higher expenditures per capita on major obligations such as defence, advanced education, infrastructure and yes, even public health care.
As late as the 1960s our standard of living was equal to or even above that of the Americans, at about the time the Prime Minister entered Parliament. Today it is more than one-third lower and falling. This is inexcusable.
We cannot be the biggest country on this continent, but there is no reason we cannot be the wealthiest. As we pursue this, we will be led in these matters of finance by our veteran member of Parliament for Peace River, our finance critic, and also by the member for Edmonton Southwest, our industry critic, one of the most promising newcomers we have in the House of Commons.
There seems to be a bit of a debate going on about whether or not we are larger than the United States. We have a larger land mass and we are all aware of that; we travel the country. However I will let the minister of heritage know that the United States economy is just a little bigger than ours. Her budget may be bigger than the minister of culture's in the United States. That is possible.
Let me conclude by noting that the next couple of years will be months of contrasting agendas and contrasting approaches for the future of the country. We welcome the debate.
Mr. Speaker, the Alliance team that I am honoured to lead stands before you and before the country, for united we are strong and most important, we are here to stay. The Liberals, whoever may lead them, are old and tired. More important, we will argue for two fundamentally different ways of creating a legacy for this country. The Liberals will try to build a legacy on shifting sands. Our party will try to build a real legacy on rock solid values.
When the government proposes multiple missions with big government solutions, we will propose practical priorities and small government solutions.
When the government proposes raising spending, we will propose cutting taxes.
When the government proposes to damage the economy to implement the Kyoto accord, we will propose to strengthen the environment and save Canadian jobs.
When the government undermines the family, we will propose strengthening the family.
When the government uses governmental power to reward its friends, we will propose democratic reform to reward initiative.
When the government engages in the soft-powered talk of a neutral fence sitter, we will demand real capabilities that support our allies.
When the government proposes to buy votes in other words, we will propose to earn votes.
In short, when the Liberals act for the Liberals, we will act for Canadians. Therefore, I move that the motion be amended to add the following:
|
|
And this House regrets to inform Your Excellency that, once again, your advisors have recycled an empty vision, have resorted to grandiose rhetoric and intend to implement expensive programs at a time when Canadians are looking for practical solutions to the challenges we face, including lower taxes and debt, reducing government waste, promoting economic growth and jobs, reforming health care, protecting our sovereignty and strengthening the family. |
(1055)
The Speaker:
The question is on the amendment.
[Translation]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, before I begin with my comments on the Speech from the Throne, I would like to pay tribute to the memory of our former colleague, Ron Duhamel, who died last night.
Ron was more than a colleague to me. He was a long time friend, and he was liked by everyone in the House of Commons. He had an extraordinary personality. He had an exceptional career in government as a public servant in Manitoba. He then decided to come here, to the House of Commons, where he represented the people of the riding of Saint-Boniface with great dignity and competence.
One of the great pleasures of my career was travelling abroad with him when he was the minister responsible for the Francophonie. He was a man, with his personality and his exceptional command of the French language—having been born and having lived in Manitoba—who represented the best of Canada with elegance and dignity, and the best of the French speaking population outside of Quebec.
I offer my condolences, and those of my wife, to his wife and children. They should be very proud of this great Canadian.
(1100)
[English]
Mr. Speaker, my first words are to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. Both members delivered thoughtful speeches on issues of the day and both are a credit to this House.
I also want to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition for his first major speech in the House in his new function. He clearly has all the makings of a good Leader of the Opposition for many, many years to come. I do not want to have a ninth one in the next 16 months. I want him to stay there.
A Speech from the Throne is an opportunity for the government to step back and take stock of where it is and set out the priorities for where it wants to go.
It is an opportunity for parliamentarians to discuss and debate the role and direction of the government. I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. I am very happy that we had a Speech from the Throne because I wanted to give all of the members of Parliament, from all of the different parties, an opportunity to have a general debate where they can talk about the orientation of the policies and the direction of the country. That is why we have a Speech from the Throne once in a while, to give that opportunity to members of Parliament.
Time does not permit me to address everything that is in the throne speech. Indeed, the words of the speech and the actions for which we as a government are committed speak for themselves. Today, I want to highlight some of them and give a further explanation of our approach.
I have spent many, many years in this House, and a great many years both as a minister and as Prime Minister. I have never been concerned about a legacy. The legacy will be 41 years of hard work and doing my best. I have always been concerned about getting the job done, the job I was elected to do. The coming months will be no different. This is not about a legacy. This is about good government.
The throne speech is about implementing the platform that every member on this side of the House ran on in November 2000. Each and every one of us has an obligation to the people of Canada to implement our program. We have an obligation to govern and to govern well, and to govern every day we are in office. That is what we are elected for: this caucus, this government and this Prime Minister.
The agenda set out in the throne speech builds on what we have accomplished as a government since 1993: to create and share opportunities, to enhance the quality of life in our communities, and to promote our interests and values in the world. The priorities we have set out are indeed the enduring priorities of Canadians: the health of our people, the health of our environment, the health of our communities, the health of our economy, and the hopes of our children.
This has been a government committed not to the big bang or the big show, but to continuous and enduring improvements, minimizing divisiveness and maximizing results, focused on the problems and priorities of Canadians, focused on the future, and focused on the world. This continues to be our path..
(1105)
Some of the opposition and many of the right wing commentators wrongly claim that we are simply big spenders; that I am a big spender. Well, I am such a big spender that I have led a government that has turned 30 years of continuous deficits into five balanced budgets in a row. We are on track for number six this year. It is the largest, uninterrupted string of balanced budgets in our history.
We are such big spenders that not so long ago more than 35¢ of every dollar went to service the debt. Today it is about 20¢ and dropping. We are such big spenders that we have paid down about $45 billion of debt. To the chagrin of the opposition we will continue to pay down the debt. We are such big spenders that our debt load has fallen from 72% of GDP to under 50% and it is continuing to fall.
We are such tax and spend Liberals that we have reduced personal and corporate income tax and employment insurance premiums by about $20 billion a year. These are the facts. It is a record we are proud of and that I am proud of. It is not a record that I intend to put in jeopardy.
[Translation]
But I am also proud of the fact that on this side of the House, we believe as much in a balanced approach as we do in a balanced budget. We believe that governments have a very important role to play in society. We believe in the need for collective investments in society. We believe not only in the need to eliminate fiscal deficits, but also in the need to fight against social deficits, environmental deficits and deficits in infrastructure. We can fight against these deficits, and that is what we are going to do.
I am proud of the responsible manner in which we have lowered taxes. In a manner that has allowed us to proceed with collective investment, while continuing to balance the budget at the same time. We now have a taxation system that is very competitive. Corporate income tax has dropped significantly. And we managed to do so without jeopardizing a balanced budget.
For example, the Americans no longer have a surplus. They are running a considerable deficit right now. They were forecasting a $300 billion surplus this year, and they will end up with a $200 billion deficit. We will not run up another deficit. Our approach will remain cautious and we will continue to invest in citizens.
As I have just said, we believe in a balanced approach. We do not believe in the simplistic approach of the Alliance Party and some business press when it comes to taxation. We on this side of the House agree that, like it or not, taxes are the price one pays to live in a civilized society.
Taxation revenues are what enable us as a society to share risk, to invest in health care, to provide for families in poverty, to improve the environment we share, to support education and learning, to promote rural development, to build a modern system of highways and urban infrastructure, and to help those in developing countries.
None of this can be done by the private sector alone. All of this requires government action. And we will act on these areas in the coming months.We have taken the approach of investing in priorities as, and only as, the fiscal situation permitted.
(1110)
[English]
In general, we establish budget projections over a two- or three-year time zone and this is what we will continue to do. In some cases, however, where predictability is essential, we have legislated longer-term commitments.
For example, in past budgets we provided five years of predictable, stable CHST funding for health to allow the provinces time for proper planning. We provided a five-year legislated tax reduction plan to allow individuals and businesses to plan ahead. We also provided increases to the national child benefit over a five-year period to allow provinces to adjust their social programs accordingly. Going forward, this will remain our approach. We will maintain balanced budgets and fiscal prudence. In our next budget, we will again provide long-term funding for increases to the national child benefit.
Reform of health care following the Romanow commission will again require multi-year, predictable federal investment, and even the opposition said a minute ago that we should do that. Otherwise we will simply not get reform of the system. Ever since we balanced the budget we have increased our investment in health care. In September 2000 we agreed to put more money into the CHST and agreed on principles and directions for reform. We put in place strong mechanisms for accountability and reporting to Canadians. That plan was agreed to by the provinces and it is working.
I then appointed Roy Romanow to head a royal commission to make recommendations about long-term reform to our public health system. We expect his report next month. I will hold a first ministers meeting early next year to discuss Mr. Romanow's recommendations and to agree on a long-term plan to modernize medicare. Federal investment to support reform will be set out in the next budget and funded for a long enough period of time so there will be the required financial certainty to allow reforms to go ahead.
Good health is priceless, but good health care does have a price. New technologies, new drugs and new treatments have created much better health but also higher costs as the aging population increases demand and therefore costs. We will have to spend more and we will have to do it in a very responsible way.
The costs of health care are not rising because we have a public system. In the United States, the cost of private insurance premiums for employer-sponsored plans rose by 11% in 2001 and is projected to rise by another 13% this year. There, the sick and the poor often have to pay the highest premiums.
The issue is not whether we will pay more as a society for health. We will. It is about the type of society we want. I respect the view of the Leader of the Opposition but I disagree with him completely. Either we have a society where individuals assume risk without regard to their ability to pay, as in the United States, or we have a society where, through government, we spread risk and spend collectively because health is a fundamental human right.
(1115)
Here on this side of the House we prefer the Canadian way, where costs are shared by the entire population through a public health care system. If our costs go up we will have to pay for them. I know that Canadians will be prepared to pay that cost, but we will do so collectively as a society.
[Translation]
There is one other area where investments by government must be planned for the longer term: that is infrastructure. A modern infrastructure is key to our economic and environmental objectives.
It is simply impossible, for example, to build a road or transit system in the period of time for which governments normally budget. Every provincial premier has urged me to make our infrastructure spending a long term program so they can plan their capital spending, so they can work with mayors on their urban planning, and so we can all do our environmental planning.
Our caucus has been extremely forceful on this issue. They have convinced cabinet and they have convinced me.
A comprehensive urban strategy for the 21st century requires everything from roads and transit, to affordable housing, to the information highway.
We will establish a long term, strategic infrastructure plan in time for the next budget. This will help us meet our social, economic and environmental objectives and help us address the challenge of climate change.
We must put Canada's families and children first. I referred earlier to the National Child Benefit. Even in tough fiscal times, this government worked with our provincial partners and the voluntary sector to put in place a new architecture for helping Canadian families and children; to lift children out of poverty and get families off welfare.
We have made progress. The National Child Benefit is probably the most significant new social program since medicare.
We have to build on it and increase it because too many children still live in poverty. We will begin immediate consultations with our partners so as to be ready in the next budget to put in place a long term investment plan to enable Canada to turn the corner on child poverty and break the cycle of poverty and dependency for Canadian families.
We will also implement targeted measures for families caring for children with severe disabilities. We will reform our family and criminal laws to ensure that the interests of children are paramount and that children are protected from exploitation and abuse. We will ensure that no Canadian is forced to give up their job or income to care for a family member that is gravely ill or dying.
Early in our mandate, I asked my Cabinet to find new and better ways to close the gap in life chances between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians and to turn the corner in this partnership. We will take important new steps in this direction with an ambitious legislative agenda to create new institutions and investments to build individual and community capacity: investments in children, education and health care; investments in social, cultural and economic development.
We have learned that partnership must start at home and that all departments must work as one if we are to be successful. We have also learned that there is no single recipe. No one size that fits all. Our approach will be unified and tailored to the diverse needs and aspirations of aboriginal people, and it will be in partnership.
We have also set out an ambitious environment agenda. Canadians understand that our health, our economy and the future of our children depend on the quality of our environment. We will intensify our work toward safe water and clean air. We will deliver on our commitments to protect Canada's wilderness areas, creating new national parks and marine conservation areas. We will clean up contaminated sites. We will implement the new Agricultural Policy Framework, with its important stewardship initiatives that are so vital, not only to rural Canada but to all Canadians.
Of course, the current preoccupation throughout the world is climate change. Scientists have sounded the warning. People around the world have responded. Governments in Canada's North have been among the world's leaders in building the consensus for action. We have no choice but to act. It is our moral responsibility and it is in our enduring interest.
We are working hard with Canadian provinces and industries to develop an approach that will work for everyone. We will call for a fair contribution from every sector of society. We will have to reward innovators, invest in new technologies and be more efficient and productive. We can reduce the costs and maximize the opportunities. Citizens and consumers are ready to adjust their behaviour.
Obviously, it will not be easy. We are grappling with very difficult issues but I have no doubt that, working together, we will do it. We will have a strategy in place that allows us to meet our obligations by 2012 and by the end of this year, we will bring forward a resolution to Parliament on the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.
(1125)
[English]
Clearly, all our objectives require a strong economy. Let me repeat what I have said so often. We will maintain our unwavering commitment to balanced budgets, disciplined spending, debt reduction and declining ratio of debt to GDP, and fair and competitive taxes. We will continue our commitment to reallocate spending from low priorities, from what works less well to what works best. This has been our approach and this will be our approach.
We will continue to amend our regulatory policies and practices to serve the public good and to promote innovation and a more favourable climate for investment and growth. We will continue to reduce the administrative burden on businesses. We will work with the private sector to bolster investor confidence. We will continue to work with small and medium size industries that are such an important source of job creation.
We will continue to build on our investment in research and development and in skills and learning. We will re-orient our labour market programs so that Canadians are ready for the future. We will support graduate studies and the indirect cost of university research. I will be participating in November in the National Summit on Innovation and Learning so that we can work, sector by sector, to help make Canada a magnet for talent and investment.
I want to emphasize the importance of integrity in public life. When I look around the House, on all sides, I know that none of us is perfect. We all make mistakes but our mistakes are made in good faith, not in bad faith. No one is here to enrich themselves, but we must all recognize the importance of perception.
To meet the very legitimate concerns of Canadians, the government will introduce, this month, legislation on lobbyists, on a code of conduct for parliamentarians and on the role and responsibilities of the ethics counsellor. Next month we will introduce comprehensive election and political party finance reform. I hope all members will work in a non-partisan way to quickly pass the best possible bills. Canadians will settle for nothing less.
I heard the Leader of the Opposition a minute ago talking about his own conception of that. I think everyone who advertises politically should tell us who is paying for it, including the National Citizens' Coalition.
I do not need the publicity that they are giving to me these days. I travel in Ottawa and elsewhere and there are big billboards of me. They do not have to tell the people I am there. I am not running anymore. They should not waste their money.
What we want to know is the role of the National Rifle Association from the United States. We do not know. We have to know because the Leader of the Opposition did not want to reveal anything in the House of Commons on his campaign. In our party everything is revealed and will be revealed because that is the way we operate. I want to know what the Leader of the Opposition will tell us about who paid for his campaign to replace a better man that was the former leader. We want to know who paid for that.
I hope all members will work in a non-partisan way to quickly pass the best possible bills. Canadians will settle for nothing less.
(1130)
In these unsettled times, Canadians share the global concern about terrorism, about weapons of mass destruction and about war in any part of the world. We have a special role to play because of the nature of our country, a country that has welcomed immigrants from everywhere, a country that is being steadily enriched by aboriginal people, the first nations, the Inuits and the Metis, a country that has proven that pluralism works. And so we will continue to promote the values of democracy, peace and freedom, human rights and the rule of law.
I am a great believer in a multilateral approach to dealing with international issues. The United Nations can be a great force for good in the world. It is in all our interests to use the power of international institutions in this complex world. Collective action, whenever possible, produces greater long term results than unilateral action. It is the best way to deal with states that support terrorism or that attempt to develop weapons of mass destruction. And deal with them we must. We must deal collectively and directly with those who threaten our peace and security.
To that end, before the end of our mandate, the government will be setting out a long term direction on international and defence policies to reflect our values and interests and to ensure that our military is able to meet the demands that we place upon it.
We must also work collectively and aggressively to close the gap between the rich and poor nations. I am proud of Canada's leadership in helping to build a consensus to support the new partnership for African development to help Africans lift themselves out of poverty into a brighter future. This is a long road and our partnership must be enduring. That is why we are committed to doubling our international assistance by 2010 and allocate half of it to Africa.
Trade and investment have been keys to the prosperity we enjoy. We are working very hard to prepare for the next round of multilateral trade negotiations. We are also working to resolve issues such as softwood lumber.
However we must also make trade and investment work for the developing world. That is why we are opening our markets to the least developed countries. That is one of the reasons we will continue to press rich countries to eliminate their agricultural subsidies. It is completely unacceptable that we, the rich countries, give $50 billion American in foreign aid and yet spend $350 billion on subsidies to farmers to eliminate competition. I know Canadian farmers are good, productive and not afraid of competition, but how can they compete with the hundreds of millions of dollars that the Americans and the Europeans are giving to their farmers?
I have said that to everybody on every occasion I have had. We are about to win it. I feel at this moment that there is a break coming in Europe. If it does happen it will open up markets for the poor nations that would like to develop, such as Africa which has regressed over the last 10 years. If we give Africans access to their agricultural products they will progress again and they will buy goods and services from us. It is a win-win situation and our farmers will be able to compete.
(1135)
I have been enormously privileged to serve this country and this House for as long as I have. During my time in this place, one of the most important pieces of legislation was the Official Languages Act. I am pleased to announce that our government will lay out an action plan to re-energize our official languages policy.
In the coming months I intend to spend a lot of time with young Canadians. When I travel across Canada I will talk to a new generation about the importance of public life. I will discuss with them the role of public service and how they can participate and lead in the future. I will talk about the nature of Canada. I will reflect on the importance of having two official languages and an obligation to promote them,and I will reflect on the benefits of a multicultural society and of how we created harmony in diversity. I will have the opportunity to reflect on lessons learned but always on how to make this an even better country.
We are a confident people and a proud nation. We can shape our own destiny. We can choose the Canada we want, knowing who we are and knowing where we are going together.
