37th PARLIAMENT,
2nd SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 004
CONTENTS
Thursday, October 3, 2002
|
 |
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Official Languages |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Committees of the House |
|
|
Foreign Affairs and International Trade |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Copyright Act |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Response to Petitions |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act |
|
|
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.) |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
Canada Pension Plan |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
Nuclear Safety and Control Act |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
Petitions |
|
|
Child Pornography |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West) |
|
|
Stem Cell Research |
|
|
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Gasoline Additives |
|
|
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.) |
|
|
Child Pornography |
|
|
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.) |
|
|
Iraq |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, 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 |
|
|
Points of Order |
|
|
Government Business No. 2 |
|
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Speech from the Throne
|
|
|
Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply |
|
|
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
|
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
|
|
Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
|
|
Hon. Denis Coderre |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
|
|
Mr. Rex Barnes (Gander—Grand Falls, PC) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Employment Insurance Act |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
|
|
|
Resumption of debate on Address in Reply |
|
|
[------] |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
|
Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Larry Spencer |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mrs. Karen Redman (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Larry Spencer |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Larry Spencer |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. James Lunney |
|
|
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. James Lunney |
|
|
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Roy Cullen |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Roy Cullen |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Larry Bagnell |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Reg Alcock |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
|
|
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mrs. Karen Redman (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bob Mills |
|
|
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Bob Mills |
|
|
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. John Maloney |
|
|
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
|
|
Women's History Month |
|
|
Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.) |
|
|
Breast Care Awareness Month |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Environment |
|
|
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.) |
|
|
Julien Galipeau |
|
|
Mr. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.) |
|
|
International Cooperation |
|
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.) |
|
|
Agriculture |
|
|
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Marc Gagnon |
|
|
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Lib.) |
|
|
Don Cherry |
|
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) |
|
|
The Environment |
|
|
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, Lib.) |
|
|
Justice |
|
|
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Jimmy Ng |
|
|
Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Lib.) |
|
|
National Memorial Day |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
Taxation |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ) |
|
|
Iraq |
|
|
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.) |
|
|
Urban Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, PC) |
|
|
Women's Institute |
|
|
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.) |
|
|
Say Hay Concerts |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
|
|
Ethics |
|
|
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.) |
|
|
Government Contracts |
|
|
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, 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.) |
|
|
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, 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.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, 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.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, 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.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, 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.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, 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.) |
|
|
National Revenue |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Contracts |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC) |
|
|
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.) |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC) |
|
|
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. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
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.) |
|
|
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.) |
|
|
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Ethics Counsellor |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Brien |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Guaranteed Income Supplement |
|
|
Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Ethics |
|
|
Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Health Care |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Foreign Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Expenditures |
|
|
Mr. Rex Barnes (Gander—Grand Falls, PC) |
|
|
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. Rex Barnes (Gander—Grand Falls, PC) |
|
|
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.) |
|
|
Government Contracts |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
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.) |
|
|
Government Contracts |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Government On-Line Initiative |
|
|
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Contracts |
|
|
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Official Languages |
|
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Contracts |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Regulatory Framework |
|
|
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice, Lib.) |
|
|
National Revenue |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Contracts |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Finance |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Contracts |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, 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.) |
|
|
Business of the House |
|
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Speech from the Throne
|
|
|
Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Bigras |
|
|
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Bigras |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon |
|
|
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon |
|
|
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. James Moore |
|
|
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. James Moore |
|
|
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Reed Elley |
|
|
Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Reed Elley |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. John O'Reilly (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. John O'Reilly |
|
|
Mr. Bill Matthews (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Matthews |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Matthews |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette |
|
|
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Diane Bourgeois |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Diane Bourgeois |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams |
|
|
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
|
|
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Penson |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Penson |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Iraq |
|
|
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. John Bryden |
|
|
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.) |
|
|
Miss Deborah Grey |
|
|
Mr. John Bryden |
|
|
Miss Deborah Grey |
|
|
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
|
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
|
Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Alan Tonks |
|
|
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Alan Tonks |
|
|
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Ms. Val Meredith |
|
|
Mr. Mark Assad (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Mark Assad |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Mark Assad |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson |
|
|
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Thursday, October 3, 2002
Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
(1000)
[English]
Official Languages
The Speaker:
Pursuant to section 66 of the Official Languages Act I have the honour to lay upon the table the annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages covering the period from April 1, 2001 to March 31, 2002.
[Translation]
Pursuant to standing order 108(4)a), this report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages.
* * *
[English]
Committees of the House
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the government's response to the report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade entitled “Building an Effective New Round of WTO Negotiations: Key Issues for Canada”.
* * *
Copyright Act
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, on behalf of the Minister of Industry, the report on the review of the provisions and operation of the Copyright Act entitled “Supporting Culture and Innovation: Report on the Provisions and Operation of the Copyright Act”.
* * *
(1005)
Government Response to Petitions
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to five petitions.
* * *
Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-2, an act to establish a process for assessing the environmental and socio-economic effects of certain activities in Yukon.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
Canada Pension Plan
Hon. Don Boudria (for the Minister of Finance)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-3, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
Nuclear Safety and Control Act
Hon. Don Boudria (for the Minister of Natural Resources)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-4, an act to amend the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
Petitions
Child Pornography
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West):
Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to table from people in my riding. The petitioners wish to draw the attention of the House that the creation and use of child pornography is condemned by the clear majority of Canadians.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to protect our children by taking all the necessary steps to ensure that all materials that promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities involving children are outlawed.
* * *
Stem Cell Research
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of my constituents calling upon Parliament to focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research rather than embryonic stem cell research.
* * *
Gasoline Additives
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I wish to present a petition on behalf of the constituents of Lambton--Kent--Middlesex calling upon Parliament to protect the health of seniors and children, and save our environment by banning the disputed gas additive MMT, as it creates smog and enhanced global warming.
* * *
Child Pornography
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the second petition I wish to present calls upon Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which provide or glorify pedophilia involving children are outlawed.
* * *
Iraq
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from citizens of the Peterborough area who are opposed to a war with Iraq. They mourn the deaths of the up to 3,000 people that resulted from the attacks on the cities of New York and Washington and share the grief and trauma of the family and friends of the victims.
The petitioners call upon the Parliament of Canada to refuse to cooperate in any way in a war against Iraq and to use Canada's diplomatic efforts to convince the United States, Britain and the United Nations to choose the tools of diplomacy and not the weapons of war for establishing peace in the Middle East. They further call for the lifting of all but military sanctions against Iraq.
* * *
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:
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Points of Order
Government Business No. 2
[Points of Order]
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to a motion on the Order Paper, Motion No. 2, in the name of the Minister of State and the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.
The motion contains four separate and distinct parts, each capable of standing on its own. I raise the matter because these four unrelated parts make it impossible for members to debate and cast their votes responsibly and intelligently.
The four separate parts deal with: first, reinstating evidence from the last session with regard to committee work; second, establishing and reinstating procedure for government bills; third, establishing a special committee on the non-medical use of drugs; and fourth, authorizing the Standing Committee on Finance to travel in relation to its pre-budget consultations.
In the throne speech the government announced that Bill C-5, species at risk, would be reinstated. My party is against the reinstatement of Bill C-5. Therefore I must oppose the motion.
However, there is another part of that motion that establishes the special committee on non-medical use of drugs. The committee is a result of a Canadian Alliance opposition motion that passed unanimously in the House in the first session, a motion sponsored by the member for Langley—Abbotsford. We are obviously not against that part of the motion. It is an important issue and I understand that the committee is ready to report when reconstituted. There is great interest in its findings.
Another part of the motion allows for the finance committee to travel for pre-budget consultations. Some members may be for this part or against it. Perhaps there may be a temptation for a member to include it in instructions to the committee or offer, through amendment, more details about its travels.
The motion also includes a separate section regarding the evidence of committees in the first session. Since every committee can decide that for themselves I am not sure why it is necessary to have this put to the House but perhaps we can listen to debate and discover the rationale for its inclusion.
On page 478 of Marleau and Montpetit it states:
|
|
When a complicated motion comes before the House. . .the Speaker has the authority to modify it and thereby facilitate decision-making for the House. When any Member objects to a motion that contains two or more distinct propositions, he or she may request that the motion be divided and that each proposition be debated and voted on separately. |
At pages 427 to 431 of the Journals of 1964 there is a Speaker's ruling regarding the authority of the Chair to divide a motion. At page 431 the Speaker, after a lengthy historical report on the issue of dividing motions, concluded:
|
|
I must come to the conclusion that the motion before the House contains two propositions and since strong objections have been made to the effect that these two propositions should not be considered together, it is my duty to divide them-- |
In examining the nature of the two propositions from 1964 I have concluded that Motion No. 2 should be divided into four separate motions.
Another ruling you may want to consider, Mr. Speaker, is from April 10, 1991. The opposition objected to a government motion because it contained 64 separate proposals. The Speaker confirmed, at page 19312 of Hansard from April 10, 1991, that “the Speaker has the authority to divide complicated questions”.
We argue that Motion No. 2 be divided into four separate motions because the motion does four different things with two decisions associated with yea or nay. For example, a member may agree with one and be against two, three and four, or agree with one and two and disagree with three and four, or agree with two and be against one, three and four, et cetera.
The potential number of outcomes is 16. We would need to allow 16 different amendments to deal with various deletion combinations to solve the problem. Further, the issue of amending the different parts of the motion to make it more suitable or to offer an alternative adds to the dilemma. The number of amendments necessary to solve the problem is astronomical. It is clear that Motion No. 2 in its present form is out of order and unacceptable.
(1010)
The items contained in it require separate votes, separate amendments and separate debate to solicit support for those amendments to convince members to vote for or against. Of course, the government forgets that Parliament is about debate.
It might help the Chair and the public watching to get an understanding as to why this motion is before the House and why it is before the House in this unusual form.
The government is once again attempting to manipulate the rules of Parliament to abuse the rights of all members because of its deep divisions in the Liberal Party. It is clear that this manoeuvre would avoid potential prime ministerial embarrassment of having Liberal backbenchers voting against the reinstatement of Bill C-5 and Bill C-15B by lumping into one package the important issue of non-medical use of drugs and prebudget consultation with Bill C-5 and Bill C-15B. The Prime Minister is gambling that Liberal backbenchers will hold their noses and vote for the whole package rather than see the work of the special committee on the non-medical use of drugs be for naught and scuttle prebudget consultations.
If this motion is allowed to stand as is, members will be forced to vote for the reinstatement of Bill C-5 and Bill C-15B to ensure prebudget consultations and to save the good work of the special committee. This motion is wrong procedurally and is wrong ethically.
The original motion proposed to House leaders had in it a part that replaced the lost supply day. The supply day was lost because the government decided to prorogue which extended the summer break by two weeks. It was not the opposition decision so it made sense to give that supply day back.
Perhaps we could separate the reinstatement part from the rest of the items, put back the part about the additional supply day and then we could avoid debating all four motions separately. That would be the sensible thing.
(1015)
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect I cannot share the view of my colleague on this matter or the petition of her party because in fact the question really is whether or not the motion encompasses one principle.
The motion says at the outset “In order to provide for the resumption and continuation of the business of the House”. That is what this is about. We want to carry on with the work we have done. We have had debate on these issues before and on all these matters, these motions and bills. That is valuable.
The question is do we want to continue with the work of the House. That is the principle here. They are all encompassed in that. I would think that members would want to have the House's work go on and not want to engage in attempts to derail this work.
That is the point of the motion. It encompasses one principle and therefore I would argue is permissible.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to engage in a debate on this but it is important to note that the business of the House goes on uninterrupted until prorogation. The reason we have prorogation, at least one of the reasons from the government side, is that it is a fresh start. It is supposedly a chance for the government to come forward with a new agenda, a new plan, some new ideas and something to galvanize the nation. We are going to debate today whether that happened or not and we will get to that shortly.
However as far as the business of the House, the House leader's argument on the Liberal side that they just want to continue with business as usual is the antithesis of that.
The government decided that the business of the House had to stop, that it had to prorogue, clean the tables and start anew with new committees, new agendas and a whole new legislative package. For him say that all the business they want on the Liberal side has to also continue uninterrupted is simply false.
Prorogation stops some things and until the House agrees, it cannot continue as if nothing happened. Prorogation requires the decision of this House, if we are going to continue with an old agenda, a decision that each of us as parliamentarians has to be willing to take part in and vote on.