We have a lot of work to do. Let us roll up our sleeves and get on with it.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by extending condolences on behalf of all my colleagues to the family of Ronald Duhamel.
I knew him for some years, and he was known to me and to all of us as a man of convictions, always respectful of his political adversaries. That is, I believe, what posterity will remember this parliamentarian from Manitoba for, this man who always ably represented his fellow citizens.
In 1963, when the Prime Minister was first elected as the member for Shawinigan, he said the following: “I entered this election campaign driven by duty, because it is the duty of a serious man to analyze the situation and examine the points of a political program to remedy what is not working right in Canada... It is a matter of drawing up the constitution anew, not among ten provinces, but between two nations”. Those were the words spoken at that time by a young lawyer from Shawinigan setting out on a long career in politics.
Some hon. members: There has been a big change since then.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Politics is the path all of us in this House have chosen to make a difference, to improve the conditions of our fellow citizens. We all want to contribute to making a change for the better. The young lawyer from Shawinigan the Prime Minister was at that time was no different from the rest of us.
Since he was first elected in 1963, the Prime Minister has had a very full political life. He has served in several ministerial portfolios and has held the most senior position in the Canadian government for almost nine years. He has had the time to work towards attaining his goal but we see today that he has fallen very short of it and that he has, in fact, renounced it.
The Prime Minister has announced that he will be leaving politics in February 2004. There is no doubt that yesterday's Speech from the Throne is the closest thing there is to a political legacy, even though he will not admit it.
For Quebec, the Prime Minister's throne speech is very disappointing. It mentions none of the major challenges facing Quebec. The drop in the birth rate, Quebec's regions, the international presence of Quebec and, above all, the fiscal imbalance were completely passed over. One might have thought that the Prime Minister would have wished to change the very strong image he intends to leave Quebecers. For a great many people, he is the Prime Minister who has most contributed to weakening Quebec's powers and who is the furthest from Quebecers' legitimate aspirations.
In his political legacy, the Prime Minister proposes choices which are necessary to build the Canada of tomorrow. But rather than showing open-mindedness towards Quebec, the Prime Minister holds to the vision of a centralizing and homogeneous Canada. He has obviously forgotten to include Quebec in his legacy.
Canada is building itself as a nation and that is as should be, but Quebec is also building itself as a nation and it is doing so in a different way, which must be recognized. It is clear from the throne speech that the federal government has completely ignored the situation in Quebec. It is busily building Canada and Quebec does not figure in its plans. I will give some examples.
In the Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister proposes measures whose impact on Quebec is dangerous, either because Quebec has already addressed the problem in its own way and the government is duplicating services or creating confusion, or because the government is preparing to interfere in areas outside its jurisdiction.
(1140)
For example, the Prime Minister announced a comprehensive plan to reform health services, a plan including the long term federal investments that will be required following the Romanow commission. The federal government wants to tell the provinces how to act in a area in which it has no expertise. Quebec did not take part in the Romanow commission, because it does not recognize that the commission has any right to get involved in this area, health being under Quebec's jurisdiction.
Transfer payments must be restored to the levels they were at in 1993, when this government took office. This is what we have been asking for, but we have still not got an answer. It is always the same old song, namely that “Ottawa knows best”. These people want to tell those who deliver the services directly to the public how to do it, when they have no expertise in this area.
The federal government also announced its intention to work to improve access to initiatives relating to young children's development and access to quality day care services, particularly for poor families and single parents. However, Quebec, which already has a day care system that is effective and popular--in fact its only problem may be that it is too popular--is concerned about the standards that the federal government want to impose on it.
These are areas where Quebec is doing a good job, where its effectiveness is clearly demonstrated, and the federal government should never interfere with these jurisdictions.
The federal government wants to be involved in the areas of research, literacy and education, as well as in the building of competitive cities and healthy communities. These are all jurisdictions that belong to Quebec and the provinces. Once again, the federal government is getting involved in jurisdictions that are none of its concern.
The federal government proposes to focus on minority language and second language education, including the goal of doubling within ten years the number of high school graduates with a working knowledge of both English and French. While this objective is definitely not a bad one, the fact is that secondary education is clearly under Quebec's jurisdiction. Once again, the federal government is interfering in an area that is none of its concern, and this will lead to duplication, confusion and disputes.
The federal government will introduce a new strategy for a safe, efficient and environmentally responsible transportation system. This is under Quebec's jurisdiction, since anything done inside cities must be negotiated with Quebec, based on the fact that cities have always been under provincial jurisdiction and that Quebec must control anything that will be part of an infrastructure program. This is not spelled out in the throne speech. We will need more details in this regard.
The federal government will also increase the national child benefit for poor families. Quebec already has a right to opt out of this program with compensation, and would like a proportional increase in its funding, without having national standards imposed, as was the case for parental leave, that do not correspond with the reality that exists in Quebec, a reality that is understood better in Quebec than in Ottawa.
The federal government is proposing helping secondary students and new immigrants learn both languages. Quebec supports learning languages. We would hope that young people would not limit themselves to only two languages, but that they will learn three, even four. This is the way of the future. However, it is not up to Ottawa to manage this. Quebec wants to ensure that its jurisdiction in education and that its language laws are respected. Once again, there is no specific mention of this in the Speech from the Throne.
The federal government announced renewed investment in the Youth Employment Strategy, but Quebec has always called for the transfer of manpower training, specifically youth training. This, despite the fact that prior to the 1997 election, the federal government announced that it would be withdrawing from manpower training. Now, the government is using training to once again get involved in something that is none of its concern, in another government's jurisdiction. We had thought that the matter had been settled since 1997.
The government has again announced its intention to interfere in securities. This is clearly an area of provincial responsibility. Since 1994, time and again we have seen the government's intention to interfere in the area of securities. This runs counter to what all political parties in Quebec want.
(1145)
The federal government wants to speed up the work undertaken by the provinces to improve national water quality guidelines. It will enforce them in those areas coming under its jurisdiction. Quebec already has strict drinking water standards and water management comes under Quebec's jurisdiction. Once again, there is nothing specific in the Speech from the Throne.
It is clear from the throne speech that the problems the federal government intends to tackle are in fact problems which Canada may be facing but which Quebec, in those cases I have mentioned, has already largely solved.
Quebec has certainly not found solutions to all the problems mentioned, but it definitely does not need the federal government presenting it with its Canadian solutions to problems which ignore the reality in Quebec. Need we mention the Young Offenders Act, which, in the opinion of everyone in Quebec, sabotaged almost all Quebec's efforts in this area?
In fact, it would be more accurate to say that the federal plan presented yesterday in the Speech from the Throne does not meet the needs of Quebec. Between 1991 and 2000, Quebec's collective wealth increased, but its population growth was low. The Parti Quebecois, the Quebec Liberal Party and the Action démocratique are united on this important issue. One of the solutions that has been identified is to strike a better balance between work and family, and for Quebec to offer a program of accessible and generous parental leave. Ottawa will not even discuss it.
To qualify for Ottawa's parental leave, one must be eligible for EI, and eligibility has been limited to the maximum. Ottawa has not noticed that there are more and more self-employed workers who do not qualify for parental leave. Furthermore, associating parental leave with unemployment is a peculiar form of brain dysfunction all too common in Ottawa.
Quebec is also one of the places in North America where the wealth is the best distributed, as Statistics Canada has reminded us. People cannot therefore reach the prejudicial conclusion that such a statement comes from our sovereignist tendencies. The challenge for Quebec is to avoid having too wide a socio-economic gap between the major metropolitan areas of Quebec and the regions. All political parties in Quebec agree that they do not want to see a reproduction in Quebec of the Canadian model, where Alberta is twice as wealthy as Newfoundland. Decisions made in Ottawa have headed us in that direction. Employment insurance reform is most certainly one indication of this, and cuts to transfer payments are another. Fisheries management has been a disaster; under air deregulation, it costs more to get to Saguenay than to Paris. And there is nothing about the softwood lumber fiasco, not a mention of it in the throne speech.
Quebec is also absent from international negotiating tables, yet the decisions reached there directly affect the everyday lives of Quebecers, and increasingly so. This goes against democracy, as decisions reached in Quebec are not made known these important forums.
Yet Quebec is calling for—the Liberals, the Action démocratique, the PQ, indeed all political parties, are calling for—a presence at the international tables, when subjects and areas that come under the jurisdiction of Quebec or the provinces are discussed. The federal government has never shown any interest in doing so; what is more, we have been told that education would never be debated in all those debates on the free trade area of the Americas. Yet only three days ago, a meeting was held among the FTAA countries to discuss education. We were lied to, no more and no less, and once again an area that was not under Ottawa's jurisdiction was addressed.
Another instance: the National Assembly is unanimously in favour of ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. Quebec wants to do all it can to get on the path toward sustainable development. This began with the choice of hydroelectric power rather than nuclear energy. Its plans for reconstruction in the pulp and paper field were respectful of the environment. Ottawa, however, has always favoured the oil, gas and coal industry, even the nuclear industry: $66 billion over the past thirty years, compared with $120 million for clean energies.
(1150)
Let us keep in mind that the costs of Ontario Hydro's nuclear focus were met by Ottawa. So Quebecers paid for one-quarter of the development of Ontario Hydro, to the tune of billions of dollars. Yet not one cent was invested in hydroelectricity; Hydro-Québec was paid for by us alone.
Now that the time has come to get on to the debate on Kyoto, our reading of the text indicates that it is different from the intentions that have been expressed in past weeks or months.
Is there or is there not going to be a resolution proposing ratification of the Kyoto Protocol? The throne speech is not clear on this. We want clarification.
We would also like clarification on implementation. Will it be territorially based, respecting the efforts made by Quebec, to which I have already referred, or industrially based, denying the efforts made by Quebec?
Will the polluter-pay principle be applied? It is not up to Quebec, which has already paid for the economic development of companies based on oil or nuclear energy, to foot the bill for damages as well. This would be totally insulting and unfair.
There is nothing on the fiscal imbalance. Yet, everyone in Quebec—it was unanimous—all three political parties deplored this fact. It appears as though Ottawa does not understand this type of situation. The opposition parties have recognized it. The premiers from every province have recognized it. All of the political parties in Quebec have recognized it. Ottawa is marching to a different drum all alone, like some soldier who thinks that all the others are out of step.
Canada is being built on the foundation of a patriated constitution, on the Canadian social union, on the clarity act. Yet, this foundation is being criticized by Bernard Landry and the PQ, Jean Charest and the Quebec Liberal Party, and Mario Dumont and the ADQ, all together. Ottawa has managed to build a unanimous consensus among all Quebeckers. It is not every day that Ottawa manages such a feat, but here they have done it.
The Canadian consensus is clear. It is about refusing to acknowledge the existence of the Quebec nation that the current Prime Minister talked about back in 1963. But the Quebec consensus is just as strong within Quebec. Quebeckers make up a nation, are aware of this and affirm this. This deep and fundamental disagreement between Quebec and Canada has not been solved and is growing.
So, the Prime Minister missed his last chance by not taking into account, in the throne speech, the consensus achieved in Quebec. We are the spokespersons on this. We are the only ones to affirm this. We are here to remind the government that Quebec is not being built the way Canada is. We do not question the fact that Canada has to be built in a different way. Neither one is better or worse than the other.
Building Canada without providing Quebec with all the tools that it needs to build itself not only hinders Quebec, it also makes it move backwards instead of forward.
Whether he likes it or not , this was the Prime Minister's last throne speech. This is his political last will and testament. He has been true to himself. We can certainly fault him for having forgotten the vision of his youth, and we regret that he did. However, with the throne speech, the Prime Minister showed that his political vision of Canada's future does not leave any room for Quebec's evolution.
This vision does not reflect what Quebecers believe in, and this would be the Prime Minister's true political legacy.
I will conclude by proposing an amendment to the amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Témiscamingue, which reads as follows:
|
|
That the amendment be modified by adding between the words “programs” and “at” the following: |
| “notwithstanding the jurisdictions of Quebec and the other provinces”. |
(1155)
The Speaker:
The debate is on the amendment to the amendment.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, before I speak to the Speech from the Throne introduced yesterday, I too want to express personally and on behalf of my New Democrat colleagues our deepest condolences to the family of Ron Duhamel, a member who served very ably in this House for 14 years.
I had the opportunity only to serve with him for four years, but I know from my colleagues and previous New Democrat members of Parliament that he was much respected, much loved and I think represented the very best in parliamentarians that we need to see more of in the House. Our deepest condolences go to the family of the former member for Saint Boniface.
At the outset I want to congratulate the Liberal government, and I say that quite sincerely, for confirming with its throne speech that the fundamental principles and the progressive policies of the New Democratic Party are indeed resonating strongly with the Canadian public these days. The pollsters have been telling us that for many months now. We see reflected in yesterday's throne speech that fact.
It is a well-known historical phenomenon, which has had very important results for Canadians, that whenever the NDP shows momentum in the polls, the Liberal Party is quick to embrace at least in words, if rarely in deeds, a more progressive agenda.
(1200)
[Translation]
My party, the New Democratic Party of Canada, is pleased to see that the government has chosen to embrace our priorities. I would like the government to know we have plenty more like them.
[English]
Canadians know that when they elect New Democrats to Parliament they get caucus members who are ready, willing and able to fight, and fight ferociously, for the issues that matter to working people and issues that matter particularly to those vulnerable Canadians who are so often ignored or battered by the market forces that the government has so blindly embraced.
Yesterday's throne speech reminds Canadians that Liberals feel the political heat when New Democrats begin to climb in the public opinion polls.
Consider for a moment the words of the Prime Minister about the throne speech that was introduced. He said that this was more likely to please Main Street than Bay Street. When did members last hear those sentiments from the Chrétien-Martin tag team?
To that I say welcome to the real world of Canadians. In the real world people are held to their word. In the real world people are held accountable for their actions.
Setting aside the progressive tone of yesterday's throne speech, let us take a few moments to examine the legacy to date of the government. I know the Prime Minister said in his earlier remarks that the throne speech was not about legacy. The performance of the government over the past nine years is about legacy. One has to wonder whether the throne speech is not more a vanity speech than a legacy speech.
[Translation]
As hon. members are aware, the last decade has been a difficult one for workers. They and their families have had to fend off attacks in the name of globalization, stock prices, rationalization, convergence, and profit margins.
[English]
What Canadians got from the Liberal government over the last nine years was the antithesis of its 1993 red book promises. Essentially that election platform, on the basis of which the Liberal government was elected, was a social democratic platform. It was no accident that the betrayal of that social democratic set of commitments occurred at a time when the New Democratic Party was reduced to a caucus without official party status in the House.
In 1994 I was getting ready to leave active political life. I had been leader of the New Democratic Party in Nova Scotia for some 14 years and I was actively considering in the latter part of 1994 moving to international development work in Africa. I was enthusiastically engaged in looking beyond politics until February 17, 1995.
I do not need to remind hon. members that that was the day the former finance minister, the member for LaSalle--Émard, brought down the federal Liberal budget that ultimately stripped $20 billion out of our health care system. That budget introduced cuts just as brutal in education, social housing, social services, public infrastructure and a whole host of other public institutions which matter a great deal to working people in the country.
It was obvious to me that Canadians would be forced to do a great deal of bailing while the government chopped holes in the bottom of the boat. It was also obvious that any success New Democratics in Nova Scotia had achieved under my 14 years as leader would not account for very much at all with the tag team of the Prime Minister and his finance minister bankrupting the provinces, many of which in turn downloaded the burden onto municipalities and in many cases onto the very backs of the most vulnerable citizens of the country. I decided that I could not walk away from that fight and I am glad that I made that decision.
I have to say that I see red, so to speak, every time I hear the hon. member for LaSalle--Émard talking about his shining new vision for Canada. Are we to believe that the former finance minister had no influence on government priorities when he was merely finance minister? Give me a break. There is surely no clearer statement of a government's priorities than its own budget. For close to a decade the former finance minister, with the full support of the Prime Minister, decided who would pay taxes and who would be let off the hook. For close to a decade, the Chrétien-Martin team decided who would get funded and who would get axed.
(1205)
The Deputy Speaker:
Order, please. I know the hon. member is always very respectful of this institution, this wonderful place we share. I think we should maintain the practice of recognizing each other according to our portfolios or ridings, as the case may be.
Ms. Alexa McDonough:
Mr. Speaker, I apologize for that indiscretion. I will certainly respect your ruling in that regard.
For close to a decade the Prime Minister and the former finance minister took the side of the corporate elite and hacked away at vital services that were so important to working families. They massively reduced employment insurance for Canada's unemployed and they stole the employment insurance surplus. They cut the Ministry of the Environment by 40% at a time that leadership was desperately needed in shifting on to sustainable practices capable of saving the planet. They slashed education funding to the lowest level in 30 years, doubling average student debt loads along the way. They gutted agricultural support programs.
With every budget they said, “We have no choice; it is this or financial ruin”. Every one of those budgets overestimated the deficit and underestimated the surplus to the tune of $75 billion. That is Arthur Andersen territory. That is the kind of book cooking that gets a person a guest spot on the Martha Stewart show for heaven's sake.
Now that we have had successive surplus budgets for several years in a row, what have the Liberals chosen? Is it an all out effort to end homelessness and inadequate housing? No. Is it full restoration of the money they ripped out of health or education? No. Is it restoration of employment insurance or agricultural support programs? No. Is it the fulfillment of the child care promise in the 1993 Liberal red book, co-authored by the member for LaSalle—Émard? No. Is it plan for implementing the Kyoto protocol, a nationwide training initiative, a reduction in the GST? No, it is none of the above.
Instead, they introduced a massive tax reduction, but not for workers and their families. In fact any tax savings for working people were effectively wiped out by the user fees and the service cuts that are still trickling down from previous budgets. The big tax giveaways went to the big corporations, to the wealthiest of the wealthy, to the banks. All told, $100 billion was squandered.
When I watch the Prime Minister scrambling for his legacy, I have to say that I almost feel sorry for him because his principal legacy as Prime Minister has already been defined by his former finance minister. That is a legacy of a Liberal Party which turfed its Liberal values for nine straight years.
[Translation]
There are, however, some signs of change appearing. I do not mean to imply that we are prepared to storm the barricades and take the Bastille, but the Liberals know that the wind is changing. They are doing as they always do, the least possible, the strict minimum, just enough to look progressive and seem to be close to the common folk.
(1210)
[English]
It is entirely predictable that with momentum behind the NDP, the Liberals would shift to talk about a more progressive agenda.
As I said yesterday, the Liberals have pulled their red book from the blue box to repeat past broken promises dealing with everything from child poverty to urban renewal. The problem with those recycled Liberal promises is that they never seem to last any longer than a flashing media event or long enough for the ink to dry on the throne speech paper.
Let me say today that my New Democrat colleagues and I will be using every means at our disposal to pressure the government to follow through with that progressive agenda outlined yesterday by the Prime Minister, to follow through with the progressive agenda that was in fact promised to Canadians when the Liberals gained power in 1993. We will call the Liberals on their doublespeak whenever it occurs, and we will call the Liberals on their diversionary tactics whenever they dream them up.
Let me take the example of protecting the environment and building a sustainable economy. Within days of standing before the United Nations Summit on Sustainable Development and promising without qualification to ratify the Kyoto protocol, the Prime Minister returned home and began arguing once again for Canadian exemptions to the international standards.
When it comes to fighting for Canadian priorities there is no room for weasel words. Dealing with environmental protection deserves an airing of the facts. It is a fact that in the 1997 red book the Liberals said that they would “redouble our efforts to stabilize emissions of greenhouse gases”. Today those emissions are about 14% above 1990 levels and 20% over our Kyoto target.
[Translation]
Four and a half years ago, the Prime Minister was calling Kyoto a golden opportunity to create new jobs. Since then, the government has succeeded in delaying and weakening world consensus.
The government insists on wanting to have clean energy credits where none are to be seen.
The rest of the world is waiting on Canada. The Kyoto protocol needs only ratification by the Russian federation and Canada to take effect.
[English]
Kyoto is not the only area in which urgent action is required. There is a dire need for action to protect the pensions and the life savings of Canadians that have been severely eroded and jeopardized in recent years. We desperately need measures to establish corporate accountability. Who has not heard of the horrors of Bre-X, WorldCom, Enron and Westray? What did we get on corporate accountability in the throne speech beyond the voluntary standards that really are no standards at all? A vague commitment for the most part to more talk.
We want to protect investors, workers, pensioners and consumers. Deregulation has been clearly demonstrated not to be the answer. We need a federal watchdog with teeth and we need regulations that have real clout.
Sadly, a culture of corruption has been allowed to develop both inside and outside the government. Why not? When it comes to standing up for the pensions and the investments of working Canadians, the government has consistently stood on the side of its wealthy corporate donors.
It is a fact that the Liberals promised a national securities commission in their 1996 throne speech. Four speeches later there is still no commission but plenty of talk. The CPP funds of every working Canadian are invested today in the open stock market. Even George Bush for heaven's sake has adopted tough new laws to crack down on corporate crime and fraud.
(1215)
[Translation]
Later this week, I shall be presenting the NDP plan to restore Canadians' confidence in their country's economic and financial sector.
[English]
Let me now shift to health care, without a doubt the top priority concern of most Canadians. What did the government actually propose in yesterday's throne speech? It proposed that the Prime Minister convene a first ministers meeting early in 2003.
Let me take a moment to review the legacy to date on health care. Sadly the Liberals have let privatization become the answer to their lack of vision and their depleted resources for health care. The Liberal legacy is a rapid increase in private, for profit facilities. The federal government's response has been consistent. I have to give the government points for consistency. Its response to the growing crisis of privatization and the proliferation of for profit health care facilities has been simply that it is monitoring the situation.
Three years ago there were five private MRI clinics in Canada. Today there are 25. We all know that medicare was once funded on the basis of a fifty-fifty federal-provincial formula. Today, unbelievably that federal commitment has fallen to 14% of health care financing.
Another area in which the Liberal legacy is equally paltry and pathetic is that affecting aboriginal Canadians. It is true that the throne speech contained a lengthy to do list, but has the government learned nothing from our history? Surely native people in Canada have had enough of governments doing things to them. Aboriginal Canadians want a government to work with them.
The government's so-called first nations governance act violates that fundamental principle of sitting down in a respectful partnership and looking at what the options are for what first nations people need. That legislation is odious and paternalistic. Today I implore the government to open its ears and begin working respectfully and in good faith with Canada's aboriginal people. That means not reintroducing the government bill but sitting together to explore what the real solutions are.
After nine years of the government's betrayal of the promised progressive agenda, Canadians have a gut feeling that their country is slipping away from them. Where in the throne speech is the bold vision of an independent country of which Canadians can be confident and proud?
The New Democratic Party is here to proclaim today that in defence of a sovereign Canada and in the defence of the social democratic values that generations have struggled to build, we are ready to stand up and be counted. If the government can summon the courage to make budgetary commitments to begin undoing its damaging legacy, then New Democrats will support the government. However if it cannot or will not rise to that occasion, then the throne speech will be nothing more than one more repetition of hollow promises. Canadians deserve better and the NDP is willing to provide the better option to truly build a Canada that the citizens of this great country want, need and deserve.
(1220)
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the speech by the leader of the New Democratic Party.
I grew up in Saskatchewan, the home of the CCF, which later morphed into the NDP, and the home of medicare, they say. I was born in Swift Current, Saskatchewan, the first municipality in Saskatchewan to have a municipally funded public health care system, so I have some firsthand experience with it, but I am really distressed at how much health care has deteriorated under the public administration in Saskatchewan, where I still have relatives.
I had an aunt who recently passed away, and we are probably not going to be in a lawsuit because that is not our way, but it was really due to lack of medical care. Imagine having one nurse in charge of 40 people all night. My aunt was ringing and there was no response. She fell out of bed because nobody was there to look after her and help her. This was in the province of publicly funded medicare.
I believe very strongly in the principle that not one person in the country should be denied needed medical health care because of a lack of ability to pay, but the delivery of those services surely should be subject to some serious scrutiny and some consideration for improvement. When I think of what has happened in Saskatchewan, I am really concerned.
In closing I will also point out that a friend of mine went to the doctor because of heart problems. He had pain and checked it out. They found out that one of his arteries is 95% or 100% blocked, another about 80%. The doctor told him not to do anything, that he was in danger and would not live if he overexerted himself. By the way, he also said that the surgery would be four to six months from now. It is not acceptable in Saskatchewan and is not acceptable anywhere in Canada.
What are we going to do in this country to improve, in a timely fashion, the delivery of health care for people who need it?
Ms. Alexa McDonough:
Mr. Speaker, the question is, what are we going to do? I will tell the member what the New Democrats are going to do. We are going to fight, with every single breath of our being, to reduce the presence and influence of the Alliance Party in chipping away or carping away against our public, not for profit health care system.
I meant what I said earlier when I said that when the government does the right thing we will be there to stand with it. I want to again give the Prime Minister credit. He understood, although he may have caused the problem together with his finance minister, that embracing those policies, going the route of reducing federal funding and opening the door to private, for profit medicine, was actually causing tremendous damage to the system.
At least the Prime Minister understood that there are problems in Saskatchewan, problems because the federal government has reduced across the country the federal contribution to health care from 50% down to 14%. At least he recognized that the premier of Saskatchewan has a long record of fighting for health care and implementing health care, even under the difficult and adverse conditions caused by this Liberal government.
One of the things we would have liked to have seen in the throne speech was a clear, unequivocal commitment from the federal Liberal government that the recommendations of the Romanow commission will indeed be acted upon, acted upon with a sense of urgency that is desperately needed.
Finally, for the member who chose to bring out an example, and we all have examples of patients who did not fare well in the health care system, let him begin to acknowledge the truth. If we go farther down the road that Reform advocated and the Alliance Party persists in advocating, as recently as yesterday with his own leader once again advocating it, then we will not have a public, not for profit health care system to hand on to Canadians, and that is our first and foremost responsibility in this session of Parliament: to get back on track with a solid commitment to a public health care system that works.
(1225)
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague from Nova Scotia, the leader of the New Democratic Party, who has consistently stood up for Canadians, not only in her province but nationally, on this very issue.
I want to press her further, though, in terms of what we should and could be doing. I believe that Canadians do not have to wait for the report of the Romanow commission. Certainly there will be great insights in that report, but clearly she has put her finger on the issue itself of funding, stable funding. We have seen, since 1993, drastic cuts to health care under this administration. Any health care provider in any province, in any hospital or providing health care in the communities, can equally identify where those priorities need to be.
My question specifically to the hon. member is, do we have to wait? Do we in fact not need a budget rather than a health care strategy that is laid out in vagaries in the throne speech? Would it not be better for the government to actually pony up with stable health care funding in a budget this fall rather than wait, rather than put this issue off further? Should this not be the focus of the government in this session of Parliament?
Ms. Alexa McDonough:
Mr. Speaker, let me say that I very much concur with the words of my hon. colleague. There is no excuse for the government waiting, delaying the action that is needed, until the Romanow commission reports. The government knows full well, and the facts speak for themselves, that it is the gutting of federal funding, the reducing of the federal contribution to health care spending down to an unprecedented low of 14%, that is causing enormous crisis in the system.
Let us be very clear. Money alone will not solve the problems, but the problems cannot be solved without an infusion of money by the federal government.
I am sure that there is no one who understands the problems in the health care system who would not concur with the comment made by my hon. colleague that the government needs to bring in a budget. It needs to bring in a budget that at a minimum restores the level of federal contribution to health care funding to 25%, with a firm, unequivocal resolve that it will move toward the 50% cost share formula as quickly as it is possible to do so.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, child poverty has been an important issue raised in this place and certainly emphasized in the throne speech.
On November 24, 1989, on his very last day as a member of Parliament, the Hon. Ed Broadbent sponsored a motion to seek to achieve the elimination of child poverty by the year 2000.
The member will know that lone parent families in Canada represent about 15% of all families in Canada, but they also account for over 54% of all children living in poverty. If lone parent families account for more than half of the children living in poverty, and since the member is interested in legacies, what would she propose to do to address that half of the children in poverty who are in poverty because of family breakdown?
Ms. Alexa McDonough:
Mr. Speaker, I will just get to the nub of the question as to what I and the New Democratic Party would propose to do about the obscene level of child poverty in the country. We ought to be very careful that we do not come to simplistic conclusions about what it is that plunges people into poverty.
Let us go directly to the heart of the matter. We have a government that prides itself and congratulates itself on, and did so again in the throne speech yesterday, the introduction of the child tax credit, yet the government knows that because of its own policies two-thirds of the children living in grinding poverty in this country do not receive one red cent of benefit from the child tax benefit program. That is perverse. It is unbelievable that the government says that we will claw back from the poorest of the poor in this country, literally two-thirds of the families living in poverty, the child tax benefit.
The government has said that it wants to increase it. Let me say very clearly to the questioner who has raised this question of what needs to be done that at the very minimum what this government needs to do, if it is serious about moving toward the 1989 resolution to eliminate child poverty in this country, is double the existing child tax credit. Anything less than that is not going to lift our children out of poverty and is going to be part of a very ugly, shameful legacy indeed.
(1230)
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC):
Mr. Speaker, may I begin, as others have, by expressing to the family of our late colleague, Ron Duhamel, my most sincere condolences and those of my family and my party. I had the privilege of knowing Mr. Duhamel throughout his career in Parliament. He was in the best and every sense of the word a gentleman, but a man who under pressure was quite prepared to stand up and fight for those people to whom he had responsibilities and for those principles in which he believed. He fought a difficult battle, a wasting battle, and he fought it with the kind of dignity and strength that we would all associate with him. On behalf of my colleagues and myself, I want to express condolences to his family.
The Governor General has delivered eloquent and evocative speeches about our country. Yesterday's throne speech was not among them. It was a piece of fluff. It was a public relations ploy designed to divert attention from a government that is divided and drifting. Canada's interests have been put on hold for 18 months while the Liberal Party puts itself ahead of Canada. There was scant detail in this throne speech, there was no vision, and there is absolute silence on the country's capacity to pay either for the new programs the government intends or the other challenges it knows it cannot ignore.
The throne speech bears a title, “The Canada We Want”. It reminds me of “The Land is Strong”, that hymn to complacency that carried an earlier Liberal government to defeat. But the title is accurate: It talks about what the government wants, not about what the government will do.
I think it is appropriate that this throne speech was published at about the same time as the Sears Christmas wish book. I will not wave the Sears book around because that would violate parliamentary traditions and I leave that to the other side. I make the point that the Sears book, which I will not wave around, is much thicker and it is much more specific. I can quote from it, it being a book. It lists a military command post--
The Deputy Speaker:
I know the right hon. member is well experienced and has used many methods to make his point of view known, but I would ask him to stay within the confines of the spirit of the rules of the House, as he normally does.
Right Hon. Joe Clark:
Mr. Speaker, I will not lift the book again, but let me quote from it. It does list a military command post for $99.99. That is more than the Prime Minister's wish book yesterday gave the Canadian military.
The Sears book also comes with a no lower price guarantee, not the sort of thing we got from Alfonso Gagliano.
Sears has the added advantage of spelling out the price, while no one has any idea of what the Prime Minister's wish list will cost.
But what is most serious about the Prime Minister's promises is that we know they will not be kept.
(1235)
[Translation]
Yesterday, in his Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister served us up a rehash, a list of promises which we have heard before and which will never be kept.
[English]
Let us look at the government's last two throne speeches. There were roughly 118 promises in those two speeches. How many of them have been kept? Only 25 of those solemn promises were actually acted on by the government. It is a disgrace. It is shameful.
Fully 44 of those old promises, promises not kept, showed up again in the throne speech delivered yesterday. That raises very directly the question: Why did the Prime Minister shut Parliament down? If this Parliament had met in mid-September, when it was supposed to, some of the measures proposed in yesterday's throne speech would already be well on the way to becoming law.
The Prime Minister did not shut Parliament down to provide a new vision. There is no new vision. He needed a diversion to take attention away from the shameful way the government put its party's interest ahead of Canada's interest this summer, so he manipulated Parliament to serve his partisan and personal interests.
[Translation]
At its best, the Speech from the Throne is supposed to be a clear statement of the challenges we are facing and the solutions the government proposes.
[English]
That is what a throne speech is supposed to do. It should be a guide to the country's priorities and a guide to the government's intentions over the next session of Parliament. An honest government would have spelled out clearly the issues facing Canada and the actions the government intends. Let us make no mistake, this country faces grave and fundamental issues in the next year. Let us consider just five of those challenges that Canada cannot duck.
First, a deadly war may start in Iraq. If pursued unilaterally, it could trigger turmoil throughout the Middle East and beyond and could wound the United Nations. What is Canada's position? The throne speech says the government will “set out a long-term direction on international and defence policy”. When will it do that? It will do that “before the end of this mandate”; that is, some vague time in the next two years. There is absolutely no investment in a military that has been starved to the breaking point. There are no initiatives to apply Canada's hard-won reputation as a country that can make a difference in international affairs.
I want to talk about the Prime Minister's new found commitment to Africa. I am delighted that he has decided to increase official development assistance. I also know the record of his government. Year after year, consistently, since coming into office until the last fiscal year, the Liberals cut official development assistance, including, cruelly, to Africa. There is a vast gap between what the Prime Minister says now and what he did when he had a chance to make a difference. If he talks about legacy, he will be remembered by the lives he cost, by the hardship he allowed to happen, by the people in the countries and communities who had aid cut off in Africa under his watch.
Second, there are fundamental questions about the strength of the international economy and of Canada's economy. Since the last federal budget the finance minister has either quit or been pushed out, markets are falling, confidence in corporate leadership is falling, the threat of war is in the air and there are wildly different projections on the actual size of the federal government's surpluses for the next few years.
Third, Canada's health care system has been in evident crisis ever since the Liberal government unilaterally cut billions of dollars of transfer payments to the provinces. Other levels of government are ready to act and have proposals. The Romanow commission is winding to a conclusion. Why did the government rush into a throne speech weeks before Romanow reports? How can there be a sensible discussion of social policy priorities in the country when the government has no idea what it will do about health care? The major health initiative, as others have mentioned, in the throne speech is a promise to call a first minister's conference. The Prime Minister does not need a throne speech to call a first minister's conference.
Fourth, there must be a decision on how we deal with climate change. What is the government's plan? The throne speech states:
| Before the end of this year, the government will bring forward a resolution to Parliament on the issue of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change. |
A “resolution on the issue of ratifying”. What careful, convoluted language. That is not a plan. That will not answer the tough questions on the costs of ratifying Kyoto. It will not generate a serious debate on the pros, the cons and the alternatives.
Whatever those words mean, they are different from what the Prime Minister promised and they are not a commitment to ratifying Kyoto. The Prime Minister is not saying today what he said in South Africa. There he was clear. Here he is ambiguous, again.
He claims he has a vision for climate change. He just does not know what it is. However he wants Parliament and the country to buy into it blindly. The deliberate ambiguity of the government's language betrays the fact that the government itself does not know what it will propose to the House in November to meet the Prime Minister's arbitrary deadline for ratification. How can it know when the Prime Minister hides the facts and costs of ratification from his own cabinet?
In the coming weeks it will fall on Parliament, this House and the other place, to do the homework that the government has failed to do. The Progressive Conservative Party is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but no responsible parliamentarian can support blind ratification of the Kyoto accord.
(1240)
The Prime Minister has promised detailed impact studies by province and by sector. We need to see those studies. He promised a serious implementation plan. We need to see that plan. He promised consultations with the provinces, territories, shareholders and the public before taking a decision. We need to hear the arguments. We need to hear and consider the alternatives of the provinces, the environmental committees and others.
We need to know that any action by Parliament respects the Constitution of Canada. Before Canada ratifies the Kyoto protocol we must ensure we can live up to the international commitments that the protocol entails. That is why we have proposed that the Kyoto protocol be referred immediately to a joint committee of both Houses to ensure that the evidence is heard immediately, so that parliamentarians in both Houses will have an opportunity to be fully informed.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the government must heal the self-inflicted wound of its own bargain basement ethical standards. The government broke its word in winning office. It said it would cancel the GST. It campaigned against NAFTA. It took a highly partisan position that cost the Canadian military helicopters it could use safely, a price a men and women in uniform continue to pay to this very day.