As our House leader has pointed out, there are four separate issues at stake and we cannot, on both sides of the House, say the government has now decided, in an omnibus motion, to move forward with the parts it likes and drop the rest. What if there are parts that I like or another member might like? We do not have the privilege that the government is choosing right now of being selective.
It should be divided. If the government is insistent, it will vote them through, and so be it. However in the meantime, I would argue and hope, Mr. Speaker, that you would see the wisdom of allowing all of us to decide on the merits of each of the four separate issues and whether they should go ahead. The House will decide. If the House decides to move forward, then prorogation means that those issues are carried forward. However it does not give the Liberals, I would hope, blanket permission to pick and choose the items that they like and leave the rest of it to be swept into the garbage can.
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the government has been making some comments and suggestions lately that it would like to make the House truly democratic. I would suggest that this is an opportunity for the government to demonstrate that it is serious about trying to make the House democratic by dividing this motion so that members in the House can vote on each motion separately. The current motion does not allow that.
(1020)
The Speaker:
I would remind hon. members that this is a point of order. The Chair is looking for assistance in making a decision on the point, rather than debating points on the merits of dividing the motion for procedural assistance.
I assume that the hon. member for Prince George--Bulkley Valley will provide that kind of assistance now.
Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that as part of your deliberation you will certainly want to weigh the motives of why the government would put different motions together in somewhat of an omnibus bill. As you know, this practice has been carried on by not only the Liberal government on a regular basis but also its predecessors in the Tory party. They put motions that are mostly distasteful to even their own members, and certainly the opposition, together with motions that are purely acceptable by their own members and the opposition in such a way that it forces the opposition and its own members away from a democratic vote on whether they like the motion or not and forces them to vote for one bill which contains both the distasteful and the acceptable motions.
This is the motive behind it. It has been demonstrated clearly by this party and the Tories before it on many occasions. I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that you have to consider whether this is a democratic thing to do; to take the right away from members on both sides who oppose certain motions in a omnibus bill by forbidding them to vote individually on those motions. I believe that the government's motives behind a bill like this has to be considered as you make your deliberation.
The Speaker:
I appreciate the assistance offered by hon. members who participated in the discussion. I am not sure that motives are something that the Chair wants to get into particularly. I am more concerned about the procedural aspects of the motion and whether it meets the requirements of our practice and Standing Orders.
However I will take the arguments under advisement, consider the matter and get back to the House at an early opportunity with a ruling on this point in respect of the acceptability, or divisibility or whatever of the motion that is on the Notice Paper at this time. I thank again hon. members for their intervention.
Speech from the Throne
[The Address]
* * *
[Translation]
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.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I think you will need to keep the name of my riding in mind in future. Having not used it for a long time, it is perfectly understandable that you have lost sight of it, but I think you will remember it in future.
I am very pleased to be able to speak within this debate on the address in response to the Speech from the Throne, which was delivered on Monday afternoon. I have heard a number of these speeches since coming here, but this was really the one I had the greatest hope for, and unfortunately the one that has been the greatest disappointment to me. I was expecting a throne speech with some perspective for Canada's future, one in which we would see what future policies would be, how we could move forward in the 21st century with as much harmony as possible and how we could solve the problems facing us.
I must admit, however, that of all the throne speeches we have had to date, this is the weakest I have ever had occasion to read.
I would like to begin with several points that, on first reading, strike me as positive. It is, however, very obvious that we will have to wait for the concrete measures arising out of the fine words we heard when the speech was read. One of these points is ratification of the Kyoto protocol.
The Prime Minister has promised that a resolution would tabled in the House. We will have a debate on the Kyoto protocol, and it appears that we will be able to vote on this resolution, to honour the commitments we made regarding the Kyoto accord. However, since the beginning of the session, we have already noticed that this issue seems to be creating problems within cabinet itself. So, even though we view this as a rather positive step, we have concerns: what will the apparent dissension in cabinet lead to?
Considering the Minister of Health's election results, the province she lives in and the position of the government in her province, whose premier said he is even prepared to separate from Canada if the Kyoto protocol is implemented, I can understand why she is trying her best, first to save her seat, second to ensure that her province does not separate, and third to play for time on the Kyoto accord. This is the first thing.
Another concern about Kyoto is the fact that the protocol will be implemented over a 10-year period. We wonder to what extent all the efforts that have been made by Quebec, for example, over the past 10 years will be taken into consideration when the time comes to define everyone's share of the burden. We will also have to see to what extent we will truly be able to allocate the necessary funds to fully implement Kyoto. Will the Prime Minister's successor decide to change things and postpone its implementation? These are some of the questions that we have, even though we believe the ratification of the Kyoto protocol is a very good idea.
There is a second point that I found interesting in the announcements made by the Prime Minister, particularly in the speech that he delivered the day after the Speech from the Throne. He said he would double Canada's aid to developing and poor countries, particularly in Africa. As such, this is good news. However, there is a catch.
(1025)
The pledge that we made was to invest 0.7% of our GDP. Even if we were to double the amount invested this year, we would still be very far from the real commitment that we made.
We would still be at less than half of what we promised, to invest 0.7% of GDP. Even by doubling the current levels, we would still not catch up to the 1993 levels of aid to developing countries. Ours is a country that is rich, that wants to do so much and that wants to share. Even the Prime Minister said that he felt there could be a link between terrorism and poverty; and if this link can be established, then it seems to me that we should invest more in poor countries in order to help them help themselves.
There was also an announcement that there would be a review of our policies on defence and international affairs. What was strange about the announcement, about the way it was expressed in the Speech from the Throne, is that it would have been preferable to hear that we would first establish our policy in foreign affairs, and then decide what to do for defence.
If we establish defence policy first and foreign policy second, it is like putting the horse before the cart. I think that the government should first decide on our foreign policy before dealing with defence and military policy.
This is obvious to us every day, as we read what forces members tell us; as an army, we do not look well equipped. We do not have enough men. We do not have enough money. We do not have enough weapons, and we do not have enough equipment. It would therefore be extremely difficult to think that we could do something with our army if we had to establish our defence policy ahead of our foreign policy. I think it would be wiser to do the opposite and then see, looking at our needs at home and the needs of poorer nations. The army can wait, because I do not think that we are going to make the world a better place by fighting wars.
Of course, the constructive measures announced in this throne speech include some to raise aboriginals' standard of living. Once again, this is very disappointing, because it is taken almost word for word from the 2001 throne speech.
The final good piece of news is that we are apparently going to be asked to consider decriminalizing pot. This will probably be quite an interesting discussion. It is legislation that would probably reassure many people, given the pointlessness of criminalizing something that is extremely important for some and insignificant for others. It would help ease the backlog of court cases.
Now let us take a look at the troubling aspects of the throne speech. Once again, I am referring to all the jurisdictional intrusion that is in store for us. From the beginning, the government of the member for Saint-Maurice has persistently intruded whenever possible, and it would seem on purpose sometimes, into provincial jurisdictions.
(1030)
Sometimes it would seem that it deliberately intrudes into areas of provincial jurisdiction, so that it can then turn around and hold federal-provincial conferences, try to settle the differences, and have a policy of confrontation rather than a true policy of partnership. Although the speech contains the term partnership, it is easily seen that this is just a word, and not a concept that is truly part of the profound philosophy of the person who leads the government. His is an attitude of belligerency, of picking fights, looking for confrontation, rather than one of looking for any real partnership. This is rather a pity, because he could have, after all this time as Prime Minister, finished his political career on a rather positive note.
Once again, we have a prime minister who will be remembered, as was his mentor, as someone who wanted to put Quebec in its place, who has succeeded in impoverishing his home province even further, leaving it in a worse situation than it was when he took over.
Another aspect totally ignored by the throne speech is the famous fiscal imbalance. Mr. Dion does have, I acknowledge, much knowledge in certain areas of his speciality, that is political science.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair):
Order, please. I remind everyone that members are referred to by the names of their committees or their positions.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay:
Mr. Speaker, the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs does not seem to be very good in economics.
Mr. Martin, who proved that he was able to administer a budget, recognized that there was a fiscal imbalance.
(1035)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair):
Order, please. The hon. member has been in the House for a long time, and two slips in a row is a bit much.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay:
Mr. Speaker, I am terribly sorry. I seem to have lost the hang of it, because I have not been around for six months now. I was trying to refer to the member who cannot be referred to as a backbench member, because he is in the front row, the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard. Everyone knows who I am talking about: the former Minister of Finance in the government of the hon. member for Saint-Maurice. There you go, I got it all right this time, Mr. Speaker. Thankfully, no one ever died from embarrassment.
The member in question said that there was a fiscal imbalance when one level of government has more revenues than another, and when one has less spending.
Clearly, when one government has the revenues, and the other level of government has to do the spending, you do not have to be Einstein—and I know for a fact that there are no members here with that name, so I am safe— to understand that this means that there is a fiscal imbalance.
When the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville says that there is no fiscal imbalance, it seems to me that he should redo his economics 101 course in order to understand; this is a very basic concept.
There is a consensus in Quebec on this issue. This consensus is now spreading to all the provinces. There is a huge fiscal imbalance between the federal government and the provincial and territorial governments. The federal government is collecting too much money in taxes, considering its expenditures and responsibilities. It arbitrarily made cuts and now it is reluctant to go back to the levels that existed before these cuts were made, in 1994 and 1995. This is a serious mistake.
This government is also making another big mistake, but it may be able to correct things. I am referring to the infamous parental leave. While the government is providing a child tax benefit to help poor children, if there are poor children, it means that there are poor families. If we do not help poor families, we will never achieve our objectives, even if we have measures that specifically target poor children.
Yesterday evening, I read an article saying that the United Nations recognized that, in a way, the lack of concern of rich governments was the reason why we were losing the battle against poverty. Poverty is on the rise, and there is an increasing number of poor children and families. The government came up with a parental leave that is tied to the employment insurance program, as if working women were the only ones with children.
What about all the women who do not qualify for employment insurance and who also have babies, take leave and get poorer because they do not qualify for the parental leave designed by the federal government? I wonder when the minister will understand. I wonder when the government will understand.
I have here a clipping from yesterday's paper, which reads “After the budget deficit...”. I cannot quote the article verbatim, because it refers to the Prime Minister by name. The article says that the Prime Minister “wants to eliminate social deficits”.
One way to eliminate one of the social deficits in Quebec is to change his policy on parental leave. This is parental leave that is all wrong. Nobody—well, not many people take it. I should not say nobody, because some people do. However, everyone I met who was eligible told me “Mrs. Tremblay, I cannot afford to take parental leave. I simply cannot afford to receive only 55% of my salary for a year. We would probably lose our home”.
(1040)
Some people might not be able to keep up with the mortgage payments on their house because their income has dropped. This government has to get it into its head that this parental leave is not good enough. If the Prime Minister really wants to do something, he should look at parental leave.
Another thing he should look at is employment insurance for seasonal workers. It is not the workers who are seasonal, but the jobs. It is the work that is seasonal. If the minister could also understand this—I do not think it is a difficult thing to understand—that it is our work which is seasonal, appropriate measures will be taken and there will be an end to the discrimination against so-called seasonal workers.
There is another consensus in Quebec which the government is doing absolutely nothing about, and when we hear the answers from the Minister for International Trade, we could die laughing, if something this terrible were funny. I am talking about softwood lumber. How many times have we won our case before the WTO tribunal? How many times have our businesses been cheated?
Before my leave, I myself rose in the House to ask the minister to do something about the problem, to tell him that it was urgent, that the agreement was about to expire. The problem is still not sorted out. The deal he cut is even worse than what we had before.
I see that my time is up. I had much more to say and I hope that we will have a chance to come back to this in other debates.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome our colleague from Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis back to the House. I am quite sincere in saying that we all missed her.
The hon. member has spoken of consensus within Quebec. As the hon. member is aware, I too am a Quebecker. You have, inadvertently perhaps, neglected to mention that, when speaking of our future, the most important thing is the consensus of the Quebecers who do not want Quebec to separate from Canada. They do not want to see another referendum on the question of an independent Quebec.
This, I feel, goes above and beyond all the other consensuses to which you have referred, whether they exist in reality or not, because it is the basis upon which the whole future of Quebec will be decided, and the one which will be responsible for its progress and development.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay:
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis for her welcoming message. I am absolutely delighted to be back here and I am in fighting shape, let me warn you.
The hon. member refers to consensus. My view of a consensus is a lot broader than hers. When 49% of the population wants something and 51% wants something else, we are far from consensus. This is very nearly the majority of 50% plus one, a majority with which we are enormously pleased and one which we defend.
We are far from having a consensus in Quebec as far as our future is concerned. Quebecers still say, at least 46% of them, according to the latest survey, that they are in favour of having our own country one day.
The young man who seems to be an up and comer in Quebec and appears to have some chance of being in a position of power some day, himself said in 1995 that there would be no referendum for ten years. So that means 2005, three years from now. The deadline the premier of Quebec has set is for us to have our own country when we sit down and negotiate the conditions for the FTAA for ourselves. We will have our own country.
(1045)
[English]
Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's comments both here and in the opposition lobby. What is her opinion and the opinion of her party on the subject of how the government recognizes a crisis or concerns that could be termed, in their minds, as regional? I want to speak in particular to the softwood lumber issue.
The government has always claimed to be a national government caring about every part of the country, but in the throne speech, considering we have such a huge crisis in the softwood lumber industry, one would have thought that in recognition of other parts of the country outside the Ottawa area and their local concerns the government would have shown in some way that it cares about crises that are happening outside of its domain here in Ontario. The financial aid package that it is talking about, about $300 million, really is a token amount which, in my opinion, demonstrates clearly its token concern for the softwood lumber crisis.
Does the member and her party get the feeling that the Liberals live in sort of a vacuum when it comes to concerns that are in other parts of the country, such as the softwood lumber industry?
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay:
Mr. Speaker, since 1993, I have often heard this government say that it wants to connect everyone—it wants us to be connected to a highway—so that we are all connected with one another. However, I have never seen a government so disconnected from the needs of the regions, whether it is softwood lumber or air transportation.
If another scandal surfaces, it will be in air transportation. The government gave Air Canada a monopoly. What did Air Canada do? It announced that, on October 6, I will no longer be able to fly to Ottawa. I will have to hitchhike to get here. The hon. member for Gaspé will also no longer be able to fly home. He will no longer be able to fly from the Magdalen Islands and stop in Mont-Joli, if he wishes to do so. Everything is going to Montreal. It is a disgrace that the government should care so little about the regions.
As for softwood lumber, the fact that this issue is still not settled is a disgrace. This is an urgent matter. It is a critical issue for many regions in the country. But the government is doing nothing. The minister responsible is smiling. He is sporting a fine suntan, and he gives us answers that do not lead to anything. This is unfortunate.
We could also mention agriculture, which is another critical issue in our country. The government is disconnected and is not even aware of the problem. The fact is that the Liberals are connected to Ottawa, they are connected to the Ontario highway. They know the Ontario highways, but that is it: as far as they are concerned, the rest of Canada can travel on dirt roads or whatever.
(1050)
Hon. Denis Coderre:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not want to interrupt the member for Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, but I just wanted to make a quick comment. There has been an announcement regarding highway 175. So, we are very sensitive to issues affecting the regions, the Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean in particular.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair):
That is more of a piece of information than a point of order. The member for Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay:
Mr. Speaker, in reply to my kind colleague, the member for Bourassa, I would say that, of course, there has been an announcement regarding highway 175. I am not impressed. What I want to see is trucks on the side of the highway, I want to see asphalt, I want to see the work being done. Unfortunately, in 20 years time, I will not be here to remind you that the work on highway 175 has yet to be done.
[English]
Mr. Rex Barnes (Gander—Grand Falls, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I was listening with interest to the hon. member's speech with regard to the EI system. Of course that is not new for all of Canada but it is an issue that is hurting rural Newfoundland and rural Canada more so than the urban areas of Canada.
Would the hon. member elaborate on the EI system because there is always a big confusion with the EI system? The jobs are seasonal and not the workers. I wonder what she can relate to us with regard to what should have been in the speech that would--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair):
The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay:
Mr. Speaker, the first thing that should have been done the Speech from the Throne was for the government to finally recognize that the problem is seasonal work, and not the workers.
Before, workers could work on a farm, fish, chop wood and do other things they wanted to do. Now, everything has become specialized. Now you need a card to do jobs. So, people are forced into one seasonal job. We should help make things easier for people, and if we are going to recognize the concept of seasonal work, then we should allow those who become prisoners to it to do other work.
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I beg the indulgence of the House. I think you would find that there is unanimous consent for me to introduce a private member's bill. I apologize to the House for not doing it earlier this morning.
May I seek unanimous consent to do that, Mr. Speaker?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair):
Is there unanimous consent to return to introduction of private members' bills?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
[English]
Employment Insurance Act
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP)
moved for leave to introduce Bill 206, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (persons who leave employment to be care-givers to family members).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. members of the House for unanimous consent. This is the third time that I have introduced this bill in the House of Commons.
Basically, the bill would provide financial help for people who give care to those who are terminally ill or under a palliative care situation.
In this country we have something called maternity leave. If somebody has a baby they can take a year off with maternity leave or paternity leave. However when someone is gravely ill or they are under a palliative care situation, we have nothing at the end of someone's life to provide for the caregiver in a financial or job protection way.
I thank the government for putting in the throne speech that it will seriously look at this issue. This private member's bill will assist the government greatly in speeding that resolution along.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[The Address]
* * *
(1055)
[English]
Resumption of debate on Address in Reply
The House resumed from October 2 consideration of the motion for an address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her speech at the opening of the session, and of the amendment.
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to take part in the debate on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.
The Speech from the Throne, which was delivered by Her Excellency the Governor General on Monday, was entitled “The Canada We Want”. I think it is fair to say that it reflects the wishes and hopes of the vast majority of Canadians and the direction that they want the government to take.
There are many positive commitments in the Speech from the Throne. I want to get into some of those in a moment.
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.
I want to put in context the situation in relation to the Speech from the Throne because it has a lot of very positive, progressive measures outlined in it, initiatives that we can look forward to seeing come forward, but those would not be possible if we had not as a government taken the steps to fix our fiscal problems that we started with in 1993.
Let us go back to that time. If I had gone door-to-door campaigning saying we would eliminate the deficit and have five successive years of surpluses, people would have laughed at me. They would not have believed me. If we had suggested that Canada would create two million jobs by the year 2000, people would have laughed and said we were kidding, but in fact that is what happened.
The important point is that we came into office with a deficit, left behind by the previous government, of some $42 billion. We had an enormous problem. Our interest rates were high. Unemployment was high. We had huge problems and a lot of them had to do with the situation of our country fiscally. We had a situation where more and more of the dollars that government received in revenue were going to pay interest on our enormous national debt.
The government had to deal with that problem because our ability to pay for everything else was in jeopardy. As more dollars go to interest we have less left for everything else. The government had to act to get our finances in order, to improve our interest rates, which resulted later from that, with an improved economy. We have come a long way since then.
Those actions to secure our fiscal ability to pay for the important programs we all believe in as Canadians were an essential precursor to what this Speech from Throne is all about. Those measures are the ones that now allow us not only to keep paying for the important programs we all believe in, such as health care, medicare and so forth, but also to look at new measures in relation to child poverty, for example, and the environment and so on.
So to begin with, it is important to remember that the government has committed in this budget not just to have new initiatives but also to maintain the very important fiscal discipline that Canadians expect of the government to maintain balanced budgets in the future. That is an essential point to keep in mind.
Let me mention as well that the government committed in the last budget and in the last election to the largest series of tax reductions in Canada's history with a $100 billion five-year program of tax reductions. That program continues. Those tax reductions have already begun and we will see more of them over this period.
Let us then turn to some of these important initiatives, some important progressive commitments from the government in the Speech from the Throne.
The first one of course relates to health care. When we talk about health care, it is important not to look at just the issues that we are seeing more of, like the focus on preventative medicine, but to also look at the initiatives the government is taking in relation to child poverty or environmental issues and note how those things affect our overall health and in fact in the long term the cost of our health care system.
The fact that the government is moving in those areas is very important. It has agreed to be involved in modernizing our health care system. Of course we are all interested and anxiously awaiting the report of Mr. Romanow on the health care system. The government, in this Speech from the Throne, has committed to meet with the premiers, to have a first ministers conference early in the new year and to invest the necessary federal long-term capital required to keep the health care system sustainable. This is the Canada we want we are talking about and it seems to me that most Canadians strongly believe that our health care system must follow the five components of the Canada Health Act, in particular that it must remain universal and publicly administered. I think we hold that very strongly. I cannot agree with the comments of the Leader of the Opposition who argues that we should have much more of a privately managed health care system, when really what he is talking about is clearly a two-tier health care system in this country. It is very clear as to what the official opposition is in favour of.
(1100)
Is the health care system in this country perfect? No, it is not. I needs improvement. It needs work, but the vast majority of the people I have talked to who use the health care system talk about what a good system we have, and I think and hope members will probably acknowledge that they find the same thing. They talk about well they are served in our hospitals and what a good job is done by the doctors, nurses and other health care workers in our system.
Are there waiting lists that are too long? We had better believe that there are. Are there some problems that have to be addressed? Indeed there are. Can the system be managed better? I think Canadians feel it can be managed better. Does it require more investment from Ottawa, from the federal government? I believe Canadians feel it does and it is important that we commit to those things, but let us have a long-term plan and let us do this in a cooperative manner. That is very important. I think that is what the Government of Canada intends to do.
Another area the government is committed to and has already been investing in is medical research. It is another important area for improving the health of Canadians. Canadians want that to happen.
I want to speak for a minute about the initiative or the commitment in the Speech from the Throne to support and deal with the issue of child poverty in this country. This is an issue which is of great concern to me and has been for many years. I recall that in my first term, before my involuntary sabbatical, as I like to call it, I was involved in a working group of our caucus on child poverty that worked toward the development of the child tax credit and the national child benefit. So I am very pleased to see that the government has committed to keep those measures going and to increase the amounts provided in them. I hope it will work with the provinces to ensure, for instance in my province of Nova Scotia, that the provincial governments stop clawing back those moneys from people who are on welfare.
Of course it is important that people who are trying to get off welfare get a hand up and they are getting that from this program. I used to talk about the poverty trap. People often have the problem that if they get off welfare it is costs them a lot. They lose various benefits. They lose dental plans and other kinds of benefits, which keeps them trapped in poverty and makes it very hard for them to get out of welfare. The child tax benefit, particularly a national child benefit, helps those low-income families to get a start out of welfare, but that is not enough because not everyone can do that. Not every single-parent mother can get a job. It is important that the provinces provide decent benefits to those families so that those children can have a good head start in life.
That leads me to the early childhood initiative of the government which in the Speech from the Throne it committed to continuing and expanding. That is a very important initiative. When we talk about health care we know that very young children who have the nutrition they need in the first years of life have a much better chance of having healthy lives throughout the rest of their lives. It is those who so often lack that nutrition, who lack the proper nourishment in their early years, who are going to have major health care problems later, who are going to suffer because of it and who are going to be a burden in some way on the health care system. It is a burden we take on willingly. It is a burden that Canadians believe we should share and not leave only to those who can afford to pay for health care, but it remains a burden that we have to be cognizant of. We should take this kind of measure to prevent children from having problems with health for their whole lives.
I also want to speak about the government's initiative in the Speech from the Throne in relation to urban infrastructure. As a member of the urban issues task force of the government caucus, I have had a great interest in this. I certainly have had a great interest in the issues concerning the Halifax Harbour cleanup project. I am pleased that this may allow more funding for that program or for other important projects in urban areas, in Halifax and in areas across the country where it is much needed. We have to deal with some of the big problems we face in cities that are congested, that are having air quality problems, transit problems and other kinds of problems. That kind of investment in Canada, that 10-year program the government has committed to, will be of great benefit to the country, particularly in those areas that are the economic engines of our country.
I want to finish by saying that I would have liked to see a greater emphasis on defence. This is a great concern of mine. It is certainly a big concern in Halifax. I was disappointed that there was not more mention of spending on the military. I hope we will see more good news about that in the future. In particular I want to say that I hope the government will get moving quickly on the maritime helicopter program to replace the Sea Kings.
(1105)
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, a particular question has come to me and has not been raised before in the House. An honourable gentleman sent me the question in an e-mail to bring forward to the House and I will do so now. He said “The government I want is one that is open and truly accountable to Parliament and, more importantly, to all Canadians everywhere. No mention was made in the Speech from the Throne as to how the government will deal with its previous secrecy and spell out in detail how it will abandon the unethical practices of the present government”.