Having broken its word so many times before, it set out to break the ethical standards that have guided other governments. That started at the top with Shawinigate and stretches on each day through Groupaction and its family of scandals, to the Prime Minister's $101 million gift to himself of two fancy new Challenger aircraft that his own officials said he does not need. Yet who judges ethical conduct in the government? It is an official who reports only to the Prime Minister.
[Translation]
It is amazing that, after so many scandals, the reform of the government's code of ethics does not deserve more than just one reference at the end of the speech. Canadians deserve better. The government had an opportunity to really move forward by announcing that the next ethics counsellor would report to Parliament alone, but it chose not to do so.
[English]
Canadians should ask two questions about this throne speech. First, what exactly is the government proposing on health care, national defence, ethics, the Kyoto protocol, Iraq, or on anything else? The short answer is that we have no indication what it is proposing.
Second, can the government deliver on any of these promises? How can we know what we can afford? Only a full budget could tell Canadians that, but following in his predecessor's footsteps the new Minister of Finance has delayed the tabling of a new budget until the new year.
Yesterday's Speech from the Throne was little more than a public relations exercise designed to give the Prime Minister's last 18 months in office the semblance of a plan. There were no significant announcements, no important details, nothing certainly to justify the prorogation of Parliament.
[Translation]
Canadians did not need more promises from this government. What they were looking for was some real measures to help those in need.
This Speech from the Throne adds nothing, hinders our ability to take action on issues of concern to our fellow citizens, and recycles old promises. As an example, the government has repeatedly promised to re-equip our armed forces, to increase our foreign aid, to prepare a strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and to strengthen its code of ethics. We are no further ahead on any of these promises the day after the throne speech than we were the day before. That is this government's most regrettable mistake.
(1245)
[English]
Contrary to what the Prime Minister is quoted as saying, this is not an agenda for Main Street. This is an agenda for the backrooms of the Liberal Party. This has nothing to do with the nation's business but is has everything to do with the internal business of the Liberal Party of Canada and every day Canadians are paying the price for that sad reality.
[Translation]
Had the government wished to present a real action plan for all Canadians, it would have focused on the four pillars of good public management: healthier public finances, a more visible presence on the international scene, a more cooperative approach with respect to social policies, especially health and the environment, and the reform of our democratic institutions.
[English]
The government chose not to act.
Parliament had a ceremony yesterday. There was a wish list but there was no vision of how the country might command the future. There was no plan of action. The government's responsibility is to spell out how it intends to deal with the urgent issues the country cannot avoid. It should state its priorities. It must outline exactly how much each proposal will cost and set out those costs in the context of a full budget. That is what a responsible Speech from the Throne would have done. There was none of that yesterday. What posed as a Speech from the Throne yesterday was an abandonment of the clear responsibility of the government and set no course of direction for Parliament or for the country.
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I listened respectfully to the words from the Right Hon. member for Calgary Centre. I am disappointed that he has missed an opportunity with his allotted time to present a different vision here in the House rather than to simply criticize for the purpose of undermining the hard work over the past seven to eight years by Canadians to get the country in the shape that it is in today.
Is it the hon. member's opinion that the country is in better shape today under the Liberal government, with single digit unemployment, running back to back five year surpluses, debt reduction, investment in our children and attacking poverty? Or does he believe it was better when the Conservatives were in power with double digit unemployment, $43 billion deficits, debts growing beyond belief, mismanagement and I will not comment on the integrity of the former Prime Minister and his colleague, Mr. Mulroney.
Does the hon. member believe that the country is in better shape today financially than it was when his party was sitting on this side of the House?
Right Hon. Joe Clark:
Mr. Speaker, I will start with a list of questions for my colleague. Is the military stronger in Canada than when the government came to office? No, it is not. Is health care stronger than it was when the government came to office? No, it is not. Is the dollar higher than when the government came to office? No, it is not. Has the economy grown? It has grown because of the free trade agreement. Did the government introduce the free trade agreement? No, it did not. Did it oppose the free trade agreement? Yes, it did.
We could have a vigorous debate about the past. That is not the issue. The issue is the future. The obligation of the Government of Canada is to bring in a throne speech that spells out a clear and detailed plan for the future. The Prime Minister is an abject failure on that as on other accounts.
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the residents of Simcoe--Grey, it is an absolute pleasure and an honour to stand here today in the House and bring forward my comments on the throne speech, the history of this government and the future of this great country of ours. Sadly enough, as I listened to members of the opposition, namely the member for Calgary Centre, I was disappointed because this is an opportunity for all parliamentarians regardless of political stripe to present a different vision, to present a vision for this great land of ours.
I am firmly convinced that we stand on the threshold of a great opportunity in this country. As a government, as parliamentarians and most important as a nation, we are provided these efforts based on the efforts of all Canadians from past generations and this present generation as well.
Mr. Speaker, I am splitting my time with the member for Lac-Saint-Louis and apologize for not mentioning that initially.
We stand at the crossroads of an incredible opportunity. The government has the opportunity to take our great nation and create a model for countries all around this great world. It is no secret that as a government, as Canadians, we want to make sure that all Canadians are provided an opportunity to move forward, that all Canadians benefit from the hard work and commitment of many generations of Canadians and from the sound financial management of the economic and social priorities the government has demonstrated over the last number of years.
I believe the throne speech articulates the very things that Canadians want, that they expect and that they deserve.
Few things can be as important to this country blessed with such a diverse, complex and sensitive environment as a commitment to protect that very environment for future generations. It is for this reason I was pleased to see the commitment from our government that suggests there is no greater priority than safeguarding the very environment that will provide healthy lives for our children and our children's children. This is fundamental to the health and prosperity of our nation for generations to come. I could not have been more pleased to see that our government, the only party in this House, is truly standing up to defend environmental initiatives and make sure there is a strong commitment to ensure we are addressing our responsibilities not only in Canada but around the world.
Speaking of future generations, environment and health are critically important. However, we recognize clearly that in order for our future generations to experience all the benefits they are certainly entitled to, they must be provided a good sound knowledge base and access to that knowledge base. I could not have been more pleased when I heard the Governor General say, “no investments do more to break the cycle of poverty and dependency, and to maximize the potential of every Canadian”, leading into long term investment plans that allow “to break the welfare trap so that children born into poverty do not carry the consequences of that poverty throughout their lives”.
That demonstrates the caring and compassion of Canadians and the direction of the government. We do not want to see children left in poverty. We want to focus on programs that support financially challenged families, single mothers and single fathers raising children. It is incumbent on any government to make sure the appropriate programs are in place so that we break the cycle of poverty. I believe that vision is articulated in the very throne speech we heard yesterday.
I believe I speak on behalf of all my fellow Canadians in recognizing the enormous benefit and the enormous investment that has been made in providing schools and libraries, and the children who are using those schools and libraries, with the information technology and access to that information technology that is second to no other country in the world. There has been a huge investment made in that very topic. Canadians are better off because of it and will continue to be better off because of it.
(1250)
I have heard hon. members across the floor talk about lack of vision but I have heard no vision from them. I have heard criticism for the purpose of criticizing. That is a shame.
When I sat here yesterday and heard the Governor General speak about the commitment to supporting municipalities, rural municipalities in my particular case, I could not have been more pleased. For years I have stood in caucus and in the House and suggested we need a long term sustainable infrastructure program.
Contrary to what the members in the Alliance or the members in the Conservative Party would say, this is fundamentally important to the growth of rural municipalities. They need a federal partner on an ongoing basis, not time sensitive programs. We are talking about providing some of the most basic of things within municipalities: water, sewers, roads, bridges, things that would allow them to grow and prosper. We cannot be setting specific timelines in place, putting them in a position where financially they are compromising themselves simply by way of a specific date.
In that respect, I could not have been more pleased to hear the government commit to a long term plan to support municipalities. That is a vision for Canada, not the type of vision we hear from across the floor.
I must state clearly that there were many things in the throne speech that I was very pleased with. However, there were a couple of points that I was somewhat disappointed in and which I certainly must address.
I make the commitment that between now and the budget some time next year, I will be a strong advocate to ensure that we maintain a strong commitment to debt reduction as well.
We hear about the strong economy. We hear about a decline in our debt to GDP ratio. We are experiencing the 7% unemployment rate, contrary to the 11% and 14% rates when the Conservatives were in power.
It is important as a legacy for the government and as a legacy for future generations that we continue the ardent approach we have had for the last five years in dropping our hard national debt. It is no legacy to leave the children of tomorrow with a beautiful home and a huge mortgage. We have the beautiful home, but it is incumbent upon the government to continue its focus on debt reduction while trying to balance a social and economic agenda.
The government has to operate under three principles, a three-legged stool. One is the economy; one is social programs; and the third one is the will.
When I listened to my colleagues from the Alliance, they simply missed the point. They are solely focused on the economic points and are prepared to gut social programs. They have no accountability when they talk about $20 billion for spending on this and $10 billion for spending on that and in the same breath talk about eliminating or reducing taxes.
It is a three-legged stool. A government must offer a balanced approach. A government must recognize that the economy and the social programs are very much intertwined. We have to recognize that it is an incredible investment on behalf of all Canadians to provide opportunities for those who do not have them today.
It has been said many times in the House and all across Canada that our most valuable resources are our youth. That was clearly articulated in the throne speech yesterday.
The government has a history, a track record of sound financial stewardship. When I came to the House in 1997 I was looking at a $43 billion deficit. They throw that out loosely. That was just a few short years ago. Since then we have experienced some hard decisions. We have experienced an opportunity to create balanced and surplus budgets while supporting things like agriculture and child benefit programs, reinvesting in the military and seeing unemployment rates drop from 11% to 7%.
I would stand here today and tell Canadians to take comfort in the fact that the government in moving forward is not going to leave the weak behind. We will remain steadfast.
(1255)
As I said at the start, we are at the threshold of greatness and great opportunity. As outlined in the throne speech, we will capitalize on that.
(1300)
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC):
Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member comment on the fact that only 25% of the promises in the last two Liberal throne speeches were implemented? Would the hon. member comment about rural Canadians and the fact that they were omitted from the throne speech, as were the core industries including fisheries, agriculture and forestry? A plan to increase the number of health care workers was missing as well. A commitment to equip and support our military men and women was missing. Student debt is a very important point as well.
Given the fact that only 25% of the promises of the last two throne speeches were taken seriously, how can the member expect the House to take seriously the promises that were made in yesterday's throne speech?
Mr. Paul Bonwick:
Mr. Speaker, sadly enough, I will assume that the hon. member has the same speech writer as the Alliance Party. Clearly he is confused about the numbers that he is using. I assume he read one of his colleague's notes over in the other lobby.
Clearly, 25% of the promises may be already realized. Keep in mind that we are in the middle of our mandate. The government is still working on these things. The government is still accomplishing many things. Unlike the hon. members from the Conservative Party, on a daily basis we are here and we are committed to resolving many of the commitments that have already been raised.
The hon. member brought up several points. I will not try to respond to all of them because I would like to open the floor to some intelligent questions from other members. The member talked about student debt. I seem to remember sitting here a couple of years ago and listening to the announcement of one of the largest investments in post-secondary education, namely the Canadian millennium scholarship endowment fund. That was one of the largest investments ever made on behalf of a government for young people in this country.
There are RESPs. Canadians all across this great land are benefiting from RESPs under the sound financial stewardship of this government.
I am absolutely amazed. Quite clearly the member either did not listen to the throne speech or he has not followed the record of the House over the last number of years. In my opinion the government has made incredible investments in our youth.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, we are getting the same arrogant, vacuous rhetoric that one might expect. I did not realize the member had cottoned on to it or perhaps he drank the Kool-Aid that some of his colleagues have.
The member talked about facts. In particular reference to students, the fact is that student debt has quadrupled for most students in Canada. The cost of tuition has gone up 5% during his government's almost 10 years in office.
The member can talk about facts, but there is one undeniable inalienable fact that he and the member for LaSalle—Émard, the former finance minister, continually mislead Canadians on and that is the deficit. The member mentioned the $42 billion deficit that his government inherited. I want to ask him a very simple question. What was the deficit when the previous administration took office? It was $34.6 billion, contributed one thousand fold by the Minister of Finance at the time, the right hon. Prime Minister. How does he address that simple fact when he speaks of the deficit that his government, the Trudeau government, the Liberal government, left when they took office?
Mr. Paul Bonwick:
Mr. Speaker, the member may suggest that we are drinking Kool-Aid, but I think something a little more lively is in their cocktail across the floor with that silly rhetoric.
I will stand here today and say quite clearly that there is nothing arrogant about my position. I am humbled to be able to serve the residents of Simcoe--Grey and for that matter Canadians all across this great land and there is no arrogance about it.
The member talked about students. Does he recognize first of all that under his colleagues in the province of Ontario the cutbacks to students have been absolutely shameful? Where the federal government has been investing, the provincial Conservative government has been dropping. Does he also recognize that enrolments are up in universities all across this great country? Does the member not also recognize that 95% of student loans are being repaid in a timely fashion and in the appropriate timeline?
Obviously the premise of the hon. member's question is totally unfounded. Canadians are being provided an opportunity for education. The government is investing in those young people to provide them an opportunity to make sure that we achieve the greatness that we rightly deserve.
(1305)
[Translation]
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first I would like to join those who have already expressed their condolences to the family of our friend, Ron Duhamel, with whom I had the pleasure of working on a number of issues, including veterans affairs when he was the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
I remember visiting the veterans' hospital with him, not too long ago, before leaving his position. He was wearing a wig. He told me how difficult it was dealing with the first effects of cancer.
He was a remarkable man for whom I had a great deal of esteem. Once again, I offer my condolences to his family.
I was in Norway in August and I had the opportunity to speak with Norway's secretary of state for the environment. He told me about the pride their country had taken in ratifying the Kyoto protocol. Norway was one of the first countries to do so, even before the European Union.
He told me that Norway, which is one of the largest producers and exporters of oil and gas in the world, would finance its Kyoto plan in part through royalties from Norway's oil companies.
What an incredible contrast with Premier Klein of Alberta, who is threatening to leave the federation, to separate from us because of the Kyoto accord. Today, we heard the leader of the official opposition tell us that his party would use every possible trick to block the Kyoto process and that it would join the provinces opposed to the protocol to ensure that it is never ratified. Some confidence.
Yet, the evidence is clear. For a number of years now, the United Nations have mandated 2,500 top level scientists. These people have come to the conclusion that the anthropological contribution to climate change, that is the human impact, is very significant. These experts urged us to act as quickly as possible and to change our way of doing things and of living.
Kyoto is far from perfect. No international agreement is. We could review them all; international agreements are never perfect. Yet, this is a collective resolution taken by countries, particularly rich and industrialized countries, to change their ways of doing things, to live differently, to create and to produce things differently in order to save our planet.
The fact is that, ironically, the richest and most fortunate countries are the ones that did all the damage. These are the same countries that benefited the most from the past few decades of unbridled development. At the same time, innocent nations, including small insular ones, have suffered from the causes generated by rich and developed countries.
These innocent nations are telling us “What did we do to deserve this? You better change your ways of doing things and your lifestyles as quickly as possible”.
[English]
Kyoto is a planetary question no doubt, but above all it is a question of international equity. We owe it to innocent nations to change our ways and do something about it. Kyoto represents a collective process, a collective resolve to change our ways. Given our tremendous skills as a country and given our bountiful resources, Canada remains the dwarf of renewable energies.
Statistics abound in wind energy. For instance, Germany produces 6,000 megawatts. A small country like Denmark produces 2,500 megawatts and has created thousands of jobs out of wind energy. Canada has barely reached 200 megawatts.
In solar energy Japan has reached 128 megawatts while Canada is barely at 2 megawatts. In solar energy, a poor country like India is way ahead of us. It has the second largest wind farm in the world and has invested $450 million U.S. in a project to provide solar energy to residential homes.
The other day I was listening to an interview with the deputy CEO of British Petroleum, Mr. Rodney Chase, on As It Happens. He explained that in the last eight years BP, an oil producer, has reduced its emissions by 10% compared to 1990 without spending an additional penny. He said that production had gone up by 5.5% despite it, and it will continue with the trend on these projectionsd now to 2005 without any penalty to BP.
Ironically, Calgary, the city of the Premier of Alberta, has installed solar collectors for its bus barns. It is using wind power to propel its C-train in the city.
The winners of the 2000 energy efficiency awards in housing received their award because they improved the efficiency of their homes compared to the R-2000 standard by 25% to 42%. The Office of Energy Efficiency stated that for an investment of $4,000, over the years people could reduce their energy bills by 25% each year. Yet Canada still uses the additive MMT manganese and is one of the only industrial nations to use MMT in our gasoline when biofuels could be used and produced in quantity.
Canada is the dwarf of renewable energy. Kyoto will help us change our ways. It will in fact force us to change our ways.
The Leader of the Opposition never mentioned the benefits to our health. How can we disassociate the environment from health? How can we disassociate health from the environment? The figures which have been produced by the Minister of the Environment in the option paper show savings of $500 million a year to a health program due to better air quality. That is $5 billion a year in the 10 years that we would have to reach our Kyoto target of 6%. The naysayers only produce negative statistics such as the loss of 450,000 jobs and yet they do not know how this will happen.
I would like to read from the interview held with the deputy CEO of BP. He is not just talking statistics and making wild statements. He said this about climate change:
|
|
...our view is, we can't prove that, and we'd rather get on with taking action that we don't have any regrets about. Things that we can do that in case the world is actually heating up and it's to do with us, in case the weather is turning against us and it's our fault, we can take these actions with no regrets, and it doesn't trade off jobs and the standards of living in the developed world. Now that's our view, and the practice that we've pursued over the last four years has not changed our mind at all. In fact, its encouraging us to say we can do a heck of a lot more to prevent emissions of greenhouse before we begin to approach the problem at which our industrial effectiveness is threatened. |
(1310)
The idea that we threaten our economic effectiveness because of Kyoto or because of climate change is again a bogus argument.
I applaud the government for taking the stand that ratification must happen before December. We have to take leadership to show the world that we are part of a collective resolve, an international regrouping to change our ways of thinking, to change our ways of living and to practise equity toward the innocent nations that we ourselves have harmed with our own pollution.
I will applaud the government when it produces the bill to ratify and I will stand four-square behind it.
(1315)
Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across did a wonderful job of presenting some of the good points of Kyoto. However I believe we could discover that there may not be all strong points. There may be some very weak points. He made the comment that we owe it to poorer countries to change our ways. That is probably a very good statement. However for poorer countries to benefit from a cut in greenhouse emissions they must see us change our ways.
Within the Kyoto agreement is the transfer of money plan. It sounds like a plan to simply enrich the poorer countries in that we can buy credits and not reduce our emissions at all.
If we are really serious, if Kyoto is designed to reduce greenhouse emissions, then why would we want to send money to underdeveloped countries to develop them industrially and help them produce greenhouse emissions? Why would we not want to spend that money on reducing our own greenhouse emissions? After all, industrialized countries are where most of the greenhouse emissions are produced
Mr. Clifford Lincoln:
Mr. Speaker, the Kyoto agreement is an assemblage of many parts of a project. It is a project with many components. The chief component is for us to change our ways and adopt renewable energies as a parallel to what we do today.
We have not even started to scratch the surface. Our public transportation, compared to that of Norway, Finland, France and Germany, is away behind the times. We have to get up to steam by using a parallel track while at the same time transferring modern, non-polluting technology to the developing world to help it also reach a better standard of living. At the same time, reducing greenhouse gases collectively is a very good idea so long as modern technology is used for that purpose. If we just transferred polluting technology, I would agree with the member. However that is not the spirit of it. The spirit of it is to produce and transfer technology which is designed to curb gas emissions. That is the whole idea.
Kyoto is an assemblage of many components. We have to first decide that here we can do something instead of whining like rich provinces like Alberta and Ontario. They say that they cannot do it because they will lose jobs. What about Denmark? What about Norway? What about Finland? What about Germany? What about France? They also have problems of job creation, but at least they look at positive things and resolve to change their ways. That is what we must start doing very soon.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member opposite a question along those same lines.
If major countries like the U.S., China and India, particularly the U.S., which are not involved in this agreement, are able to use some of the dollars they will not be putting into this somewhat fraudulent scam of trading credits and so on to actually create green technology and do research along those lines, would we not be even farther behind? We will not be able to do it. The whole Canadian economy, people on fixed incomes and so on will be hurt considerably by it and we will not have the dollars to do the green technology research and development that the U.S. in particular, our neighbour to the south, will be able to do as a result of staying out of this somewhat fraudulent scam called Kyoto.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln:
Mr. Speaker, what diminishes the credibility of the argument is when we talk about Kyoto as a fraudulent scam. I was at Kyoto in 1997. I do not think the people who signed the Kyoto accord were producing a fraudulent scam.
Instead of always looking at negatives and finding all kinds of arguments not to do things, perhaps we should look at what countries like India have done.
People say that India is staying out of it. I will introduce the member to an Indian expert, Dr. Amulya Reddy, who brought electricity to 1,000 villages in India out of biomass. I will show the House how India used 27 sugar mill factories to create a grid which made it so that the Indian government did not have to invest in one nuclear plant. It is also investing in solar power in a big way and has the second biggest wind farm in the world.
At least India is doing things, which is what we must start to do instead of always looking for escape hatches and negatives. It is about time we stopped whining, ratified Kyoto and went forward.
(1320)
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Langley--Abbotsford.
The throne speech reminds me of something Albert Einstein once said. He said “The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them”.
This throne speech is an attempt by the Prime Minister to solve problems he created for himself and to solve problems created by his corrupt government. However, as Einstein said, he cannot do that at the same level of thinking he was at when he created those problems.
He will never solve problems we face if he continues with the same style of governing, continues to use patronage to reward his friends, continues to abuse the authority of his office to punish his opponents for personal gain, continues to waste taxpayer money, continues to divide Canadians and continues to demean parliament and its members.
On Tuesday, September 24 the Prime Minister and his cabinet leaked most of what was in the Speech from the Throne. At a time when members were seriously questioning the concentration of power in the Prime Minister's Office and the lack of freedom and respect afforded to them, the Prime Minister sidesteps and blindsides them with the shameless leak of the throne speech.
This debate was supposed to start today but because of the Prime Minister's lack of respect for parliament, it started last week in the media with an address in reply to the leak from the throne.
It was only a few days before the cabinet revealed the contents of the throne speech that members of the Liberal caucus were complaining in the media that the Speech from the Throne would be written by a handful of bureaucrats. While I shared their outrage, we cannot be surprised by the Prime Minister's latest insult since this Speech from the Throne is about his loyalty to his legacy and not to his country, parliament, party or colleagues.
Last week the Alliance released its parliamentary reform package, Building Trust II. The Prime Minister's recent dismissal of the role of Parliament has highlighted the urgency to begin the process of curbing the power of the Prime Minister's Office and curtailing its actions that disrespect this institution.
Building Trust II aims to enhance the pre-eminence of Parliament and the role of its members.
In my Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, I will focus on the need for parliamentary reform, with an emphasis on advancing the idea of electing our Speaker by secret ballot to the committees of the House of Commons. The Reform Party began suggesting change in 1994 and passed the baton on to the Canadian Alliance.
The policy of providing for all private members' business to be votable shares the same history as the initiative to provide for secret ballot elections in committee. In the course of three parliaments the Liberal government ridiculed us over that proposal and after nine years the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs finally has adopted it. The next hurdle is to convince the cabinet to do it. In a Parliament with a Liberal government, the cabinet controls the House and the rules that govern it. We need to look at the Liberal track record to give us an idea of our success probability.
When it comes to parliamentary reform the government likes to talk the talk but has to be shoved up against the wall before it is willing to walk the walk.
Appended to the first Liberal red book was a document entitled “Reviving Parliamentary Democracy: the Liberal Plan for House of Commons and Electoral Reform”. This document contained the Liberal promises for parliamentary reform. Upon taking office, the Prime Minister proceeded to ignore most of the recommendations in that document.
The ones that he did adopt were quickly controlled and abused. For example, the procedure to refer bills to committee before second reading. The reasons to refer a bill to committee before second reading is to allow for a wider scope of amendments and allow a committee to redraft a bill as it sees fit. In practice we ended up with the same old cabinet control over any changes to legislation. The Liberal committee members performed as they had always done, as puppets for the Prime Minister and his cabinet. Without free votes, the new procedure became useless.
In addition, the Liberals exploited the new rule as another means to invoke closure without notice. The new procedure has a limit of 180 minutes at the first stage. The trade off for this built in closure was supposed to be the admissibility for a wider scope of amendments.
(1325)
However, when the government began referring bills that were based on ways and means motions to committee before second reading in the 35th Parliament, it clearly showed its hand. These sorts of bills cannot be substantially amended so committee members could not take advantage of the new process. Instead of enhancing the role of members, the government used the new procedure in such a way that it actually impeded private members by curtailing debate at the first stage.
Here is another example. The Liberals also promised to appoint two opposition members to the Speaker's chair. That promise came from the Liberal plan to reform the House. On page 9 of the document it states:
| In order to enhance the independence of the Chair and in an effort to reduce the level of partisanship, when the Speaker is from the Government party, two of the junior Chair Officers should be from the Opposition, so that four presiding officer positions are shared equally by Government and Opposition. |
Once in power they totally ignored the idea. In the next session when they had to re-appoint the junior Chair officers, the Reform Party moved an amendment to the appointment motion, the adoption of which would have resulted in the appointment of an opposition member to the Chair. The House debated the amendment for three days and under closure the government voted the Reform amendment down securing all Chair occupants for government members and breaking another Liberal red book promise.
When the opportunity to appoint Chair officers presented itself again in the future, the Prime Minister implemented half of his promise by appointing one opposition member to the Chair. Ian McClelland was appointed Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole. The Prime Minister was quick to attach a condition to that appointment. Ian was not allowed to vote, giving the government a permanent pair.
In this Parliament we chose not to put forward a name because it was not worth making the same deal with the devil. Besides, the Liberals should implement their policies because they promised them, not because the opposition forced them to or because they saw an unintended self-serving opportunity.
Having said that, we did try once again to force the Liberal government to implement another one of its promised parliamentary reforms. In February 2001, my party introduced a motion to appoint an independent ethics commissioner who would report directly to Parliament. We lifted the policy word for word from the Liberal red book, introduced it as a motion and after debate the government voted it down, just like it did with its promise to appoint opposition members to the Chair.
Recently the member for LaSalle—Émard has been very vocal about the topic of parliamentary reform and he would like us to believe that he is sincere about positive change but his parliamentary record tells a different story. He too voted against his party's own parliamentary reform policies. The one promise I mentioned earlier that his government did implement, and subsequently abuse, was tailored to be the most demeaning to members when it was used for finance bills. I am talking about referring bills to committee before second reading. As you know, Mr. Speaker, he was the finance minister when these bills were being referred to committee before second reading and as a result the legislative role of members was hampered significantly.
I am puzzled why the member sat silent for nine years as his own supporters were forced to vote for policies that they did not believe in and vote against policies that they did believe in.
The Reform motion to compensate hepatitis C victims comes to mind. I remember seeing Liberal members in tears after being forced to vote against the motion. Now, after nine years of silence, when the member is revving up his leadership efforts, he hints at allowing for free votes. I urge all members to question his sincerity and examine the motivation behind his recent reform promises.
I will now move on to the secret ballot elections at committee. The secret ballot method of voting which was introduced to secure and protect the rights of the voter. I think it is essential that it be used.
One of the most remarkable reforms that came out of the McGrath recommendations was the reform that gave freedom to committees to set their own agendas without recourse to the House. However what good is that freedom when the Prime Minister controls it. We only have freedom when we can exercise it. Voting without secret ballot at committee clearly robs members of this freedom because they cannot exercise their free vote without fear of consequence. This has been the experience of open voting for hundreds of years.
(1330)
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the speech just given by my colleague. It brought to mind a number of serious breaches of the democratic process both in committee and also in the House where members are not given the freedom to vote the way they believe they should on a number of occasions. The one example that I am thinking of was the election of the chair.
Yesterday, this same member stood up in debate when a motion was proposed to appoint the Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole. She went to some length in arguing that democracy would be better served if that were done by secret ballot similar to the election of the Speaker.
I went through that fiasco in the finance committee where there was a whipped vote in the committee on the selection of the chair. Would the member tell us why is it that there is an advantage to the secret ballot? What is the reason behind it? What is wrong with standing up? We have had this debate about whether or not members should always vote in secret ballot and yet the other argument is, “No. I want my MP to stand up and show the world where he stands on these issues”. In that case there is the argument against voting in secret so that we can be held accountable. How does the member reconcile those two conflicting points of view?
Mrs. Carol Skelton:
Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. colleague for his question. I too have sat through committee meetings and have watched whipped votes. I find it uncomfortable. During committee we express our views. When members feel that they want to vote against something that the government is forcing on them it is their right and privilege as Canadian citizens to do that.
As we sit at our desks we have the right to openly vote our feelings and our constituents realize what we are doing. We are held accountable at home in our ridings for what we do in the House. My constituents know my feelings and respect them. If I voted in a whipped vote they would not appreciate it and I might not be here next time.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House to talk about the throne speech because it should be about the dreams of Canadians and how they see their future, not necessarily the dreams of a party and how it sees Canadians. We all have dreams and I would like to talk about some of the dreams that I have, as well as individuals in my riding.
Like many Canadians I have been thinking about retirement. After 37 years of working without being unemployed for even a day, I wonder if it is time. My lifelong savings in mutual funds and investments in the stock market are worth 45% of what I originally put in. Any bonds or liquid assets I have receive about 1.75% interest. To top it all off, the government taxes the few dollars I receive. Essentially my lifelong dream goes to a government that has an insatiable appetite for spending.
I wish the government would truly reflect some downsizing, stand up with courage and drop taxes substantially, take every possible cent it can find and pay down the debt and allow seniors the privilege of less taxes and more disposable income. However, these are just dreams. Like many people in Canada, we have dreams too. Those dreams are not necessarily met in the throne speech.
I watched the government when it was in opposition and the Conservatives lower the age of consensual sex from 16 to 14. Now older criminals are using our kids within the law for sex partners, prostitutes and drug sales. I witnessed the elimination of the Lord's Prayer from the House of Commons because it might have offended some other religion. I watched the government stand by and allow some obscure judge decide that pornography was okay to possess but not to produce. How does one possess pornography without someone producing it?
I recently saw an unelected, unaccountable Senate recommend after a three year study that we legalize marijuana and allow it to be smoked starting at age 16. Cigarettes cannot be smoked until age 18. Another obscure judge decided that marriage was no longer the legal union of a man and woman and the government stood by and did nothing.
I would like the government to stop being my social conscience and moral parent. I would like to see the Senate elected and accountable or eliminated. I want judges to ensure laws are upheld, not to make laws as they see fit. I wish politicians, the government in particular, would cherish Canadians for what they are and not for what they want them to be.
These are the things I would have liked to see reflected in the throne speech. The throne speech said the government would add more to legal aid. I have some experience there. A prisoner fell out of the top bunk of his cell and successfully sued the government for $250,000 using legal aid. The prison system has a zero tolerance policy on drugs but gives inmates bleach to sterilize their needles. Just what is the definition of contradiction over there?
Inmates set fire to a prison and successfully sued the government using legal aid because of smoke inhalation from the very fire they set. One of our own senior citizens cannot fight for her rights after some creep nearly beat her to death because she has no money for a lawyer.
I want legal aid stopped for criminals in prison. I want the prison system to make work the number one priority and insist that zero tolerance means no drugs in prison. However, these are just dreams. Like the government, we have dreams too.
(1335)
A man came to me the other day and wanted a grant to start a business. He did not want to borrow the money because there was a risk he might fail. Numerous working, young people come to me hoping I will help them write off their student loans because they cut into their disposable income. I watched as my own child left Canada to work in another country that offered less taxes, more benefits and more freedom of expression in the workplace.
I wish the government would wake up and inspire business and workers with less intrusion. I want our young to stay at home, feel responsible for their loans and be optimistic about their future. However, these are just dreams, dreams that were not reflected in the throne speech. We have dreams too.
While Canada wallows in debt I watched as the government forgave $2.8 million in debt owed to us by Colombia and $2.7 million by El Salvador. Now it will double foreign aid by billions. I watched as Canada gave $120,000 to the Prisoners' HIV/AIDS Support Action Network, $54,600 to the United Steelworkers of America and $51,000 to the British Columbia Teachers' Federation, but not one red cent to any one of the 39 struggling drug rehabilitation centres for our youth.
I worry when $249,000 is given to develop a local movie about Frank/The Rabbit, a film about how humans and rabbits formulate and justify beliefs. I wish the government would spend my money as though it was its own. I wish we could all learn to live within our means and I wish money would help end evil not be the root of it. However, these are just dreams, dreams that were not reflected in the statement by the government as to where it is going. We all have dreams.
Two more home invasions occurred the other day in my immediate area. There are young people beating elderly people to death. Where have their values gone? Better yet, why have we stopped teaching them? My area is now noted for problems with young people prostituting themselves and for car theft. Both are signs of a deteriorating society and major drug problems. While these problems continue to grow at a rapid pace I watch drug rehabilitation centres close for lack of commitment and funding from all levels of government.
I sat in disbelief with a family as some obscure judge awarded a criminal a sentence much too low for murdering that family's daughter. The loss in confidence in our justice system is more than justified from the victim's point of view.
I wish we could get back to the self-respect, the discipline, the values and the integrity we had and were noted for. I wish schools, parents and governments would stop listening to the vocal minority libertarians out there who would have no discipline, no values and no self-respect in our society. However, these are just dreams, dreams not reflected in the government's statement.
I wrote a victims bill of rights in 1994. It became law in 1998, in part. I wrote the legislation for the national sex offender registry, which the government committed to, and it did not even show up in the throne speech. I initiated the House of Commons special committee on drugs to look at drugs and the government announces, heaven forbid, that it is headed toward decriminalization without even waiting for the report.
(1340)
Finally, I wish governments would take good ideas and implement them, even if it means swallowing that bitter pill of humility because someone else thought of them first. All the good ideas do not come just from over there, from a throne speech. They come from the hearts and minds of Canadians. These are all just dreams, dreams we all have. We should not be listening just to the dreams the Liberal government has for all of us, with nothing in return.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying how saddened I was to hear of the passing of our hon. colleague, Ron Duhamel. He was a friend. He was an honourable and respected member of this chamber. I know we will all miss him very much.
Yesterday's throne speech and today's speech by the Prime Minister provide Canadians with an important road map for our journey through the next few years of the new millennium. They are important documents. I certainly commend them to all Canadians, who can check the Prime Minister's website or their own members' websites to read these importance words and guides for Canadians.
I believe that one of the most important themes in the throne speech is one that has been one with us for some time. It is the issue of child poverty, on which I would like to focus my comments today.
Poverty is one of the least understood issues in Canada. Advocacy groups call it child poverty and it tugs at the heartstrings of all caring persons. They have evoked images of children starving in the streets and they report that the problem has increased by almost 50% over the past decade. Who could possibly be against eliminating child poverty? The bold reality is that poverty in Canada is more a matter of social poverty, not economic poverty. I will explain that.
There is also a heated debate going on today in the backrooms of government on how to define poverty. The positions range from the deprivation of food, clothing and shelter to not being able to more fully participate in Canadian society. This debate is on absolute versus relative measures of poverty. Once we get this resolved, it will become the foundation of social welfare in Canada. It will also define the level of poverty that we are prepared to tolerate in Canada.
In the absence of an official poverty line in Canada, groups such as Campaign 2000 relied on LICOs, low-income cut-offs, as a measurement. The current data suggests that 17% of Canadians are significantly below the income of the average Canadian family. This is a relative measure and anti-poverty groups use it as a measure of who is poor in Canada. However, the measure does have a number of flaws. For example, 40% of the families considered poor under the LICO measurement actually own their own homes. Of those, one-half do not even have a mortgage. We have to ask ourselves: Is a family who owns its own home free and clear really living in poverty in Canada?
On February 11, 1999, Parliament debated the issue, as we did back in 1989, I believe, when there was that famous resolution to seek to achieve the elimination of poverty by the year 2000. The speeches covered the same range of relevant information but no one noticed. No one really noticed. Not only was the substance the same as the 1989 statistics, but the statistics were significantly more tragic. How is it that nobody cared? I begin to believe that maybe Canadians do not see poverty in their own neighbourhoods and do not believe it exists.