I, too, thought about that because the past term was a term that created a lot of uncertainty across Canada, and this gentleman is stating a definite reason for being disappointed in not being included. How would the hon. member reply to this particular concern?
Mr. Geoff Regan:
Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for his question. I think that Canadians do want their government to be open and accountable and I think it is important that government try to be open and accountable at all times. That is one of the reasons why this government a number of years ago changed the rules concerning the Auditor General, for example, when he could only report once a year. The Auditor General can now report four times a year, holding the government's feet to the fire even more often.
First I want to say that the Speech from the Throne is not generally where the details are spelled out, as the hon. member has said. It is where the broad-brush strokes of the policy directions of the government are given, but clearly the government has committed to bringing forward a code of ethics and bringing it to the House to discuss. That is not a matter of legislation. It is obviously a matter for the House and its own rules. It has also talked about electoral financing. Those are important measures relating to openness and accountability that the government and all of us will be looking at in the coming months. I look forward to taking part in those discussions.
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the hon. member for Halifax West with respect to the Speech from the Throne and his response to it in two particular areas.
One is the area of fairness and equity. I would like him to comment in that context on the recent draft proposal to significantly weaken the disability tax credit for people with disabilities in Canada. It is a shameful decision which would reverse a number of court decisions and which would in fact require that people with disabilities be cut off the disability tax credit as long as they are able to somehow get a fork from their plate to their mouth while in any meaningful way they may not be able to get food into their home at all. I want to ask the hon. member if he will, as part of this commitment to fairness he spoke about, make a commitment to fight against that outrageous proposal.
Second, will he call on his government and the Prime Minister to ratify the Kyoto accord clearly, without any weasel words, and specifically without any demand that we must get credit for--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair):
We also have to give the parliamentary secretary a chance to respond.
(1110)
Mr. Geoff Regan:
Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for his questions. They are certainly of interest to me.
He may not be aware that in the House I have already called upon the government to ratify Kyoto and that I strongly support the ratification of the protocol. I look forward to that happening before Christmas, as we have heard already. My support for that is well known, certainly in my riding of Halifax West. I would like to think that it is well known in the House, but perhaps it is not as well known as it might be.
On the question of the disability tax credit, there are two points I want to make. First, I think members would agree, generally speaking, that when we have measures it is important to make sure that the contributions we make go to those people who ought to receive them, who meet the criteria for a tax provision, for example, or whatever. That is the first point. The second key point is that I share the concern of the hon. member. I do not wish to see this measure restricted further and I would urge the government not to and in fact to try to make it more generous. We have to be concerned about Canadians with disabilities and try to assist them.
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, thank you for granting me this time.
I would like to begin by thanking the member for Halifax West for sharing his time with me. I would also like to thank the other members from both sides of the House for their comments on the Speech from the Throne. Some of them were very relevant and apropos.
[English]
It takes courage to admit that our country faces serious challenges in the coming years. One of those challenges has important ramifications both for our children and for ourselves. I am quite proud that our throne speech has tackled one of the most pressing problems confronting our great nation: the need to improve the skills and knowledge of our people.
The throne speech reconfirms our government's commitment to take action on this national priority. We know that equipping Canadians with the skills required in today's knowledge intensive economy is essential to our continued success as a society. I am equally proud of our track record in creating jobs and opportunities for Canadians since we first came back to power in 1993. I would like to remind the House that just last week the International Monetary Fund forecast that once again Canada will lead the G-7 nations in economic growth.
The facts speak for themselves. Since we were elected in 1993, 2.5 million more Canadians are working. Full time jobs have increased 21% and the employment rate has dropped from 11.3% to 7.5%. However, I do want to underline, that figure about unemployment can be misleading.
Unemployment rates among certain of our population are significantly higher. If we look for instance at our visible minority communities specifically in the urban centres where our communities are centred, such as Montreal, Toronto and other major urban metropolises, unemployment rates among young black Canadians under the age of 35 can rise up to 50%. This is unacceptable. That is why I am pleased with the throne speech which re-emphasizes and recommits to the national priority of skills and learning for Canadians.
The reality is that Canadian workers, not just the unemployed but even those on the job, face considerable challenges today. This is a reflection of the fact that the 21st century economy increasingly revolves around skills and knowledge. Let me just cite a few statistics that can put this challenge into perspective and we will see why it is a national priority for the government to address this challenge.
Seventy per cent of the jobs created in Canada between 1990 and 2000 were in fundamentally technical occupations. By 2004, 70% of all new jobs in Canada will require some form of post-secondary education. Only 6% of these new jobs which will be created will go to those who have not completed high school.
Nearly eight million adult Canadians have low or very low literacy skills. More than 40% of our working age population does not have the minimum skills required, demanded, in our modern labour market. By 2011 immigration will account for all net labour force growth in our country. Half of the workers of 2015 are currently in the labour market. Millions of workers will require skills upgrading in order to keep pace with technological and workplace changes.
Also, by 2020 when baby boomers like myself will have retired, the Conference Board of Canada predicts a labour force shortage of almost one million workers.
An hon. member: You will never retire.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: One of my colleagues has said that I will never retire. Actually, I will. I joined the over 50 club last year, so seniors issues have become a pressing priority for me. Make no mistake: Canada's economic growth and continued prosperity depends fundamentally on increasing the skills of our people, of all Canadians. Productivity is now built not on physical force or sweat labour, but on creativity, diversity and knowledge.
(1115)
The talents and abilities that Canadian workers will bring to the job is what is going to make our Canadian companies more competitive globally. Those skills are also key to creating our own opportunities. Those skills will enable us in the future to overcome the impacts of layoffs, avert unemployment or improve our employment prospects as the economy changes.
Skills are important to people who are falling behind, in particular members of our visible minority communities, our immigrant population and our aboriginal people. Too many are seriously disadvantaged already in our labour force. The government has a commitment to address that challenge within the global challenge of a skills and knowledge based policy, program, or legislation.
Last February the government launched Knowledge Matters: Skills and Learning for Canadians, which is the human resources side of our Canadian innovation strategy. Knowledge Matters outlines the skills challenges Canada faces, sets out the government's commitment and proposes national goals and milestones. It details what we must do to ensure equality of opportunity and economic innovation to build a more competitive economy and a stronger society. It underscores that skills and learning must be a national effort.
All segments of society have a part to play. All segments of society have a right to earn and share in the benefits of that agenda. A learning society has to begin in early childhood making sure our children get the best start in life. As well, the school years have come to mean much more than simply high school completion. In the future, post-secondary learning and credentials will be essential but it will not end there. It will not end with a diploma, a certificate or a set of journeyman papers. It will need to continue throughout our working life, no matter what our current credentials or job descriptions are.
As well, our workforce is aging rapidly at the same time that we face rising skill requirements and skill shortages. As a result, adults who are already in the workforce will face and are facing challenges to their competency and their ability to be productive. We must provide the opportunities for them to learn while they earn. Workplaces need to join forces with formal learning institutions and with communities to provide seamless, connected, lifelong learning. We as a government have to provide the tools to allow them to do so.
It is with quite a bit of pride that I point to some solid directions in the Speech from the Throne that will help make this vision a reality and move Canada's innovation strategy forward. For instance, there will be a national summit on innovation and learning this fall. We have pledged to create the skills and learning architecture Canada needs. We will promote workplace learning and report to Canadians on what is working and what is not working. We will also refocus the youth employment strategy to boost opportunities for work and learning for people with disabilities. We will work with the provinces to remove barriers to participation in work and learning for people with disabilities and others.
There is a whole plethora of measures which will assist the government in implementing the innovation strategy, specifically the skills and knowledge matters agenda. I want to conclude by saying it is very important that the policy include and target specifically our visible minority communities, our immigrant population, aboriginals and disabled persons and that we address the issue of seniors in the workplace. That is crucial.
(1120)
Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member talk about how the government sets national priorities in the management of this country. She talked about unemployment numbers being up in certain demographic areas of our country. I would like to remind her that unemployment is up significantly in the country's softwood lumber industry because it has not been addressed effectively and in a responsible fashion by the government.
The softwood lumber crisis has resulted from the historical disdain shown by the government and previous governments to people in western Canada. The resulting indifference that has been shown to this crisis is because of the historical disdain for people in western Canada in particular.
If the government talks about its concern for all people in all parts of Canada, when will it demonstrate the real concern for the parts of Canada where softwood lumber is the economic lifeline of the economy? Thousands of softwood lumber employees have been laid off because of the gross mismanagement by the government of the softwood lumber issue.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings:
Mr. Speaker, the member should remember that there is a consensus among the softwood lumber industry, the unions, the workers and the provincial governments on the position that this government has taken with regard to the trade war on softwood lumber. That is the first thing. This is probably the first time consensus has existed.
I would also like to remind the member across the way that one thing is really important. Our government and our international trade minister are very sensitive to the fact that any aid package not violate international trade rules and regulations so that our challenges to the protectionist measures that have been taken in the United States do not further damage our industry.
Also, five years to achieve a historic consensus is not nothing. I know that the opposition does not wish to acknowledge that there is a consensus within Canada, within all sectors and all regions at the government level, within the unions and within the industry itself that the position our government has taken with regard to the softwood lumber trade dispute with the United States is the correct one. We will continue along that line because that is what Canadians, including the industry, have supported.
(1125)
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, may I say on behalf of the NDP, I swear that the hon. member does not look a day over 30. I can assure her of that.
The member talked eloquently about seniors. I do not think that anybody in the House would reject any assistance for seniors, but we are still taxing seniors who bring in only $15,000 a year. Why would seniors give taxes to the government when it turns around and wastes the money?
Here are three examples of the terrific waste of money: $100 million for two Challenger jets to which the DND said no; $900 million for a gun registry bill that was only supposed to cost $85 million, and was a complete waste of money; and a new building which is going up on Parliament Hill for $211 million when there is available space for lease all around us. Why should seniors who make minimum fixed incomes pay taxes to the government when it obviously squanders money?
Mrs. Marlene Jennings:
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for thinking I look so young.
The question the hon. member raised about seniors is really important. Notwithstanding where I was coming from in terms of my response to the throne speech and the role of seniors in our workplace, there is a necessity to provide the ongoing, continuing learning and skills agenda so that seniors, if they so wish, can continue to be active members in the labour force. The issue the member raised about poverty among seniors is one which many of my colleagues on this side of the House and I share with the member and other colleagues on that side of the House.
Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Nanaimo--Alberni.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair):
Order, please. Please obey the rule that the House leaders have reached not to have any devices that make any sounds in the House.
Mr. Larry Spencer:
Mr. Speaker, I will try to do better in the future.
It is an honour to stand and reply to the Speech from the Throne. I want to come at it from a direction emphasizing the family.
The cornerstone of society in our great country of more than 31 million people is the family. I believe that government has been chipping away at this cornerstone and has fostered an environment where family and our society are eroded almost beyond repair.
It is in the family that we learn love. We do not hear that word in here very often. We hear the word tolerance but I would suggest that the family is there not to teach tolerance but in fact to teach love. Love goes far beyond a simple tolerance stature. One cannot be accused of not being tolerant as long as one has learned the essence of love.
Love by its very nature gives. It gives respect and it demands and commands respect. We would suggest that a family must be in place in order for our society to learn the very basic societal skill of love.
In the family we also learn respect: first, self-respect; second, respect for others; and then, as we learn self-respect and respect for others, we gradually, hopefully, will also learn respect for the law, the order and the structure contained within society.
The family becomes an extremely important building block. We say that so glibly so often and yet I think we find ourselves failing at the point of seeing that family strengthened. The throne speech actually contains precious little hope for Canadian families. What will we tell Canadian families when they ask what leadership the Liberal government is taking on behalf of families?
The government does not even seem to understand the need or the importance of the family. It does not even understand what marriage is or what the family is. The government has given little leadership to encourage the establishment of strong families.
A number of years ago the words were recorded that in North America certain groups devised a plan whereby they would begin to destroy the family, that they would see that the family unit was wiped out as it was then known until it was totally destroyed.
An hon. member: They're doing a good job.
Mr. Larry Spencer: They are doing a good job.
I am not suggesting that anyone in the House or in the government is a part of that plan or scheme except for the fact that it is such a grandiose, large thing that sometimes we get caught in these things without even knowing it.