It is important that Canadians understand that poverty exists and what the characteristics of poverty really are.
Anti-poverty groups are growing in size and influence. They report annually on the growing level of poverty in Canada and fiercely lobby governments to act. More jobs, more social assistance, more social housing, more tax benefits for families with children, more money for health care and early childhood development, more employment insurance benefits, and more subsidized day care are but a few of the solutions offered by anti-poverty groups.
They universally accept LICO as the measure of poverty for one simple reason: It is an economic measure that calls for economic solutions. If they had to address the root causes of poverty, it would open up a Pandora's box that clearly no one wants to face.
Homelessness has also become the latest focus for poverty in Canada. In January 1999, a task force chaired by Anne Golden issued a report on the homeless in Toronto, declaring that there were workable solutions. They wanted to engage all levels of government to come up with these workable solutions and set up their responsibilities. However, if we were to look closely at the report, we would find some interesting statistics. Of the homeless identified in Toronto, 35% were mentally ill, 15% were aboriginals off reserve, 10% were abused women, and 28% were youths, of whom 70% had experienced physical or sexual abuse. In addition, the majority of these homeless were abusers of drugs and of alcohol.
(1345)
In Toronto they found out that 47% of the homeless did not even come from Toronto. They had migrated from other centres. This is the urban magnet.
It is clear that Canadian cities right across the country are not doing their share to provide the services and the care for those who need it.
These are the causes of homelessness. They are the same causes of poverty. People who live in squalor on the streets in Canada, sadly, represent those whom no one loves.
Another point on this whole issue of poverty has to do with the family. Lone parent families represent about 15% of the families in Canada, but sadly they also account for about 54% of all children living in poverty. The rate of family breakdown is almost 40% in Canada. The incidence of domestic violence continues at record levels. Alcohol and drug abuse in our schools and our communities have escalated, with tragic consequences. Unwanted teen pregnancies continue to rise. Close to 30% of students drop out of high school and become Canada's poor in waiting. Nearly 25% of all children enter adult life with significant mental, social or behavioural problems. They represent the social poverty in our society and are the root causes of the vast majority of the economic poverty in Canada.
If poverty in Canada is a horror and national disgrace, then the breakdown of the Canadian family is the principal cause of that disgrace. Those who express outrage at poverty but do not express the same outrage about the breakdown of the Canadian family are truly in denial. However, in these days of political correctness, the family and its structure and condition represent a minefield through which few are prepared to tread. Anti-poverty groups have meekly sidestepped the social poverty dimension. However, if we are not prepared to address social poverty in Canada then we are effectively choosing to tolerate the very poverty that we seek to eliminate.
There are solutions, but the solutions must be to stabilize the situations of those who are unable to care for themselves or those who cannot care for themselves because of disabilities or other challenges that they have in life.
I believe that the solution has to do with dealing with those who have the problem now, with stabilizing their situation while we stop the creation of new poor. We have to stop the creation of new poor, which means that we have to raise one healthy, well-adjusted generation of children who have good social, moral and family values, and it means that our educators and legislators have to promote and defend those values that I believe children have. If we raise this healthy generation of children, it will then propagate another generation of children who have the same value system. They will propagate another generation of children who will not aspire to live on welfare, who will ensure that they get a proper education and who will ensure that they are going to be contributing members of Canadian society.
I cannot speak strongly enough about how important it is for Canadians to be engaged in the issue of child poverty. It is family poverty; it is not child poverty. It is not economic poverty; it is social poverty. There are very important reasons why Canadians should be engaged in defining what that poverty is, in addressing its current problems, and in spending less money on trying to provide sources of assistance after there is a problem and trying to mitigate the incidence of the problem in the first place.
Our children are a function of the society in which they live. Those who become our future poor do so because of our failure to put their interests ahead of our own.
Collectively we are responsible for the poverty that exists in Canada today. It is therefore our collective responsibility to resolve both its social and its economic causes.
(1350)
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I feel a little guilty dominating the debate in comments and questions, but I always look around to give other people a chance. They do not rise to the occasion, so here I am.
I enjoyed the speech of the hon. member opposite because I agree with him that children generally are not living in poverty unless their families are. There might be some exceptions, but for most cases that is true. Even those in the richest families will not give thousands of dollars to a five-year-old, so in fact as children independent from their parents they are really very poor.
I have two comments with respect to this speech. First I would like the hon. member opposite to comment on the definitions that are used for poverty. By the definitions that I have heard from time to time, my wife and I and our kids lived in poverty for a number of years. I remember that one of the criteria for poverty was not taking a vacation that took a person at least 100 miles from home in the last year. That was one of the characteristics of someone living in poverty.
For many years my wife and I had limited vacations because of the commitments we made. As I have said before in the House, we lived on 30% of my salary because about 50% of it went to taxes at all different levels, hopefully 10% went for preparation for our future retirement and another 10% went to charity, which is sort of a rule of thumb, although sometimes it was more. We ended up living on 30% of what I earned as a single wage-earner so that my wife could be a full-time mom. That government policy was very detrimental to us. I would like the hon. member to qualify the definition of poverty, because we never felt poor, but we were.
The second thing I would like to--
An hon. member: Time.
Mr. Ken Epp: Okay, let him answer.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
(1355)
The Deputy Speaker:
Simply by way of a compliment, the hon. member for Elk Island always seems to be able to get the Chair's eye and that is why he is granted the floor as often as he is.
A response from the hon. member for Mississauga South.
Mr. Paul Szabo:
Mr. Speaker, definition certainly is an important aspect. I know that the Government of Canada and the provinces have been working for some years on what is called a market-basket measure, which would be a different definition. It involves food, shelter and clothing, plus an allowance for other things, which would allow someone to actually live in their community without being noticed. I think it is an important concept that we should discuss.
I would also like to suggest to the hon. member that there is another aspect to the definition of poverty. It is the manufactured poverty. Manufactured poverty occurs when a family that is not living in poverty breaks down and there are then two principal residences. By mathematics and definition, the two people both reduce down to living in poverty because they spend such a high proportion of their disposable income or income on housing. Manufactured poverty is also another issue.
Statements by Members
[S. O. 31]
* * *
[Translation]
International Day of Older Persons
Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker,
|
|
Youth is the time to study wisdom, age the time to practise it. |
So said Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
It is with a great deal of admiration and appreciation that I pay tribute to the millions of Canadian men and women who, today, will be celebrating the International Day of Older Persons. This is an opportunity to reflect upon their huge contribution to society.
The concerns of our older citizens can be summed up in three words: health, dignity and security. We need to ensure that the rights of all those who built this country are wholly respected.
With the greying of our population, I call upon all Canadians to take advantage of this opportunity to acknowledge the important role of elders of our society and to encourage mutual respect and assistance between the generations.
* * *
[English]
International Day of Older Persons
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the General Assembly of the United Nations has designated today, October 1, as International Day of Older Persons and in so doing recognizes the important contribution seniors make to our society.
The Canadian Alliance believes that not one Canadian senior in this country should be in distress because of a lack of service or support: by managing the Canada Pension Plan properly; by administering sensible tax policies that support families; by committing to health care and ensuring that the services that seniors require are there when they need them; and by making our streets safe and our communities strong so that Canadian seniors are free to fully participate in their communities.
With a concerted effort from all levels of government, we can achieve the kind of healthy, productive, independent living Canadian seniors deserve. By creating an environment that benefits our seniors, we continue to ensure their valuable contribution to Canadian society.
* * *
Jack Burghardt
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Jack Burghardt, former member of Parliament for London West, died Saturday at the age of 73. Mr. Burghardt was a well-known and highly respected newscaster in both Hamilton and London, where he was the outstanding news anchorman for 10 years.
After serving as a Liberal MP from 1981 to 1984, Jack turned to municipal politics and served as deputy mayor of the City of London from 1985 to 1994. I had the pleasure to serve with him on city council during those years and saw firsthand his dedicated and outstanding service to Londoners.
Jack was a strong Christian and after his political career ended he became the full time pastor and minister to two United Churches near London.
A dedicated father, a man of many talents, a proud Canadian and a great friend, Jack Burghardt was loved and respected by so many people. He was truly a gentle man. We extend our sincere sympathies.
May he rest in peace.
* * *
(1400)
Jack Burghardt
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on September 28 Londoners were deeply saddened to learn that Jack Burghardt, member of Parliament for London West from 1981 to 1984, had passed away.
Jack Burghardt was one of London's best known and most loved citizens. Londoners quickly adopted Jack Burghardt as one of their own when he came to London in 1971 to anchor the evening news. For the next decade, Jack's booming and trusted voice would deliver the day's events throughout the living rooms of southwestern Ontario.
Jack was committed to the health and well-being of his city and its people. He was talented, respected and admired. The love of his community inspired him to seek and win federal office in 1981. Following a successful term as the member of Parliament for London West, he entered municipal politics in 1985 and was elected deputy mayor for three successive terms. Under his financial stewardship, London was named the best run city in the country in 1992.
Londoners join me in extending our most heartfelt sympathies to Jack's family for their recent loss. We join with them in remembering and celebrating the life of a wonderful father, citizen and friend.
* * *
International Music Day
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, today, October 1, is International Music Day. The famous violinist and musicologist, Yehudi Menuhin, first proclaimed this day 27 years ago right here in Ottawa. Since then it has been celebrated in many countries, including in cities across Canada.
International Music Day highlights the universal importance of music. Music promotes the ideals of peace and friendship between people, the evolution of their cultures and the reciprocal exchange and appreciation of aesthetic values. Music knows no borders and transcends language barriers. Music touches each and every one of us.
Canada can be proud to have a great number of musicians who have, or have had, most exceptional careers: Glenn Gould, Maureen Forrester, Oscar Peterson, Ben Heppner, Robbie Robertson, Kevin Parent and Nelly Furtado just to name a few.
Please join me in wishing everyone a wonderful and inspiring International Music Day.
* * *
National Memorial Day
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, this last Sunday police and peace officers from across the country gathered on Parliament Hill and in local services to honour their colleagues who died in the line of duty this past year.
On behalf of the Canadian Alliance I would like to pay tribute to these brave men and women who so selflessly and honourably served their fellow citizens. As we honour these men and women, let us remember that their ultimate sacrifice was in the course of fulfilling the pledge they made to protect the lives of others.
We offer our deepest condolences to the families and friends of these officers as well as the police and peace services and communities that have lost officers in the past year and years past.
* * *
Aboriginal Affairs
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, today the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Nunavut Minister of Culture, Language, Elders and Youth will sign a renewal of the Canada-Nunavut General Agreement on the Promotion of French and Inuktitut Languages.
The Government of Canada is committed to protecting the cultural identity of Inuit through the recognition, revitalization, preservation, use and development of Inuktitut and to provide for community involvement.
The agreement also ensures the provision of French services in the Government of Nunavut and supports community development in compliance with the Nunavut Official Languages Act.
The federal government's contribution will amount to $2.55 million; $1.1 million for Inuit community based projects in Inuktitut and $1.45 million for French language services and community projects.
* * *
[Translation]
International Day of Older Persons
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, twelve years ago, the United Nations designated October 1 the International Day of Older Persons. This was a way of acknowledging their contribution to social development and their indispensable role in intergenerational cooperation.
Seniors are the living repositories of our past. They can share the sum and significance of their experience with the younger generations; their stories and comments in connection with milestone events of our people make it possible for the rest of us to discover more about the fascinating events, heroic even, of our history.
Seniors are actively involved in their communities. They constitute an increasingly large segment of our society. They are partners in change, a change that could not take place without their knowledge, their wisdom, and their willingness to get involved for the sake of their nation.
On this, the first day of October, I wish to pay tribute to our older persons and to express my conviction that we must tap the rich human potential they represent for the benefit of our communities.
* * *
(1405)
[English]
Ronald Duhamel
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is an ache in our hearts today. Members of the House have lost a true and valued friend in the death yesterday of Ron Duhamel who served as the member for Saint Boniface from 1988 to early 2002 when he was appointed to the Senate.
It was a privilege and honour to work alongside Ron for nearly 14 years. He had a deep passion for Canada and I witnessed that each and every day he worked on Parliament Hill. He cared about people and understood that government played a vital role in improving the human condition. That made him an outstanding parliamentarian and public servant.
I will never forget his decency, his humanity and his kindness. To know him was to love him. He will be greatly missed. May he rest in peace.
On behalf of my wife and myself, I wish to extend my heartfelt sympathy to the Duhamel family.
* * *
Income Tax
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, this is the 85th anniversary of the introduction of one of Canada's biggest broken promises. We have both the Liberal and Conservative Parties to thank for this occasion.
It was in 1917 when Prime Minister Robert Borden introduced the very temporary income tax law. It was only a temporary measure he assured Canadians.
Arthur Meighen took office as the head of the new coalition of federal Liberal and Conservative Parties. He maintained the temporary income tax.
He was followed by Mackenzie King who increased the temporary tax. Successive Liberal and Conservative governments over the past 85 years have done the same.
This is also the ninth anniversary of another whopper. Nine years ago the Liberals promised to abolish, scrap, kill the GST; that hated tax introduced by the Conservative government. Who said there is any difference between those two parties?
* * *
Ronald Duhamel
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I too stand to pay tribute to the hon. Ron Duhamel who died last night. Sincerest condolences go out to his wife Carolyn and his three daughters.
Ron was my friend. He was also my mentor when I was elected to the House. I shall miss his wise counsel and friendship greatly.
I will remember Ron in many ways, but in particular I will recall most fondly his desire to help young people. Ron was an educator. Nothing pleased him more than to participate in the education of young people, be it through his work in the Manitoba school system to here in the House working with the interns and pages of parliament. I know Ron was most happy during his annual school supply drive, and what a success it has been.
Ron Duhamel had many roles: a husband, a father, a proud Manitoban, indeed a proud Franco-Manitoban. He was a minister of the Crown and an honourable senator, but most of all he was a gentle spirit, a gentleman and a good friend.
* * *
Stuart Leggatt
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to another of our former colleagues, a former member of the House, Stuart Leggatt, who served with distinction from 1972 to 1979 as the New Democratic member of Parliament for New Westminster-Burnaby.
Stuart had a long history of distinguished public service as an elected official at the local level, the federal level and at the provincial level, and was a respected judge of the B.C. county court and supreme court for many years. His colleagues referred to him as “the People's Judge”.
As a member of Parliament, Stuart was respected on all sides of the House. He took a courageous and visionary stand on many issues as justice critic for our party, issues like freedom of choice on abortion, gun control, capital punishment, ending discrimination based upon sexual orientation, and prisoners' rights. Stuart was a fine, compassionate person who made a tremendous contribution to public life.
On behalf of my New Democratic colleagues, particularly the member for Regina--Qu'Appelle who served with him, and indeed all members of the House, we extend our sincere condolences to his wife Marlene and children David, Carrie and Anne and other members of his family.
* * *
(1410)
Speech from the Throne
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday's throne speech completely ignored the issues most relevant to Atlantic Canada. Despite the fact that foreign overfishing, resource protection and Canada's role in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization have become national concerns, not a single word was mentioned about the fishery in yesterday's recycled material.
Where is the commitment to let resource rich provinces benefit primarily from the development of their resources? The silence is deafening.
The Prime Minister wants to sign off on Kyoto. He is concerned about the environment. He is willing to trample on provincial jurisdictions. There are 1001 ways to protect the environment. He can start by protecting the fishery off Newfoundland, an area within unchallenged federal jurisdiction.
The environment is being destroyed, a way of life is being destroyed, a region of Canada is being destroyed, and this is his legacy.
The Speaker:
I understand there is agreement to proceed with one minute statements in respect of our former colleague.
* * *
[Translation]
Ronald Duhamel
[Tribute]
Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it was with a heavy heart last night that we learned of the passing of my predecessor, the hon. Ronald Duhamel. Mr. Duhamel fought a courageous fight against cancer for more than three years. The riding of Saint Boniface was privileged to have had a member of the stature of Mr. Duhamel.
Known for his devotion to his country, and more particularly for western Canada, Mr. Duhamel knew how to represent all of the constituents of his riding. It is important to underscore his contribution to the Franco-Manitoban community, a community he was extremely proud of, and one that was very thankful in kind.
[English]
Mr. Duhamel was a person of integrity and a tireless worker who accomplished so much in his lifetime. His commitment to youth and their advancement was legendary in Manitoba.
As a recent member of Parliament, I regret I did not have a greater opportunity to work with Senator Duhamel in caucus, as I am convinced that Canada would have continued to benefit enormously from his experience and his wisdom.
I am certain I speak for my colleagues from Manitoba and indeed all members in the House in wishing his family our most sincere condolences and courage in this most difficult period. I was extremely fortunate to have him as an adviser, as a mentor, but more important, and I say this with humility, as a friend.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Canadian Alliance I rise today to pay tribute to our distinguished friend and colleague, Senator Ron Duhamel.
Prior to his appointment to the Senate, Senator Duhamel served his country as a senior cabinet minister in the federal government, and before that his public service included holding the position of assistant deputy minister in the Department of Education in Manitoba.
As a former public servant in Manitoba as well, I can advise the House that he had a reputation as a distinguished public administrator.
As many members know, he received the Lieutenant Governor's Medal for Excellence in Public Administration in 1997.
Senator Duhamel also had a close connection to many francophone communities in my riding of Provencher. He understood better than many the concerns of that rural francophone minority.
Senator Duhamel will be missed by all Manitobans, including his former constituents who were well served by him for many years.
I wish to extend our condolences to his family and to his many friends.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Duhamel and I fought the same battle at around the same time, a fight that brought us together. He lost his fight, and left us too soon. However, the memory of his kindness will remain in our memories forever.
Born in Saint Boniface, Mr. Duhamel obtained his Ph.D. in 1973 from the University of Toronto. Before entering into active politics, he was a teacher, school principal, professor at the University of Manitoba, assistant deputy minister of education, and then deputy minister of education in Manitoba.
He was first elected to the House of Commons in 1988, then re-elected in 1993 and 1997. He held a number of cabinet positions, including Secretary of State for Science, Research and Development, for Western Economic Diversification, and for the Francophonie as well as Minister of Veterans Affairs.