This plan involved the educational system in North America where teachers were taught ways to bring down the family and the weaknesses or the reasons why a family should not exist. This is history and this is fact.
The government has given little leadership or no leadership to encourage married couples to stay together. It has given no leadership to encourage couples to grow their families or to provide financial benefits for spouses for instance who choose to stay at home rather than go out and work.
We would like to see the day when our governments would recognize that it is important for a parent to be a parent, for a parent to be able to stay at home and instill within those children the characteristics of love and respect, and go beyond tolerance. We find that hard to do if our families are so stressed and stretched that they have to go to work.
(1130)
When one family on the block takes that responsibility very seriously and one parent chooses to stay home and raise the children, they are not recognized for that effort. We subsidize the parents next door who choose to rush off early in the morning, dump their kids at some day care, pick them up later in the day, take them back home and then have precious little time to spend with their very own children. We do not take care of families who want to take care of their own children.
Canadian families are crying out for their government to lead and not simply drift along in any direction that the wind may be blowing.
What about the great silent majority of people who are family oriented? What about the people who are struggling from day to day to make a go with families? We are doing little to help them.
The throne speech talks of fiscal success, but in my constituency I hear no talk of fiscal prosperity among struggling families. In fact, a woman came into my office last week with tears literally running to the floor. Because she was unable to care financially for her children her children were whisked away.
As the hon. member down the line mentioned a while ago, I too see seniors lamenting the fact that taxes are owed on their already meagre incomes. It is appalling that we tax these people to the level that we do.
I see people who have no money to buy groceries because the government has confiscated their GST cheques, their disability cheques or their tax refund cheques without any notice. I do not see the fiscal security that we are talking about.
We are on the verge of a spending binge to buy a lacy legacy for the Prime Minister. What do I mean by a lacy legacy? Well, lace looks good and it is very pretty but basically it is only good to look at. My mother once had a lace tablecloth that was pretty but if a glass of ice tea or milk was turned over on that tablecloth, it did not protect the table at all. It was full of holes. That lace tablecloth would not stand up to everyday wear because it was not strong. It sort of reminds me of a certain throne speech. It is pretty, it is lacy but it will never stand up to the everyday wear and tear that we have.
I have much more to say about child protection, especially when this very government, even though it talked about it in the throne speech, voted against it along with the Bloc and the NDP earlier this year. Can we trust the government to do this when it has already voted no? I do not think so.
I would like to move an amendment at this time. I move:
|
|
That the amendment be amended by adding after the word “sovereignty” the following: |
|
|
“reforming Parliament to address the problem of the concentration of power in the Prime Minister's Office”. |
(1135)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair):
I will take the subamendment under advisement and the Speaker will get back to the House.
Mrs. Karen Redman (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, one of the joys of being a member in the House is listening to a diversity of views. I cannot help but react to some of the comments made by my hon. colleague.
We, as members in the House, are many things. One thing I am, beside being the member of Parliament for Kitchener Centre, is the mother of four children. I take some exception when I hear my colleague opposite talk about parents being parents and being allowed to be in the home.
Would my hon. colleague comment on the fact that there are parents who wear many hats today and the role of government should be to offer the best support and the most variety of choices to parents or families who choose to have children?
As a matter of fact, the bulk of the tax cuts that this government has brought in, through good fiscal management, have been targeted at these very families with children. The government realizes that its proper role is to afford choice to families and to look at the kind of support it can provide many to people in the community who happen to be mothers or people in the workforce who are looking after aging and ailing family members.
There are a couple of inaccuracies that I would also like to correct. The hon. colleague talked about a motion that was brought forward regarding child pornography. Clearly, no member in this House would defend child pornography. I would remind my hon. colleague that the offer was made for a slight word change and he could have had unanimous consent for that motion, but his party chose to play politics with a very important issue.
(1140)
Mr. Larry Spencer:
Mr. Speaker, the politics were being played on the other side. The Liberals wanted to gut the motion of anything that said anything, and that is why we refused to go that way. We wanted some definite action and some definite steps taken, and some of those are even mentioned in the throne speech. That is why I ask whether we can really trust this government to do that, because it voted against it then. That is a fact. That is in Hansard and it cannot be changed no matter what anyone wants to argue.
Yes, variety in sustaining families is very important and that is my exact point. My family had two incomes because that was the career choice of my wife and my family. However we were careful to do things that overrode that outside involvement. Many other families do as well. All I am saying is, let us encourage the families who do choose to stay home and be that parent rather than those who choose to do as I have done.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, one of the major faults of the throne speech is the lack of real detail as to what the government's plan will be for medicare in the country. It keeps telling us to wait for the Romanow report. However there is one thing I would like to hear from the official opposition. What is its plan for the future of medicare in Canada?
Mr. Larry Spencer:
Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for my entire party but I can tell the member a couple of things.
One plan is that we would have reliable, dependable and predictable support from the federal government in a national health care scheme, perhaps moving at least back to the level of 1993 participation or even beyond.
I think this government would be understood to be taking health care more seriously if it even attempted to move to the point where it really began, which was fifty-fifty participation. I would like to see that done, as well as encouraging the efficiency of the system throughout.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair):
On the subamendment of the hon. member, I declare it to be in order.
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to respond on behalf of the citizens of Nanaimo--Alberni to the recent Speech from the Throne. I thank my colleague the hon. member for Regina--Lumsden--Lake Centre for sharing his time with me.
In parliamentary tradition the Speech from the Throne is supposed to serve as a landmark statement, a defining event which is purported to map out a government strategy and inspire the nation. I am afraid I will be expressing my disappointment in the way this tradition has been abused, altered and even corrupted.
When something is turned from its created purpose to such an extent that it is no longer able to fulfill what it once promised, it is corrupted and those who trusted in it are bound to be disappointed. It is a little like clouds and wind without rain during a drought or like a wet blanket on a cold night or perhaps like marriage vows that were cast aside.
The member from Regina--Lumsden just asked about the Speech from the Throne if we could really trust the government to fulfill the promises portrayed in the speech. Is it any wonder that recycled throne speech rhetoric is met with cynicism when hardly 25% of yesteryear's promises since 1993 have been realized and other promises like removing the GST have been conveniently forgotten, gone with the wind.
The Prime Minister in his remarks to the House about the throne speech stated, and I quote from Hansard:
|
|
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. |
The government had five years to prepare for the end of the softwood lumber agreement, but when March 31, 2001 arrived the government's response was to wait and see what the Americans would do. What the Americans do? They imposed a 30% combined countervail and anti-dumping duty. Now, after 18 months of wind and rhetoric we still have a tariff wall of 27.2% that is killing our forest industry.
While B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell and his forest minister go alone to the United States, the federal government response is to litigate through WTO and NAFTA, processes which will take years of appeals and delays while the government waits to see. While our industry is being brutalized, wait and see is just not good enough. It would have been helpful to hear in the Speech from the Throne that cabinet would step forward with the $400 million needed to finance the loans that would keep the mills open while this dispute continues.
While the Prime Minister considers the next round of multilateral trade talks, let me discuss realties for workers on Vancouver Island and in coastal British Columbia. On Friday, which is tomorrow, the Somass mill will close for four weeks. That will take out 200 workers. Because of the Somass closure, three other feeder mills will close: Coulson Forest Products, Franklin Forest Products and Naagard Sawmills Ltd. will close. That is another 300 jobs. This is a community of 18,000 that is being dismantled by the greed of the U.S. lumber barons.
With congressional elections pending in November, we are not likely to see action from Washington before then. While U.S. trade representative Robert Zoellick tells our premier he is willing to work with us, Canadians are left to wonder why the federal government has nothing better to offer than wait and see.
It is little comfort to my neighbours who work at the Nanoose Mill of Doman Industries. It is already closed. That is 65 workers laid off. The Chemainus Mill just laid off 45 more. On the coast 14 mills have reduced shifts or indefinite closures. That is 15,000 workers in B.C. as estimated in the Vancouver Sun on October 1.
People in my riding would like to know how the government can provide over $1 billion of Canadian taxpayer dollars through the EDC for Montreal based Bombardier to build a high speed train in the U.S. for U.S. infrastructure but turn down a $400 million package that would have kept our mills open while this dispute goes on.
It gets worse. The MacDonald mill in Fort Langley just announced last week that it will close and move south of the border to Sumas, Washington. That is 56 Canadian jobs. The tariff was costing the company $800,000 a month. That is $10 million a year. Interfor executive Duncan Davies stated that by shifting the plant to the U.S. Interfor could eliminate crippling duties and take advantage of other efficiencies.
Kyoto proponents should take note. Sumas, Washington, a tiny U.S. border town that will now receive the new mill and the Canadian jobs, is the same town where two gas powered electrical generating stations are under construction. Meanwhile, residents of the Fraser Valley are concerned that tons of particulate pollutants will blow into the smog smitten, high population Canadian side of the border.
(1145)
It is clear that the Americans do not want our lumber. They want our resources, our logs and our jobs, and they are getting them. The export of B.C. timber, that is raw logs, has increased from 269,000 cubic metres to 2.9 million cubic metres since 1997 according to the minister of forests. That is a ten-fold increase. This is while the federal government folds its hands and says “wait and see”.
It is outrageous that we are allowing American mills to process our logs at bargain rates while the American tariff wall closes our mills. B.C. forest minister De Jong recently said he is considering a tariff on log exports. He certainly has my support. A tariff on log exports would help at least to level the playing field while the dispute continues.
While the anticipated aid package from the federal government will provide extended EI coverage and money for retraining or relocating, British Columbians would like to know why Ottawa has no money for loans or even help with legal fees that are crippling our industry and forcing our mills to close.
In the throne speech we heard that the government would continue to work with its allies to ensure the safety and security of Canadians. Frankly, the government should be embarrassed about its failure to protect our security. In my riding I have many retired military personnel who, along with our active military personnel and our veterans, are likely among the Canadians most disappointed by this throne speech. In the face of greater world conflict, there is no commitment to rebuild our military infrastructure under the government.
We had 90,000 forces when the government took over, now they have been reduced to 53,000. There is no heavy lift capability. There is no capacity to move our troops and equipment without help from the Americans. This was true in Afghanistan but it was also true for domestic crisis like the 1997 flood in Manitoba.
We need an increase of at least $2 billion in annual funding for the military. We have $100 million for the Prime Minister's new passenger jets, while the military has aging Sea King helicopters and rejected, used and design-flawed British submarines, but what a bargain.
We need a new Hovercraft for marine search and rescue off Vancouver International Airport. With miles of mud flats not accessible by land or water, only a Hovercraft fills that niche, but there is no budget for infrastructure replacement. The coast guard is told to look for a used one. Where does one find a yard sale for Hovercraft?
Further on security, our marine communication and traffic services is chronically underfunded and understaffed, has no money for routine training and has delayed ab initio training. Our fine dedicated officers at MCTS already have been through amalgamation, reorganization, downsizing and cross-training, yet they still experience budget shortfalls. They monitor all our vessel traffic along our coasts. The fisheries committee documented these desperate conditions and wrote the minister. Our coasts are subject to vessels, tankers and terrorist threats, but where is the funding for coast guard monitoring of our high traffic and increasingly vulnerable coastlines?
The government promised in 1994 to end foreign overfishing. Despite a strong recommendation from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans about abuses of the NAFO states overfishing groundfish on the Canadian continental shelf, there as been no action and no significant intervention. At the recent NAFO meetings in Spain, member states gave themselves new quotas that ignore the science and continue the abuse of Canadian groundfish stocks.
In 1996 the government promised to revitalize our fisheries, but fisheries failures, mismanagement and conflicts continue on both coasts.
On health care, the throne speech asked Canadians to wait for Mr. Romanow. After pillaging transfer payments to the provinces, the government says to wait, but Canadians are concerned about long waiting lists. Further, evidence that medical interventions cause 100,000 deaths per year has led to calls for a new agency at $10 million per year to protect Canadians from medical mistakes.
With prescription drug failures being the fourth leading cause of death in the U.S. and 15% of acute care hospital beds occupied by prescription drug failures, maybe drugs and surgery are not the only legitimate interventions. It would have been nice to hear the throne speech commit to providing research dollars to check out promising alternatives that offer better outcomes with lower risks.
If feeding cheap byproducts to cattle in Britain allowed mad cow disease to infect cattle, why does the CFIA allow pig and horse to be fed to Canadian cattle? Every species has its own viruses. Cattle are herbivores. If cost effective measures like chiropractic can save $2 billion annually, why does Health Canada not research the facts and recommend cost effective measures to the provinces?
(1150)
Canadians want to know that their government has their interests at heart. Canadians want to know that every effort is being made to ensure their future and security is being addressed. The throne speech whistles that all is well, but Canadians look around and see great cause for concern. There was a sea captain in charge of a state of the art ship who refused to take note of the signs that all was not well. He was so confident that he refused to change course. The disaster of the Titanic is not the one that Canadians want for their country.
It is time for the government to demonstrate that it is listening to Canadians from coast to coast and working for the interests of all Canadians.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for bringing up the lack of attention in the throne speech regarding fishery related issues. We are both on the same committee. He correctly brought up the lack of detail or any kind of attention to this serious issue which is affecting the coastlines in this country.
I would like the member to elaborate more. We had a terrible incident on the west coast regarding the coast guard and a family of five that passed away. We had an incident prior to that in British Columbia where a person went over a bridge and was killed because of a lack of a proper diving unit and a lack of resources to our coast guard.
I would ask the member, if the government continues on this path, what does he see for the future of the west coast when it comes to coastal surveillance in our country?
Mr. James Lunney:
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question.
Indeed, the coast guard and the fisheries department in general are responsible for monitoring both our fish enforcement and certainly the coast guard services have been greatly stressed and underbudgeted for many years.
There was the tragedy with the recent sinking of the Cap Rouge II and the loss of five lives. It would be hard to describe what it was like for coast guard divers to be there but not permitted to enter this vessel because of labour code regulations. Why would the letter of the law prevent someone from trying to save a life?
It is apparent that risk is inherent in search and rescue operations. We have officers and trained divers. They trained the military divers that according to regulations they were waiting for.
It is time that our officers be free to use common sense in emergency circumstances to save lives, rather than being bound by the letter of a regulation while lives are endangered.
I wish to mention the coast guard infrastructure. The MCTS centres that we visited with the fisheries committee were understaffed, stressed, had stacks of documents of requests for the repair of equipment, with transmitters that were down in Prince Rupert and navigational aids that were not operational. This puts tremendous stress on the officers trying to do their job. There are thousands of miles of coastline that are not even monitored. We depend on voluntary communication for vessels coming into the northern part of our coast. Given the threats of today's world, the government has an obligation to do better to protect our coastline and our navigation.
(1155)
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it concerns me when I see in the Speech from the Throne the list of items that we will be spending large amounts of money on when other programs are being sacrificed. For example, the hon. member mentioned fisheries.
It concerns me that at this time the coast guard does not have the resources to respond to environmental spills. Recently it was reported to me that in the Fraser River there were some 2,000 litres of ethylene glycol, antifreeze, dumped or poured into the Fraser River. The coast guard did not have the resources to even respond to investigate. The person who did that should have the book thrown at them because that is destroying not only fish habitat, but killing fish during the spawning season.
Second, I would like the member to comment about the pine beetle. The federal government has money for these programs, but no money to clean up the damage caused by these beetles on federal government lands. I would like the member to comment on that also.
Mr. James Lunney:
Mr. Speaker, it is frightening that the government has allowed infrastructure to deteriorate to such an extent in the country. The Auditor General identified $16 billion in frivolous spending. We know of the ad accounts and the sponsorship programs that have caused the government such embarrassment with millions of dollars for reports that are either identical or cannot be found.
Surely it is possible within our budget and within the constraints of our taxpayers to redirect funds to necessary infrastructure to allow our officers to do the job they are trained to do in protecting the environment from spills as our colleague mentioned and allowing for the necessary clean up of emergencies that the pine beetle infestation has caused, and for the proper monitoring of our coasts.
In fact, the fisheries committee wrote to the minister prior to the last budget outlining the deficiencies we found in our communications and in the MCTS program in particular. We were hoping to see those factors addressed in the budget. The reality is that nothing has really changed and our officers are still severely stressed. This needs to change.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Yukon.
The Speech from the Throne on September 30 and the reply by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons the following day provides the framework for the government's overall policy and program agenda for the months to come. The budget which will probably be delivered in February next year will spell out how this program will be financed.
The government has recommitted itself to sound fiscal management. This means a continuation of the current emphasis on budgetary surpluses, not deficits, the ongoing implementation of a fair and competitive tax regime, strategic investments in the social and economic priorities of Canadians, and more debt reduction.
(1200)
[Translation]
In this context, the government has set itself an ambitious agenda in several key areas for Canadians.
[English]
The government has committed itself to a reformed health care system providing greater accountability and further long term federal investments in the health care system.
I would characterize Canada's health care system as the following: one with high per capita spending; one with good health outcomes in terms of items like infant mortality, life expectancy et cetera; but unfortunately, one where we get poor value for our money. In my view we need to focus on ensuring that our health care system is sustainable into the future which is a particular challenge, given demographics and the rapidly increasing number of elderly people in Canada.
Canadians collectively should recommit to the public health system and not to a two or ten tier health care system. Recommitting ourselves however to the public health system brings certain responsibilities.
We should not throw more money at the system. That would be irresponsible and not in the best interest of citizens and Canadian taxpayers. We need to continue to re-engineer the health care system.
[Translation]
In the Speech from the Throne, the government promises to help children and families out of poverty. The National Child Benefit for poor families will again be significantly increased.
[English]
The government will seek ratification of the Kyoto protocol on climate change. Signing the Kyoto accord will only be meaningful if committed goals can be achieved. While there will be new technologies and businesses created as a result of the implementation of the Kyoto protocol, it is naive to think that these new economy gains will offset the damage to our traditional sectors. The behaviour of Canadian businesses and individuals will have to change.
Canada should focus strategically on areas where the payoffs are largest and, wherever possible, the negative impact is well balanced and moderate. Greenhouse gases emitted by the transportation sector and the treatment of municipal solid waste are two such areas. Economic instruments beyond emissions trading and credits will be needed to aggressively advance the Kyoto agenda. Tax incentives, including shifting tax benefits from non-renewable to renewable sources of energy will be required.
Canada will double our government's development assistance by the year 2010 with half of that increase earmarked for Africa. Given our unique relationship with Somalia, Canada should be playing a stronger leadership role in the search for governance models and development assistance that will lead to lasting peace, stability and democracy in Somalia and the Horn of Africa. We should also support and assist the Somali-Canadian diaspora in its efforts to bring about peace and security in that area. We need to reward countries like Ghana for its commitment to good governance.
I was pleased to hear in the throne speech the commitment of our government to work with its partners to break down the barriers to the recognition of foreign credentials. This is a significant problem for many of my constituents of Etobicoke North and indeed across Canada. I look forward to cooperation among stakeholder groups not passing the buck and timely improvements in this area.
Canada needs to ensure that our regulatory environment is consistent with our government's innovation agenda. There are areas where this may not be the case. The process for drug approvals is an example where first mover advantage is sometimes lost to Canadian companies. We also need to rethink our approach to cost recovery and user fees to make them more transparent and more linked to performance. It is hoped that the smart regulation initiative outlined in the Speech from the Throne will address issues like these.
The implementation of a national drug strategy is overdue and most important. My riding of Etobicoke North is plagued with problems associated with drug abuse. Organizations such as the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse can assist the government in the formulation and implementation of an effective drug strategy.
There are a couple of areas which, while not covered in the Speech from the Throne, warrant attention. Although progress on productivity has been encouraging in the last few years. Canada still lags well behind the United States. It is well researched and documented that in companies where employees own shares, productivity gains in excess of 30% are achievable.
Employees share ownership plans, or ESOPs, reach all employees: the receptionist, the factory worker and the manager, not just company executives. Tax policies such as a tax credit similar to that available to investments in labour-sponsored venture capital corporations would encourage the formation of ESOPs and improve our productivity performance in Canada.
The Government of Canada needs a more strategic focus on its important relationship with the United States. This should encompass trade, cross border security, energy, national defence, water resources and a number of other related matters. I look forward to participating in the Prime Minister's task force on Canada-U.S. relations and to the set of recommendations that will be developed to strengthen the ties between legislators, both in Canada and the United States.
Our ability to move goods freely and easily across the border with the U.S.A. is critical, given that 87% of Canada's exports are destined for that market. In addition to policy considerations such as preauthorization, preclearance and border security, bottlenecks in the physical movement of cars and trucks at the border necessitates significant investments in infrastructure.
(1205)
Dealing with these requirements at border crossings at Windsor, Sarnia and the Peace Portal in Vancouver should take precedence over east-west arteries of the national highway system.
A recent announcement by the federal government in the province of Ontario to make a significant investment in the transportation infrastructure at the Windsor, Ontario border crossing is a very welcome first step.
The government has committed itself to a 10 year program for infrastructure. The program will benefit municipalities such as Toronto but also smaller communities such as Sooke, British Columbia and Colwood, B.C. I recently visited these areas and was told about two very important infrastructure proposals.
[Translation]
The Speech from the Throne includes important initiatives for Canada's aboriginals. There are some major challenges to be met in this area. We must work together with our aboriginal brothers and sisters to improve their quality of life and build their capacity for economic and social development.
The disabled also deserve special attention. We must see that they have genuine opportunities to achieve their full potential.
[English]
The government has also indicated its intention to extend its investments in affordable housing for those whose needs are greatest. In my riding of Etobicoke North, with its extensive array of high-rise apartments, this will be very welcomed.
Many of my constituents on fixed and modest incomes are increasingly spending a disproportionate amount of their limited income on accommodation and something needs to be done. I have already begun a dialogue in my riding with agencies interested in building this new affordable housing capacity in Etobicoke North.
What I have outlined is an ambitious agenda, one that does have a price tag. The government will have to carefully examine current spending and cut programs that are of a lesser priority.
Departmental and agency budgets will also face reallocation. Whatever it takes, we must maintain a balanced budget and not return to deficit. Canadians have made the sacrifices necessary to get us to this point and are not prepared to move backwards.
As the Prime Minister mentioned in his speech, the government will establish budget projections over a two or three year time horizon. This is important because beyond two or three years economic predictability becomes more difficult. We should not encumber future administrations with an unrealistic budget burden.
Our nation's finances have been turned around and this has created the possibility for a more activist agenda. We should remember, however, that our federal debt still sits at some $450 billion. We need to continue to reduce our debt to GDP ratio as well as the absolute amount of our debt.
The actions of our government to date, by paying down over $40 billion in debt, have resulted in annual savings in interest charges of some $3 billion. These savings are being redeployed to priorities such as health care and tax cuts. This action needs to be continued.
The government has laid out an ambitious and important agenda. We now need to develop a responsible implementation plan, and I commit myself to this task.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I want to pose a question to my colleague opposite, one that was not really dealt with in the throne speech itself but one that is on the minds of thousands of Canadians coast to coast. The question, which obviously the result will come from the Supreme Court, concerns the terminology of marriage.
We have one premier who has already stated that if the government sits by and allows a judgment to come down that would change the meaning of the act completely, that particular provincial premier would use the notwithstanding clause.
Would the hon. member, thinking about this as an individual, see that this would be a terrible injustice to have the Supreme Court change that which we inherited from generations?
(1210)
Mr. Roy Cullen:
Mr. Speaker, this is a very difficult area but one in which I have been very clear to my constituents in Etobicoke North.
When we had the legislation dealing with same sex benefits, I and a number of other members who sit in the House fought for the preamble which stated that this should not change the definition of marriage which is between a man and a woman.
We need to allow for the appeal to take place. I gather from the Minister of Justice or the committee that there might be a review of this issue but I for one am not very anxious to change the definition of marriage. In my view, if people are of such an inclination that they need to have a relationship and the only way to have a meaningful relationship is with someone of the same sex, then I say that the most important thing in life is to have a meaningful relationship. However, I do not believe that this relationship needs to be recognized by the state as a marriage. I think marriage was designed for a purpose, which is the procreation of children.
While my views may not be popular with everyone, I have been fairly consistent in what I have said to constituents who have a concern about this.
We need to let that play out through the court system. Whether the province uses a notwithstanding clause, I hope it will not need to do that. As legislators we will deal with this in the way that Canadians intend us to do.
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the last exchange and ask the hon. member perhaps to clarify why gay and lesbian people, who are involved in committed, loving relationships and who want the choice of celebrating those relationships through marriage, should be denied that choice in a society that reflects and celebrates diversity. The Ontario and Quebec courts have ruled that way.