The driving force in his life was sharing his knowledge and commitment to democracy. The Francophonie has lost a tireless champion.
The Bloc Quebecois offers its sincere condolences to his wife Carolyn and his daughters Kathy, Nathalie and Karine.
(1415)
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, today is a very sad day for the Senate, the House of Commons, Manitoba, the community of St. Boniface, the Franco-Manitoban community, and above all, the family of our former colleague, Ron Duhamel.
[English]
Ron had a distinguished career as an educator, as a senior civil servant in the province of Manitoba, as the MP for Saint Boniface and as veterans affairs minister up until recently when he was appointed to the Senate. He was known for his competence and for his dedication to Manitoba. Locally he was known for his annual school supplies drive, which reflected no doubt his earlier career in education and his concern for students.
[Translation]
On behalf of the New Democratic Party, I wish to offer our sincere condolences to his wife Carolyn and his daughters Kathy, Nathalie and Karine.
[English]
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I too rise in the House today to mourn the loss of a fellow Manitoban, a colleague of this House and, most recently, a colleague of the Senate.
Senator Ron Duhamel passed away last night at the much too young age of 64. I had the personal opportunity of knowing Mr. Duhamel as the deputy minister of education and as the senior cabinet minister of Manitoba. His tireless work on behalf of the people of Manitoba speaks for itself. His conscientious work and approachable manner, despite the carrying of a different political stripe, gives ample witness to his dedication, to his beliefs and to the people whom he represented.
On behalf of my constituency of Brandon--Souris, which he also helped on numerous occasions, on behalf of all Manitobans and on behalf of my party, the caucus of the Progressive Conservative Party, I offer my deepest condolences and sympathy to his family and to all those who knew him. He will be desperately missed. Au revoir, mon ami.
[Translation]
The Speaker:
I invite all honourable members to observe a minute of silence in memory of our friend and former colleague, the Honourable Senator Ron Duhamel.
[Editor's Note: The House stood in silence.]
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Oral Questions]
* * *
[English]
Kyoto Protocol
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday's throne speech told Canadians a lot about the government's political strategy on the Kyoto accord but nothing about how it intended to implement Kyoto.
A growing array of provinces, prominent Canadians and national business organizations have all agreed that Kyoto will devastate our economy.
My question is quite straightforward. How can the government commit to ratifying Kyoto without having any plan to implement it?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the ministers at this moment are dealing with their provincial counterparts. They have had many meetings so far. A meeting is being held at this moment with industry and other possible partners. A meeting will be held at the end of this month between provincial ministers and federal ministers, and we intend to have a plan.
There will be a vote before the end of the year on the ratification.
Many countries have implemented or have voted for Kyoto without any plans at all. Here in Canada we have had discussions for months and years. We will have a plan and we will proceed before the end of the year with a vote in the House of Commons.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the government has already had five years to work on a plan and it has failed to deliver. The government has not told Canadians what the cost of Kyoto will be and reportedly the cost of Kyoto has even been withheld from the cabinet.
Will the government come clean and table its own estimates as to what the costs of Kyoto will be for ordinary Canadians?
(1420)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the opposition always asks us to consult before moving. We are doing consultation. Everybody would be very disappointed with us if we were to just say what is the end result.
We are having consultations. We will develop the plan in consultation. We will make it public. After that parliament will vote on it and the country will have 10 years to implement it.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we are not just saying that the government should consult before moving. We are saying that it should not move until it knows where it is going.
[Translation]
In the case of the Kyoto accord, the Liberal government keeps feeding Canadians unfounded rhetoric. This accord will have devastating consequences for our economy. Canadians deserve a clear explanation.
How is the Kyoto accord going to work, and how much will it cost Canadians?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that the government has had to act in the public interest. We acted in its interest when we eliminated lead from gasoline. People said that it would be disastrous for the oil industry. It was done without any harm to anyone.
In my own riding, everyone was afraid because there were new standards for the six paper mills in the Mauricie valley, and they were going to shut down if stringent anti-pollution standards were enforced. The measures were enforced, the six companies are prospering, and the region's ecology is the better for it.
* * *
Finance
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party's last budget was tabled in the fall of 2001. According to the Prime Minister, the next budget will be tabled in 2003. We cannot wait that long, considering the huge costs included in the Speech from the Throne.
Why does the Prime Minister not table a budget this fall?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance will decide when a budget shall be tabled. A very important matter for our government is the promise I made to meet with provincial premiers to discuss the issue of health early in the new year. It might be wise to meet with the premiers before tabling a budget. This is why we may postpone the budget from December to February, so as to be in a better position to provide the Minister of Finance with every available option.
[English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the throne speech has 59 promises in it, some, of course, recycled. We deserve to know what these promises will cost. That means a budget. A return to an annual budget in fact would be real nice.
Could Canada have a budget this year to cost out this Prime Minister's legacy promises, yes or no?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have a pretty good record. We have had five consecutive balanced budgets in Canada.
We had a $42 billion deficit from the last Conservative government administration and we have managed to produce a balanced budget. There will be another balanced budget because we have good administration on this side of the House of Commons.
* * *
[Translation]
Kyoto Protocol
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, at the Johannesburg summit, the Prime Minister said that Parliament would be called upon to ratify the Kyoto protocol before the holiday season. This firm commitment does not, however, appear in the throne speech. There is instead mention of a resolution before the end of the year.
Could the Prime Minister tell us clearly whether or not Parliament is going to ratify the Kyoto protocol before we adjourn for the holiday season?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I said that there would be a vote on the ratification of Kyoto in the House of Commons before the end of the current year.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne, the government says the following, in connection with the Kyoto protocol, “As part of the Kyoto protocol, Canada agreed to obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2012”.
If the Prime Minister is really committed to ratifying the Kyoto protocol, why does the throne speech refer to “obligations” without specifying “all obligations”? With such wording, is the Prime Minister not reneging on his commitments?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have said and say again, it is the Canadian government's intention to respect the criteria, which means that, by 2012, we will have reduced Canada's CO2 emissions by 6% compared to the 1990 level.
(1425)
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of the Environment said that he felt it was possible that we might not meet the objectives for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions set out in the Kyoto protocol.
In making this statement, is the Minister of the Environment not announcing in advance that he is giving up, that he already accepts that we might not reach the objectives that were set, when in fact he should be the one leading the offensive, motivating the industry? He should do his part and state clearly that, in the end, we will fully respect the objectives of the Kyoto protocol.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am fully confident that we will meet the objective of 6% below the 1990 levels by the year 2010. I am also confident about the years 2008 to 2012.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of the Environment not aware that the message he is sending gives hope to those who oppose the Kyoto protocol, rather than setting the bar higher and letting them know that the only choice for the government is to fully enforce the commitments contained in the Kyoto protocol?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I just mentioned, we will reach the Prime Minister's objective and that of the Government of Canada. If other interests in Canada oppose this, it is a free country. However, as far as we are concerned, the Government of Canada will reach the objective.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
After five years of foot dragging on the path to Kyoto ratification, the Prime Minister finally in Johannesburg made an unequivocal commitment to ratify, but some weasel words snuck into yesterday's throne speech which referred to a government resolution on the issue of ratifying Kyoto, creating renewed ambiguity.
Will the Prime Minister allay concerns about the weasel words and state unequivocally today that the government will ratify the Kyoto accord before the end of the year?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is a technicality because the ratification is an act of the government, not of Parliament. However, we will consult Parliament before the government ratifies.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the concerns do not stop there. Yesterday the health minister stated that she could not make a decision about the Kyoto ratification until she saw the implementation plan.
Here is the problem: her colleague, the environment minister, said yesterday that he would not present a plan before the vote on ratification.
In Johannesburg the Prime Minister said “we are finalizing an implementation plan that will permit us to achieve the objectives of the Kyoto Accord.”
I ask the Prime Minister again, when will the implementation plan be brought forward and shared with Canadians?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I explained earlier, there will be a meeting of the responsible ministers and their provincial counterparts before the end of this month to look at the plans to see what can be done collectively to achieve the goals that we have for 2012.
Of course there is always debate in my government, and it is normal. It is good because I have good ministers and they want to express their views. However, at the end of the day when the government makes a decision, the decision is a decision of the government.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
I placed on the order paper a motion that would establish a special joint committee of Parliament to allow provinces, environmentalists, industry, consumers and other interested Canadians the opportunity to present their views on the impact of the ratification or non-ratification of the Kyoto protocol.
Will the Prime Minister support the establishment of such a joint committee? Will he make available to us the relevant information, including the implementation plan and his government's regional, sectoral and other impact analysis?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I said there will be a debate before the end of the year and there will be a vote.
At this moment the work is being done with the provinces and industry on that subject. There will be ratification if it is approved by the House of Commons. The implementation of the plan will be done between 2002 and 2012.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC):
Mr. Speaker, if Parliament is to vote, it would be useful if it had the facts. Again, my question is for the Prime Minister. The member for LaSalle—Émard said about the Kyoto protocol:
|
|
Canadians are entitled to know what those costs are, what they're going to be asked to bear, and that it is going to be done in a way that is equitable and fair right across the country, region by region. |
Does the Prime Minister agree with that statement by his colleague, and if so, will he table in the House the implementation plan and the regional, sectoral and other impact analysis?
(1430)
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as has been made clear a number of times in the House, the work is ongoing with the provinces, territories and industry. We believe that we should have a made in Canada plan that brings in all parts of the country in creating the plan and, of course, ultimately implementing that plan.
This is not an issue which is forced upon the provinces or territories by the federal government. Indeed, people from all parts of the country represented in the House will have an opportunity to vote on that very question of ratification.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we have an interesting quote from the health minister. She said, “An awful lot of countries have ratified Kyoto without a plan and that to me is irresponsible and frightening”.
I found yesterday's ambiguous Kyoto reference in the throne speech rather frightening. The Prime Minister cannot convince his own cabinet to ratify without a plan. When will he drop this irresponsible and frightening scheme and give Canadians his exact plan for ratifying Kyoto?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has heard the Prime Minister this afternoon detailing exactly what he intends to do with respect to ratification and with respect to the vote in the House.
Certainly with respect to the remarks made there are many countries that have not done the analysis that Canada has done on this important issue. We intend to work with the provinces, territories and the committee established under the chairmanship of Peter Lougheed to ensure that we do in fact have a plan which is acceptable from coast to coast.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, what is frightening for Canadians is that the Prime Minister is not telling them how many jobs will be lost, how much gas will cost at the fuel pump or how much more their heating bills or lighting bills will go up.
When will the Prime Minister tell his cabinet and Canadians what Kyoto will cost them?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that there has been ongoing analysis for the past five years which has been done by the provinces and territories in consultation with industry. We have also had consultations with the general Canadian public.
It is very clear that we have done in fact, as has been said internationally time after time, more work on analysis than any other country that has been engaged in this process.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, during the summer, the Minister of Health said that she was opposed to the implementation of the Kyoto protocol. Yesterday, she again expressed strong reservations as to the position that she would take on this issue.
Will the Minister of the Environment admit that the lack of clarity and determination in his statements, his backtracking and the qualifications that he makes when discussing the Kyoto accord are the result of a deep split within cabinet itself, a split that jeopardizes the Kyoto accord?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Not at all, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps something was lost in the translation, because my colleague was on side with us and with the whole cabinet. The Liberal Party also wants the Kyoto protocol to be ratified.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the positions of the Minister of Health on this issue are well known, but we have a Prime Minister who is on borrowed time.
The main contender for the job of Prime Minister has never committed himself on the issue of the Kyoto accord.
The Minister of Health has very serious reservations. The Minister of Industry supports the accord half-heartedly. In light of this situation, will the Kyoto accord not be the first casualty of the lack of leadership in this government?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, things are quite clear. The Prime Minister clearly indicated what the Government of Canada wants to do and will do.
As for my colleague, the hon. Minister of Health, she did mention that it is important to know the details. This is why it is so critical to have the cooperation of the provinces and territories in order to draft in Canada a plan that can achieve the desired goal.
* * *
[English]
National Defence
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the first responsibility of the government is the security of our nation and the safety of all Canadians. The government has failed to provide that security.
Yesterday, as our soldiers stood out in the rain standing guard, the government recognized almost every other group but them. It promised money for infrastructure, social programs and housing but it found nothing for our military, its first responsibility. There was nothing for new uniforms or new helicopters. Why?
(1435)
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, not only did the throne speech explicitly recognize the four who were killed in Afghanistan and the response of Canadians to that but it went on to say that by the end of the mandate we would ensure that the Canadian Forces were equipped to do whatever the government wanted them to do in the world.
Not only that, we are as we speak heavily engaged in consultations and in studies of sustainability of our Canadian Forces to ensure that we have the fittest, strongest Canadian Forces for the 21st century.
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the member said, “heavily engaged in consultations.” That is what the government has done for the military today. Both the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of National Defence have already scuttled the Prime Minister's idea to conduct full-scale defence reviews.
The defence minister claims that the 1994 white paper is still solid but that white paper provided a commitment to the defence of our nation which the government has not honoured.
If the 1994 white paper is still the government's pledge to the Canadian people when it comes to security then why does the government refuse to provide the resources our troops need to meet those commitments?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in the first place it is hardly in my power to scuttle any plans the Prime Minister might have. What we are in fact doing is carrying out our job in a serious manner.
Canadians want us to be serious at this time of global tensions and a possible war in Iraq. We are working very hard with stakeholders in studying the capabilities of our military, and hoping and planning to put in place armed forces for the future which will respond to the needs of all Canadians in the 21st century.
* * *
[Translation]
Softwood Lumber
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the softwood lumber dispute is hitting the forest industry and its workers hard. Yesterday, in the Speech from the Throne, the government passed up a wonderful opportunity to announce a series of specific measures to help the victims of this trade dispute. The industry is disappointed that there is nothing in the Speech from the Throne, and workers still need help.
How does the Prime Minister explain that he did not feel it essential to take a stand on this important issue in the Speech from the Throne?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, good progress continues to be made in discussions with the Americans on the issue of softwood lumber. The Department of Commerce has indicated a willingness to take another look at the file with a view to coming up with a long term policy to resolve the softwood lumber dispute permanently.
Mr. Aldonas visited the provinces. He toured the country. We are all working together on this. I must say that I think we have definitely made some progress, and that more time may be needed, but we must continue our efforts.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that the United States is going to lose this dispute with us. The Americans think so too, but their strategy is to play for time in order to deal a fatal blow to many forestry operations.
Does the government not understand that it is already way behind in implementing a plan of assistance for forestry companies and workers and that any action that comes too late will be of no use in many cases?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear the Bloc Quebecois member support our government's strategy and express his confidence in the case we have before the international tribunals. It is true that we are ultimately going to win this dispute, and find a long term solution to the softwood lumber issue.
We have already announced $75 million in assistance to the industry for market development and R and D, as well as $20 million with the industry to promote our case in the United States. My colleagues, the Minister of Human Resources Development, the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Natural Resources are working to come up with new measures for our industry during—
The Speaker:
The hon. member for Edmonton North.
* * *
[English]
National Defence
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and our Sea King helicopters have something in common. They both arrived in 1963 and they both should have been retired long ago.
The Prime Minister said in 1993, “I'll take one piece of paper, I'll take my pen, I will write zero helicopters”. Sadly that is one promise that he has kept for far too long.
Now team Cormorant is saying that it will forgive the $500 million in penalties that the taxpayers of Canada paid when he cancelled the EH-101. Our first class military personnel deserve first class equipment.
When will he take that paper and pen and replace this aging fleet?
(1440)
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that helicopters are not a simple matter. We have had more than a thousand technical suggestions by industry on this matter and the fact remains the same. The bottom line is that we are doing our best to get the right helicopter at the right price as soon as possible.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, they may not be a simple matter, but they are surely old.
In 1994 the former defence minister said, “When we cancelled the EH-101 we did so with the full knowledge that the Sea Kings could last until the year 2000”. But incredibly a May 2001 DND memo said, “there is a strong potential that we will be conducting (Sea King) operations until 2015”.
We need to be concerned about the military. The government was awfully quick to buy executive jets for cabinet. It still has not even asked for bids for helicopter replacements.
Why is it so quick for cabinet and so slow for our troops?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is confusing two quite different transactions. In the case of the Challengers, it involved two planes. The value was $100 million or less and there was one possible supplier.
In the case of the maritime helicopter, it is a fleet of 28 helicopters at a price of some billions, not millions, and the involvement of several multinational consortia. The two are quite different transactions.
* * *
[Translation]
Highway Infrastructure
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
We are all aware of the importance highway 30 holds for the Montérégie and the greater Montreal region, not only for transportation, but also for the environment and for economic development. We have made commitment after commitment in connection with highway 30, which has been declared a priority, but to date all of us in the Montérégie are still waiting, with growing impatience, for the long awaited announcement.
What we in the Montérégie are waiting for is the signature of a federal-provincial-private sector agreement which will sanction this project. When will this be forthcoming and what is holding it up?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, to reassure the hon. member, the Government of Canada is working on the extension of highway 30 in partnership with the private sector and the provincial government.
We have begun the environmental and the traffic studies. I have no doubt that this highway will be extended shortly.
* * *
[English]
National Revenue
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, even as yesterday's throne speech tried to paint a progressive face on the government, the finance department is further tightening the screws on Canadians with disabilities.
The Federal Court called for a more humane and compassionate interpretation of disabilities, yet the government is bringing in new regulations to cut even more people off the disability tax credit.
Why is the government defying the advice of the courts, advocacy groups, the medical profession and the disability subcommittee to provide humane and compassionate tax relief to our most vulnerable citizens?
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we consider this matter very much a serious one. I am reviewing what the government has done with respect to deepening and broadening the disability tax credit. That is in fact the way to deal with these issues.
The hon. member will know that there are disability provisions in the Speech from the Throne. It is appropriate that we should decide the breadth and depth of the disability tax credit rather than the courts making decisions that are not the same as a policy that we would adopt in Parliament.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance as well.
We have just heard from my colleague about how some of the poorest of the poor are being shafted by the government in terms of the disability tax credit. While this is happening, the finance department is now proposing, get this, a tax change that would give a wealthy family in Montreal, the founding family of the Vidéotron company, a $180 million tax gift. They are among the wealthiest of the wealthy in this country.