When the hon. member suggests, and I think he said that the purpose of marriage was procreation, frankly, that is an insult to the many couples who are not able to have children, elderly couples who marry and many gay and lesbian partners who raise children.
Would the member clarify why it is that in any way we would be weakening the institution of marriage by allowing gay and lesbian people to have that choice? Surely that is the essence of equality in a democratic society.
Mr. Roy Cullen:
Mr. Speaker, I guess it comes down to some fundamental differences in terms of beliefs. My own view is that gay and lesbian couples should be able to operate very freely, and in fact they do. Some fairly high profile marriages have taken place in a church in Ontario.
However I am strongly of the view that while we should not create impediments for people who are gay or lesbian to form very meaningful relationships, I do not believe that it is incumbent upon the state to recognize those relationships as marriages. It goes back to, I suppose, a very fundamental view of what marriage is meant to be. While I respect the rights of people to form the--
The Deputy Speaker:
Order, please. I only have so much generosity given the large number of people who want to speak on the debate of the day.
(1215)
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my speech is longer than the time allotted so I will try to get as far as I can on the various topics I would like to address.
As chair of our foreign affairs defence and international aid caucus, I think it is incumbent upon me to make some comments on parts of the throne speech that refer to some of those areas, especially because of the crisis the world is now facing with Iraq and the debates that are going on in the evenings.
I must say that the debates of last night and the night before were tremendous, as I am sure the debate tonight will be. They were a good example of how Parliament should work, with people from all parties putting in constructive positions for the government to take note of as it makes its decisions. In this respect I think it has been exemplary to other parliamentarians that the ministers and the parliamentary secretaries have been staying until midnight to listen to what has to be said.
One comment in the throne speech states:
|
|
--the government will remain vigilant and ready to ensure the protection of Canadians from emerging threats, and will work with the United States to address our shared security needs. |
I want to continue on with Iraq a bit. I was in the House the last two nights until midnight but I cannot be here tonight so I just want to add some further reflections.
One of the statements in the throne speech makes it quite clear to the people who are questioning our commitment to our allies and to the United States that we have always worked closely with them and will continue to work with them. We have many shared goals and aspirations and of course we will continue to work with them.
Another point in the throne speech states:
|
|
The government will continue to work with its allies to ensure the safety and security of Canadians. |
If that were ever a question, we are steadfastly working with our allies and we will continue to work with our allies. There is absolutely no question about that. That is in the throne speech.
It also is absolutely certain that Canada will continue to maintain its sovereignty. We will continue to make our own decisions. The Prime Minister has made those things quite clear. Certainly members on this side, and I am sure all members of the House, want Canada to remain a sovereign nation and continue, as it always has, to make its own decisions on these things. When we have a very close friends, we do lots of things with them but we do not necessarily do everything with them. We will continue to make our own decisions as to when and how to act on these situations.
A further point in the throne speech states:
|
|
Canada will continue to work through organizations such as the United Nations to ensure that the rule of international law is respected and enforced. |
I think we have made that point loud and clear during the debate.
On the legal aspects, I recommend that those people who did not have a chance to listen to the tremendous speech by the member for Mount Royal last night at midnight, which was a detailed analysis of international law, take that into their thinking.
I would like to touch on a few other aspects and things to think about.
In my input into the debate I did not say that I had any answers. I did not provide any answers in either direction as to whether to engage the military or not. What I am trying to add to the debate are things that we should carefully think about.
The first thing we should think about concerns the United Nations. When the United Nations designs a prescription or a motion as to how the world community should act, I hope it keeps in mind that military consequences are not the only type of consequences. If there are certain problems with the inspection process, which of course we all hope goes well and that there will be access to everything, but depending on the size of the hiccups and the size of the remedies, I hope people keep in mind that there are other actions other than military and that we should bring all of these into force and consider them in designing the consequences.
The United Nations resolutions have to be very careful in their design. If they are not designed correctly, as with any resolution, they could be used improperly.
(1220)
We would not want any particular country using a resolution inappropriately if it is too broad or does not define what it allows. We have seen in the past that people can say it gives them direction when it is not clear, when it is too open or too ambiguous. Hopefully the Security Council will keep its hands on the levers of force so that what it intends actually occurs.
We must also think about the interconnection. This is a very complex situation, as the Middle East always is, as war always is and as terrorism always is. Think of the complex interaction between the fight on terrorism we are engaged in and this particular conflict with Iraq. We have to think about whether the conflict with Iraq and the way we engage in it will be a distraction to the effectiveness of our war on terrorism, which has a long way to go. We are nowhere near the goals we want to accomplish relating to that. How much will this distract attention from that? Will it distract attention negatively?
We have a number of Muslim allies in Arab countries in the world related to the war on terrorism right now. If we do not act appropriately with regard to Iraq as far as perception or reality goes, what kind of effect will it have on this very delicate balance we have with the allies on our war against terrorism?
Once again if our action in Iraq is not very careful or is without the proper perceptions, what will be the effect of destabilizing other countries in that region and other parts of the world? There are countries that are very close to getting into regimes like Saddam Hussein's which we obviously do not want. There are countries that now are allies but have very strong fundamental groups and movements that could easily take over if the country was destabilized with the motivation that we had inflamed them for acting inappropriately and not carefully in our action on Iraq. We have to take this in the context of the various elections and governments in the world and what their status is related to their levers on the power in the various countries involved. It all has an effect.
As I said earlier, perception is reality in politics. We have to be careful that whatever we do, no matter how right it is, does not appear to be a western world overpowering a religion, a smaller nation and causing resentment in the masses of millions in the world that Canada has to have a good relationship with. We are a great multicultural country and a great leader in the world in that respect. Our pluralism brings us strength at home. It brings us those groups in Canada that we can now rely on to provide us with advice and input into the situation. I hope they do that so that we can make an even stronger intellectual decision after the great ideas that have come from this debate.
Another item I want to raise relates to the large amount of people who support Islam throughout the Middle East and the Far East which this is going to have an effect on if we are not careful in how we do it. They do not have access to all the information we have. In a situation like this one, what perception gets down to the people living in the streets? Think about the millions of people in India. Think about the millions of people from India who actually live in the Middle East and the area we are talking about. Think about the effect it will have on them, on the many people who are friendly with us at this time, on our important allies in the area and on our relationships in the world.
(1225)
We have to think about the countries adjacent to Iraq, the countries most under threat within range of the missiles that have been developed and they are developing even longer range missiles. Obviously people in those countries would be the most upset. They should be involved in a coalition. They are not all involved yet. We must get them onside. If they are the most threatened we want them to be part of any coalition or any understanding. We do not want to hurt our relationships with those countries and cause their citizens to do things that would not benefit Canada in the long run.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to our hon. colleague from the opposite side. It dawned on me that even though he was sharing his thoughts on the Middle East, we are here trying to debate the throne speech this morning. He is a little ahead of himself, seeing that the Middle East debate is later on this evening.
However I would like to ask him a question specifically on the throne speech, since he is so concerned about some of the Middle East countries and some of the areas of the regions he spoke about. I believe he referred to India and Pakistan.
Clearly in the throne speech one of the major priorities for the government is Kyoto and the environmental accord it is pushing forward on, regardless of the effects on the economy, regardless of the human impact in Canada, which we still do not know because no impact studies have been provided by the government. I would like to ask the member specifically, since he is obviously concerned about some of the regions of the world that he spoke about in his speech, what sort of message are we sending out to many of these countries, especially on Kyoto, when we are forcing industrialized countries to sign on to an agreement that is not even engaging some of the worst polluters in the world, India, Pakistan and China to name a few?
Would he not agree that the best way to solve some of the environmental problems is to actually put some regulations in place that would force industrialized countries to work with those countries instead of signing some grandiose agreement? Should we not put something in place so that we could share technologies with those countries and force them to change their environmental practices in a proactive way, rather than forcing something that could cause huge negative impacts for our economy?
Mr. Larry Bagnell:
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his excellent question. He will be surprised at how much I agree with him on a number of points. I am not totally sure I understood the part about the other countries. However it is great that he asked the question because there are a number of things I would like to say.
It is great to have these other countries, especially the polluting countries, work through the United Nations, and to try to sell them technologies. As I said, we are big supporters of that. There are great economic benefits to working on the solutions to Kyoto. Parliamentarians heard some great speeches yesterday afternoon about the success of that. If I understood the member's direction in that area, I am supportive of it.
I am also agree with him that we need to know the effects. My personal opinion is we need to know the costs. I have talked to the minister about this. I too am anxious to know what are the costs of implementing this to the various sectors of the economy, to various people. They should have the right to know if they will still be as positive as they are. Canadians are 80% onside and my riding is tremendously onside.
I was delighted the throne speech explained that climate change has far more dramatic effects in the north. Although I do not have time to explain them now, I would be happy to explain to people some of the examples. I have had a lot of input from my riding, including from the Council of Yukon First Nations, the medical association and a number of others, about how important support is for that because it has such a critical effect on the Yukon.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I disagree completely with the member opposite. We do not force poorer nations to do anything. We lead by example. Kyoto is a good example of that. If we are not willing to lead ourselves, how can we persuade other poorer nations to follow our example?
I would like to ask my colleague, who is interested in foreign affairs, about a very cryptic part of the Speech from the Throne. I am very interested in young people and their future. There is one sentence which says:
| [The government] will create more opportunities for young Canadians to help clean up our environment and assist in achieving Canada's global priorities, particularly in Africa. |
Has my colleague given any thought to this, through his caucus on foreign affairs? Does this mean we will revive and strengthen Katimavik, or develop something similar, so that young people in Canada can clean up the environment and go overseas and do good work?
(1230)
The Deputy Speaker:
Not to take anything away from the merits of the question, but I am afraid the reply is going to come at another place at another time because the time has elapsed.
[Translation]
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate that I will be sharing my time with the member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier.
The Prime Minister recently let it be known that he would be staying on until February 2004, and no later, and then announced that he would bring back Parliament two weeks later so as to be able to present Canadians and Quebeckers with a throne speech. The least one can say is that the people in my riding who listened to this throne speech did not get their money's worth.
I would like to start off with a quote the leader of the Bloc Quebecois used at the very beginning of his speech in reply to the Speech from the Throne. This quote is a statement the Prime Minister made when he first ran as the member for Shawinigan in 1963. It goes as follows:
|
|
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— |
The young MP from Shawinigan, he of the long political career he likes to keep reminding us of, had an opportunity in this last throne speech to talk about what he felt were his successes and what was left to be done on this so important matter. But what were we treated to instead?
We were treated to a catalogue—the term used by a number of commentators—of measures which are, in large part, nothing new. As far as the Quebec people and nation are concerned, they do what the Prime Minister said in 1963 when speaking of two nations:
|
|
--that there is this in particular for our people and our nation, that it continues its encroachment on the specific areas of jurisdiction of Quebec and thumbs its nose at the consensus in Quebec. |
This is quite an accomplishment for someone who claimed to have entered politics in order to reshape the constitution, not among ten provinces, but between two nations.
There is no recognition whatsoever in the throne speech of fiscal imbalance. As one of the ten provinces, Quebec has needs that must be met. This is enough to alarm anyone, as Yves Séguin was alarmed. This is the man the Premier of Quebec appointed to chair a committee on fiscal imbalance. Without a shadow of a doubt, he established the existence of a fiscal imbalance that is dangerous for the level of services to which Quebeckers are entitled.
(1235)
As a result of that imbalance, the structural surpluses are in Ottawa and the growing needs in Quebec.
As far as health is concerned, we are waiting on the outcome of the Romanow commission, but it has referred right from the start to standardization. As we know, Quebec has its own culture, not in language and fine arts, but in a different method of organization. There is no mention of one vital issue for Quebec, parental leave. I say for Quebec but I should say for the families of Quebec, the young families, for those who would like to start families, but are going through hard times. I am referring to parental leave for those women and men—since the leave is also available to fathers—who are not covered by the present Employment Insurance Act and all those who do not have a decent income under the present legislation.
Quebec plans to have a parental leave program that should be put in place because of its specific demographic situation.
It is critical for Quebec to be able to provide young couples and all those who want children with the means to do so, and this includes real parental leave. It also includes assistance, and not just to poor families. Sure, we must fight poverty. However, the decision to have children is something that must be recognized by society.
Again, because of the fiscal imbalance, Quebec is not able to fully recognize this most fundamental contribution to society.