I want the Minister of Finance to explain this. Why would the government consider giving a $180 million tax gift to a very wealthy family at the same time it is cutting back on a tax credit to the disabled people in this country? That is absolutely scandalous. The minister--
(1445)
The Speaker:
The hon. Minister of National Revenue.
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite should know that privacy provisions do not permit us to discuss individual tax cases on the floor of the House of Commons, but I can assure him that CCRA takes pride in the fact that it administers the tax laws in a way which is consistent and fair to all Canadians.
* * *
Finance
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC):
Mr. Speaker, throne speeches are about talk. Budgets are all about action.
Since the last election the Prime Minister has introduced two throne speeches and only one budget. This is the first government in Canadian history to introduce twice as many throne speeches as budgets.
With a health care system in chaos, a military in crisis and financial markets in a tailspin, we need a fall budget to address these issues and to provide a detailed costing of yesterday's throne speech promises.
What is the real reason the government is delaying a budget until sometime next year?
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think the opposition member is all about talk. We generally have a budget for each fiscal year. The fiscal year, as he knows, starts on the first of April. We will have a budget in advance of the first of April, as we did in advance of the last first of April. Whether it falls within a particular calendar year is really of no consequence.
* * *
National Defence
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC):
Mr. Speaker, some of the people who were most disappointed by yesterday's throne speech are the brave men and women of our military. Only a passing reference was made to our most courageous citizens, without any commitment to increase defence spending, and now we know we will not see a replacement for the Sea Kings until the Prime Minister retires so he does not have to debate the EH-101.
Will the Prime Minister give our armed forces a firm financial commitment today for new equipment and more personnel so they can do the job they need to do at home and abroad?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think there might have been more than one question in that question.
I would point out simply that in terms of pride in our military I share the hon. member's view. The fact of the massive response in Edmonton twice, once to the four deaths and secondly the largest response to homecoming soldiers since at least the second world war, indicates that the hon. member is not alone in being extremely proud of what our military has done.
As was cited in the throne speech, the government is committed to equip the army, the navy and the air force with the resources they need to carry on their duties.
* * *
Health
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, up to 10,000 Canadians die each year because of prescription drug reactions. Every year just under half of our seniors receive at least one inappropriate prescription. Prescribing errors account for over one-third of drug-related hospital admissions.
The throne speech announced faster drug approvals. Why did it say nothing about drug safety?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member probably is aware, some months ago we created the new marketed health products directorate at Health Canada. We have put additional resources into post-market surveillance to deal with the very issue that the hon. member has raised.
We are very concerned about adverse reactions in relation to drugs or other therapies and products. That is why we have enhanced our ability to do better and more timely surveillance to ensure the safety of the public.
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the throne speech did not address problems of addiction, over-prescription or medical errors in primary care.
Faster drug approval is a notable goal and in fact there are some health benefits for that, but the government is putting the cart before the horse when announcing faster drug approvals before dealing with drug safety.
How many deaths are acceptable to the minister? Is it 10,000, 15,000, 20,000? What is the number?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that this government and this department are very much concerned with drug safety. That is why, as I have indicated, we have put additional resources toward post-marketing surveillance so that in fact we can deal with incidents of adverse reaction.
I think the hon. member is probably also aware that last week a very important report was released in relation to patient safety. Only one part of patient safety is, of course, adverse reactions to drugs. My provincial-territorial colleagues and I are very committed to taking up the recommendations in and around patient safety and obviously adverse reactions to drugs will be part of that.
* * *
(1450)
[Translation]
Iraq
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne states that Canada will continue to work through international organizations such as the United Nations.
However, this broad commitment gives no specifics regarding the government's intentions and attitude in the event of possible action against Iraq.
Will the government make a commitment that Canada will under no circumstances participate in any strikes against Iraq without the UN's go-ahead?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, tonight we will all have the opportunity to debate this very serious situation in the world.
I can assure the member—though I am sure she is fully aware of this—, that the policy of the government has always been to act through the United Nations. We support the United Nations; we supported President Bush when he was before the United Nations and will continue to support a solution to this serious crisis through multilateral action. This is the policy of our government.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, will the government make a commitment to the effect that any decision to take action against Iraq, including in the context of the United Nations, will first be debated and voted on in the House before Canada takes part, and that there will not be a debate without any vote, after the troops have left, as was the case with Afghanistan?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to tonight's debate on this issue.
I am sure that the member and all members of the House will have the opportunity to express their concerns, their fears and their solutions with respect to this situation.
It has always been the policy of this government to consult the House. We will do so, as in the past, and we will listen to what the members have to say tonight with a great deal of attention and interest.
* * *
[English]
Softwood Lumber
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the government's handling of softwood is off the rails. When the 1996 softwood deal went sour, the Minister for International Trade said that it was a good deal and that even if it was a bad deal how dare we criticize it when the forest industry made him do it.
Predictably, the U.S. Department of Commerce is once again proceeding with its divide and conquer tactics. This time it is targeting the provinces rather than industry. When is the trade minister going to do his job and use his federal mandate to stop these U.S. divide and conquer tactics?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the strategy of our government has been very clear from day one on this. It is to find a long-term, policy-based strategy.
Now clearly we are doing our job when we resume discussions with the Americans to identify such a long-term, policy-based solution. We are going to the courts to get support from the WTO and NAFTA that the Canadian case is right. We are discussing with the Americans to identify an earlier resolution to this conflict. This is what the government is doing now.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, this minister is using a wink and a nod to allow the Canadian position to erode. Yesterday's throne speech failed to offer any direction on trade disputes. The Liberals continue to avoid any commitment to forest workers and companies about federal financial assistance.
The minister is allowing the pursuit of free trade in lumber to be compromised by the lack of a federal financial package. Why was the long-awaited package not in yesterday's throne speech?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we rarely announce budgetary measures through throne speeches. Indeed, if the member wants to be a little more patient he will realize that my colleagues, the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Human Resources Development, have been working very hard looking at all options to make sure that we will support our workers and communities and we will support our industry.
A package will be announced in the next few days. In the meantime we will continue to work with the provinces in a team Canada approach for a pan-Canadian solution.
* * *
(1455)
[Translation]
Employment Insurance
Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, could the Minister for Human Resources Development tell the House about any new developments with respect to the problem experienced by certain pregnant women and nursing mothers on preventative withdrawal whose maternity leave was cut short because they had exhausted their EI benefits?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada wants to ensure that all Canadian mothers are able to benefit fully from maternity and parental benefits. We are therefore providing over $1.3 million in funding for a pilot project to help mothers who do not have full access to benefits. The pilot project will help some 400 women over the next three years.
I thank the member for Portneuf and the other members for their assistance on this important issue.
* * *
[English]
Agriculture
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday's throne speech talked about putting Canadian families and children first. I have news for the Liberals: Farm families include children. Yet the throne speech, in its 15 seconds about agriculture, failed to address the agriculture crisis.
Why are the Liberals ignoring the needs of farm families at a time when severe drought and massive agriculture subsidies in the U.S. farm bill threaten the very existence of the Canadian family farm?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on June 20 of this year the Prime Minister and I announced the biggest farm support package in many years for Canadian farmers, with a number of elements, including risk management.
Since that time, we also have put in place, and the cheques will start going out later this week, $600 million to assist Canadian farm families for the various types of threats that they have been undergoing in the last year.
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that our productive Canadian farmers cannot compete against massive agriculture subsidies provided to farmers in the United States and Europe.
Now that the Prime Minister recognizes that fact, why does the government refuse to implement a trade injury compensation program for struggling farm families?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would look at the programs that are there to assist Canadian farmers and have been put in place in the last number of years, she will quickly see that there are hundreds and hundreds of millions, actually billions, of dollars that have been put in place to help our Canadian farmers mitigate all of the challenges they have had come to them, whether they be weather related, whether they be trade related, whether they be market related, or whatever they have been.
No government has come forward in recent years with as much support to Canadian farm families and Canadian farmers as this government.
* * *
[Translation]
Supply Management
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
While the whole agricultural industry expected the government to renew its commitment to maintaining and protecting supply management in the eggs, dairy and poultry sector, the Speech from the Throne is silent on this issue.
Consequently, is the minister prepared to renew his commitment, here in this House, to maintain the current supply management system, and will he pledge not to use it as a bargaining chip in future WTO negotiations, contrary to the secret memo issued by his department on August 7?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear on this most important issue for our government.
The Minister of Agriculture and I were in Doha when, along with our colleagues from around the world, we decided to begin an important round of negotiations for our country.
In our mandate, it is very clear that supply management is among the objectives that we have to maintain a system that serves producers and consumers well in our country.
Our government firmly supports supply management. There is no doubt about that in anyone's mind.
* * *
(1500)
[English]
Veterans Affairs
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, for 50 years aboriginal and Métis veterans have been systematically denied the same rights and benefits that other soldiers receive. The paltry settlement of $20,000 now is less than one-quarter of even the most conservative estimate arrived at for the value of those benefits.
Will the Minister of Veterans Affairs agree to reopen this issue, revisit the issue and negotiate a fair compensation package that these aboriginal veterans so rightly deserve?
Hon. Rey Pagtakhan (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State (Science, Research and Development), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government was seized with this issue some two years ago. As soon as I was appointed to the ministry I sought to have this issue resolved.
As the member knows, I am not a negotiator; I am an advocate for veterans. I spoke to my government that we had an offer that should be seen as an offer of goodwill. It does not deal with the ascertainment of liability, absence or presence. It is an offer of goodwill.
I am pleased that the veterans have accepted the offer.
* * *
Employment
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the throne speech committed the government to a program to provide benefits for workers who leave their jobs to look after a dying family member.
How is the minister going to keep this new program separate from the EI program so that hard-pressed employers and workers do not have to bear the entire burden of what clearly is a social program?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, each year many Canadians face the challenge of going to work and also being responsible for looking after a gravely ill child or a parent.
The hon. member might be interested to know that 77% of Canadians taking care of gravely ill family members took time off work and 56% took leave without pay.
Helping Canadians find a balance between the workplace and family is a priority for the government. The hon. member can rest assured that we will look for the appropriate solutions in concert with the private sector.
* * *
[Translation]
Government Contracts
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the internal investigation in the sponsorship scandal revealed that 20% of all sponsorship contracts were flawed. Yet, these contracts account for 80% of all the moneys allocated for sponsorships.
When 80% of all the moneys of a government program are spent in a manner that is flawed, does this not warrant an independent public inquiry?
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with the former member for Windsor West within earshot, I must make the point that I thoroughly reject the premise of the question that has been put on the floor of the House of Commons.
I do not know where the hon. gentleman got the figure of 80%, but he is dead wrong.
* * *
Kyoto Protocol
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC):
Mr. Speaker, on December 12, 1997 the Prime Minister and the premiers stated that first ministers agreed to establish a process in advance of Canada's ratification of the Kyoto protocol that will examine the consequences of Kyoto and provide for full participation of the provincial and territorial governments with the federal government in any implementation and management of the protocol.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister live up to that promise and not ratify Kyoto until Canadians know the consequences, the impact, the cost and the implementation strategy, or will this just be another Liberal broken promise?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should sort out these issues in his mind.
The fact is that we very clearly want to have the full participation of the provinces and territories, the private sector, the general public and environmental organizations in creating a made in Canada plan for achieving our ratification goal of minus 6% of 1990 levels. That has been clear all along.
I would like to point out to the hon. member that for five years this process has been ongoing. I would like to point out to him as well that the ministers of environment and energy of the provinces and the federal government were asked by 14 first ministers to do this, not just by the Prime Minister.
* * *
Presence in Gallery
The Speaker:
I draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of Mr. Armen Khachatryan, Chairman of the National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I would also like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of a delegation from the Northern Ireland Assembly led by the Speaker, Lord Alderdice.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I would also like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of two members of the International Joint Commission: the Hon. Dennis L. Schornack, Chairman of the U.S. Section, and the Right Hon. Herb Gray, Chairman of the Canadian Section.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Speech from the Throne
[The Address]
* * *
(1505)
[English]
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, and of the amendment to the amendment.
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to do two things in my remarks today. First, I want to talk about the benefits to my riding contained in the throne speech, and second, I want to refer to some comments made by members of the opposition parties. I listened to them carefully this morning and I would like to respond. Unfortunately my remarks on the benefits to my riding will take up virtually all of my time, but I will save my other remarks for question period and when the parties ask their questions, I could then comment on their comments.
I was delighted that a number of things in the throne speech will be very helpful for my riding. Last Friday I spoke at a conference and listed a few things I supported and I was very happy that these items showed up in the throne speech.
The first item was support for the headstart program which is very important to help in early childhood development. It has been very successful. I have been lobbying for a long time for an increase, and I was delighted to see it included in the throne speech.
The second item was support for small and medium size businesses to help them use emerging technologies. Everyone heard the loud applause this morning when the Prime Minister mentioned this type of support.
The third item relates to improving the regulatory environment. At the conference on Friday, a number of Yukoners came forward and said they wanted improvements in the regulatory environment. I told them I was very supportive of that and I was absolutely delighted to see it in the throne speech.
I was also very happy to see air quality included in the throne speech. Her Majesty's loyal opposition was happy as well because it suggested there should be help relating to pollution. Members might have missed it, but this item was included in the throne speech. I was delighted to see support for improving air quality because one of the Yukon medical associations lobbied me on that particular item.
One of the items that received the most applause was the 10 year infrastructure program. I was delighted to see that item in the throne speech because the last two iterations of the national infrastructure program have been very successful in the Yukon. They have helped all communities in some way or another. I was delighted to see it extended for a 10 year period. Local communities need to have a long time frame in which to do reasonable and logical capital planning. This will provide them with that. This is probably a very popular item with all parties across the country. The NDP in its response to the throne speech mentioned the importance of infrastructure.
I was delighted to see the extension of the supporting communities partnership program. This is another item that I had lobbied hard for. It is a program that supports homelessness initiatives.The Yukon has a very efficient and active committee which has done a number of innovative projects with that program but it realizes the job is not yet done. We were hoping the program would continue. I am delighted the minister responsible for homelessness, who has been doing a great job, was able to make that occur.
A number of initiatives to help first nations people were also included in the throne speech. Because my riding has a significant percentage of first nations people, perhaps 24% of the people in the Yukon, it will receive tremendous benefits from this.
Initiatives were included for new tools to deal with FAS. There were initiatives to improve support for skills and training of first nations people by increasing the funds for Aboriginal Business Canada. Money was included for early childhood intervention. There was support for health promotion and disease prevention in first nations communities. There was support for aboriginal children with special learning needs as well as support for aboriginal culture.
A very important item for my riding was support for the training of aboriginal people to take advantage of coming megaprojects in the country. Of the two or three mentioned, the northern pipeline was also included. The northern gas pipeline going through the Yukon with Alaska gas is the biggest industrial project in history, perhaps in the order of $20 billion, of which Canada will receive half of the construction benefits as the study showed. We are providing support for helping northern people and aboriginal people be trained to take advantage of this project and the thousands of person years and millions of dollars of contracts. That is great news for my riding and for the people of northern Canada.
(1510)
I think all parties were equally happy that there was a big emphasis on health care in the throne speech. The Romanow commission is doing a very detailed study. It will come up with suggestions and recommendations for improving the health care system, which we have all agreed is a challenge.
In the meantime, as the Bloc emphasized, the Canadian government is continuing to move ahead. It is dealing with emerging risks in the health care system. It is going to work on dealing with new technologies in the health care system and adding more health prevention into the health care strategy for Canada. This is very important. In my riding health care advocates have long emphasized the importance of prevention in the health care system. We are very excited to see that. A national drug strategy is linked intricately to health care and we were delighted to see that in the throne speech.
There are also a number of other areas with which I do not think any of the other parties could quarrel and which I believe they support. They include increased support for things like literacy and research, and reducing the barriers in the workplace for people with disabilities. I was delighted to see that because just this week I had a discussion with a constituent on that specific topic.
I am also happy that the throne speech mentioned that the government is going to put into action the accord it has with the voluntary sector. I have spoken a number of times in the House about the importance of volunteers to our society in Canada and the great contribution they make. I will be glad to see us move forward on that front.
I think everyone supports the increase to the child benefit, a very important element in the throne speech. This will help all Canadians, especially those children in poor families. How could people argue with other items in the throne speech such as helping families with gravely ill children or dealing with increased drug addiction?
As chair of the foreign affairs, defence and international cooperation caucus, I was very happy that the throne speech emphasized Canada's support for the rule of international law and for the United Nations, while maintaining that the United States is our closest and best ally. I was happy to see the reaffirmation of the fact that there is going to be a review of foreign affairs and defence policies to put them in line with today's world which has changed dramatically since the last throne speech. Coming out of those reviews, as from the Romanow commission, will be recommendations that we can act upon to deal with the problems that have been carefully and logically studied to respond to today's needs.
Another area is international cooperation and foreign aid. I can imagine that my colleagues on that committee are delighted about the increases announced to help the poorer nations. There are a lot of items in the throne speech to help poor people in Canada but this extends to the poorer people in the world. Another item which does that, and which members may not mention in the House too much, is that we are going to eliminate tariffs and quotas for most products for the least developed countries. When they try to attain self-dependence to get off foreign aid and do something for themselves such as making products and services, they will be able to sell them to the western world if we can reduce those tariffs and quotas to give them a chance to succeed.
In closing, I am also delighted in the way this is going to be accomplished and resourced. I was delighted to hear that we will be doing old spending in new ways. The Prime Minister emphasized that we are still going to have a balanced budget and that the debt to GDP ratio will continue to decline so there will not be an extra burden on our finances. Yet all these people in areas I have outlined relating to children and poverty, the environment and health will be helped.
This will be a worthy chapter in Canada's history. A country is judged, as we have heard many times before, not by how it helps the wealthy but by what it does for those most in need. This will be a very worthy final chapter in the Prime Minister's 40 year history in the House of Commons, with the support of his cabinet colleagues, in the area of assistance for people who should be helped in Canada.
(1515)
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, in the throne speech, not very much was mentioned about the possibilities for Canada in terms of expanding free trade. As a member from western Canada, the member understands as much or more than anyone else the major prob