The Speech from the Throne is also silent on employment insurance, which explains why large segments of the population are living in poverty. It is also silent on softwood lumber, but it does include many intrusions by the federal government.
I will conclude by discussing foreign affairs, which what I am responsible for. This of course includes Canada's relations with other countries. The Prime Minister, who had a golden opportunity to present his vision of Canada's role in the world, announced that the government will establish long term guidelines before the end of its mandate.
However, he did not mention one of the key issues for this country, namely the changing role of the United States in the world, following the collapse of the Soviet empire and the affirmation of the United States' superpower status, which raises questions for Canada. Our country, which has built an international reputation in the areas of peacekeeping and human rights promotion, must define, after consulting Quebeckers and Canadians, a clear position in its relations with its powerful neighbour and friend, which has to realize that we are a separate country.
Does it take a sovereignist to remind the Prime Minister that he had an opportunity to propose a plan, a vision, but did not do so?
The Prime Minister who, when he entered politics, wanted to redraft the Constitution not between 10 provinces, but between two nations, should have presented his vision, at least for the nation that he decided to serve, namely the Canadian nation.
(1240)
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, before I get to the main issue, I would like to take a few moments to speak about the form of the political exercise in which we are engaged today.
As recently as last weekend, in my riding of Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, people were asking me to explain what a throne speech was. I said that someone who had not been elected to office, someone who had been chosen and appointed by the Prime Minister, would be reading the government's policies out to a chamber full of other unelected and unrepresentative people. When I mentioned that MPs, the people's representatives, those who had been elected, did not have access to this chamber, people were surprised, to say the least.
They had some idea of what it meant. However, when one stops to think about it for a few minutes—and that is all the time I would spend—the absurdity of these colonial trappings hits home, and one might wonder how this exercise is representative of societies, such as those of Canada and of Quebec, which are themselves hardly monarchist and very egalitarian. All in all, one might have some questions about the form itself of the exercise, which, of course, is not as important as its substance.
What we saw in the Speech from the Throne is a reflection of Canadian dynamics. We have a country that has been built at quite a pace since 1995. This pace gathered steam in 1995, following the defeat of the yes side in the referendum, but it began back in 1982. I am referring to the building of a strong central Canada with equal provinces, a nation from coast to coast. When conflict arises between the Canadian way and the Quebec way of doing things, it will always be the Canadian way that will come out on top.
About this nation building, the Speech from the Throne is a good illustration of the fact that there is no status quo. Those who believe that some constitutional, administrative, or even political status quo exists are totally wrong. There is no status quo. Since 1982, Canada has rebuilt itself, and the process has gathered speed since 1995. This process is clearly illustrated by three specific examples.
The first example is that of centralization, a power grab by the central government in areas of responsibility that do not come under its jurisdiction. This is not simply about labelling powers. In very specific areas, this centralization has meant that Quebec cannot implement programs that it wants.
Just this week, the Speech from the Throne mentioned that the federal government would provide access to quality day care. Yet everyone knows that Quebec already has a $5 a day day care program that is very popular, in fact the only problem with it is that it is too popular. The federal government has once again announced its intention to interfere in research, in literacy and education, when we know very well that this is a provincial jurisdiction. The same can be said for health, education, university research, public transit. There are numerous examples.
So, the first example of this nation building is a complete disregard for jurisdiction by Ottawa, as it decides to act in areas where it does not belong.
(1245)
The second example, which follows on the first one, shows that fiscal imbalance allows Ottawa to impinge upon areas which do not come under federal jurisdiction. I would remind the House that because of this fiscal imbalance, which is recognized by everyone in Canada—except the government—by the three political parties in the National Assembly and by all of the provinces, Ottawa can now afford, through its spending power, to get interfere in provincial areas of jurisdiction.
Ottawa can tell the provinces “You are hungry, you are thirsty, you cannot afford to carry out your responsibilities in your own jurisdictions, but it does not matter. We, in Ottawa, can give you the money you need; you will be able to do your work, but under our conditions and according to our standards”.
On one hand, we have Ottawa's stated intention to centralize, illustrated by the three examples from the throne speech that I have given. Also linked to that is the issue of fiscal imbalance, where Quebec loses $50 million, that is $2 billion a year. Ottawa has the means and the desire to impose its standardizing and centralizing vision for Canada.
The third example of this centralizing web is the fact that the federal government does not care about consensus in Quebec in the least. For example, I was very disappointed not to see anything about young offenders in the Speech from the Throne.
Judges, defence counsel, crown attorneys, social workers, police officers and the three political parties represented in the National Assembly all say that Quebec's approach to young offenders had produced the best results in terms of youth crime in North America.
With its bill, which has now been passed and which, by the way, that will be challenged before the appeal court at the end of November, the federal government has axed that approach. While it would have been so easy to allow Quebec to continue with its approach, since it was producing good results, the government said that, no matter, it would ignore the Quebec consensus, because it had a Canadian vision and, when there is a conflict between the Canadian vision and the Quebec vision, the former must prevail.
Here is another example: parental leave. Quebec is willing to give its young families the most generous parental leave program in Canada. What has Ottawa done? It refuses to transfer the money to Quebec so that it can impose its own parental leave program, which is not as good nor as generous as Quebec's program and to which six out of ten people would not have access.
I have used various elements of the Speech from the Throne to show how Ottawa is building a Canada where it wants to interfere in areas that are not under its jurisdiction, which it has the means to do because of the fiscal imbalance, where it can impose its Canadian vision, where it shows nothing but contempt for any consensus that may exist in Quebec and for Quebec's way of doing things. I think that all that is leading Quebeckers to realize more and more that there is no status quo, which brings us back to my introduction.
There is no status quo, and the choice that Quebeckers are facing is this: they can either build their own country or accept to be a province like the others, accept to live in a system that is increasingly centralized and standardized.
When the alternatives are clear, I am sure that the latter option, this centralized Canada, will be rejected by the vast majority of Quebeckers.
[English]
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks today by congratulating the Prime Minister, the cabinet, all of the MPs who have worked so hard over these last few years and contributed to the development of this speech, the staff who have worked diligently over the summer, the public servants, and Canadians, whom we see reflected over and over again in this speech.
In many ways this is the starting point that gets us back on track, back where we wanted to be after the 2000 election, a course we were diverted from by the terrible events of September 11. All members will know just how the House was seized with the work on security to try to ensure that we had the capacity to respond to and to prevent a repetition of such tragedies. Now we are back to the agenda that the government laid out in the election campaign of 2000, with which so many members here have been struggling and on which they have been working over the time since the last election.
I would make the comment right off the top that this is an enormously ambitious agenda. It is an enormous number of initiatives that we have to fit into a relatively short period of time and the House will have to work extremely hard to see quality legislation produced that reflects the wishes of Canadians.
Within the speech, we see how a process within the House, within the work done by members here on the Hill, now comes together in a series of commitments that soon, with the passage of legislation, will become programs that will go on to benefit Canadians for a very long time. I want to focus on a few of them.
I was privileged to be a member of the urban task force. We spent a great deal of time travelling across the country speaking to mayors and citizens in cities all across the country, trying to sort out how we could assist them in grappling with some of the terrible problems with which cities are confronted. Our large urban centres are having difficulty, in part because of a restricted tax base, in responding to the demands for new infrastructure that will allow them to build the kind of modern infrastructure that will make it possible for them to remain competitive into the future. We heard over and over again about the need for the country to come to terms with how we treat and support our cities.
In doing this, I wish to congratulate the mayor of Winnipeg, Mayor Murray, who has been a very effective leader in this debate over the last few years. The mayors of the five big cities have contributed strongly, as has the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, to the work that the task force did. We see that reflected in the Speech from the Throne.
If there was one thing the mayors asked us for it was to please extend the timeframe for infrastructure so that they could plan, so that infrastructure would not come as a surprise that is announced every now and again. Then they have to adjust all of their planning in order to fit the funds that are available. They asked us over and over again to put in place a plan that would give them some predictability and, frankly, the opportunity to move in a more coordinated fashion toward the development of the infrastructure that they feel they need in their regions. The government has responded to that.
The House will be challenged to go through the details of this to see whether it meets some of the tests that the mayors put on us. One of the things I will be interested in looking at is whether we will be tied to the old trilateral structure for these agreements or whether the federal government will free itself and allow itself to work bilaterally with cities. That was an issue that came up over and over again in those debates. I am hoping and will be arguing that it should be included in this legislative agenda.
Above all, I want to thank the member for York West, who chaired that process and who worked countless hours. In fact none of us are sure how she managed to keep up with the demands. She produced a very competent report that we now see reflected in a series of commitments in the Speech from the Throne.
I want to stop a minute to talk about a program that was actually introduced some time ago by the government. In the Speech from the Throne there is a commitment to substantially increasing it. That is the child tax benefit. I think that some years from now when people start reflecting on this, they will recognize that the child tax benefit is as significant a social program as some of the other main programs we have put in place, such as health care and pensions, those big pillars of our social safety net.
(1250)
This is a program that for the first time steps back from some of the paternalistic attitudes that we have had toward very poor people, a step back from surrounding them in a network of services that are available only if they are good, a step back from people who are caught in the welfare trap. It says that people are competent to make their own decisions, that some people simply do not have access for a variety of reasons, such as low wage rates, lack of education and other things, to the kind of financial support that allows them to live healthy lives and raise healthy children. It puts money directly into their hands and trusts them to be able to make competent decisions on behalf of their families. I think it is a radical change from the history of social welfare in this country. I think the government should be congratulated for bringing it in. I think the Prime Minister is to be congratulated for committing to substantially increase that credit.
I want to congratulate people like Wayne Helgason from the Social Planning Council of Winnipeg and Mike Owen from the Winnipeg Boys and Girls Clubs, who have worked hard to help the government to understand the value of stepping back from those more paternalistic services and delivering services directly.
I also want to spend a bit of time on first nations. In Manitoba we have a very large first nations population. In the city of Winnipeg we have a large, growing younger generation. An ever-increasing portion of the workforce is made up of young first nations people. There has been a dramatic change in the leadership within first nations communities over the three decades that I have been working with them. I worked very closely with them in the early eighties. I am absolutely and deeply impressed with the quality of the leadership, the quality of the governance that is being built in those communities.
We have several pieces of legislation coming forward. There is the governance act, which we will have to look at very carefully and work on with leaders. I want to thank leaders like Grand Chief Margaret Swan and Chief Jerry Fontaine, who have worked closely with me and with others to help us understand how that legislation can be improved.
I want to congratulate the government for the commitments around economic development. If there is anything that is going to help us get out of some of the traps that have been created historically, it will be to give people the tools through education, early childhood development and support in starting to take control of their own lives economically. I think it is an incredibly important initiative. It is important for my province. I think the government should be congratulated for doing it.
On immigration, if we were to prioritize the two or three big initiatives for my province and my city, certainly assisting aboriginals would be one and immigration would be another. We live in a very large area with a relatively small population. Here again I wish to congratulate a lot of people who have worked very hard: the minister responsible for the provincial nominee program, Becky Barrett; the business council with Art DeFehr and Bob Silver; the people on our immigration advisory committee, Sharad Chandra and Ken Zaifman and the 70 or 80 people who work month after month trying to sort out ways to solve these problems. In Manitoba the provincial nominee program has a 91% success rate at bringing people in and settling them in the community with jobs and helping them become very successful. That is because of the work of the people in Manitoba who are so committed to seeing immigration grow.
I also want to thank our Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who has taken the time to meet with these people and work with them, not once but several times, and continues to do that and to pick up their challenges. One of the very first things that the group raised with the new minister of immigration was the problem with credentials and how we can bring in people who have professional credentials but cannot work in their field because they cannot get access to local licensing. That is because of the multiplicity of laws across the country and how the laws are fixed, in either arm's-length organizations or provincial jurisdictions. We have to sort that out if we are going to be effective at recruiting the best from around the world to live in our country. I think the minister has done an absolutely superb job. In the Thanksgiving break week there will be a two-day federal-provincial conference on this issue. The minister will bring together the ministers of all the provinces so that they can finally sit down at the table to try to sort out this important area.
(1255)
I want to move on to research and development because there is a series of initiatives here that I think are timely and important. They are going to be difficult for the House and we are going to have to work hard to sort them out, but I also want to talk about some of the things we have done that I think need improving and which we now have an opportunity to fix.
It has been said by some that dealing in the area of public policy is a little like trying to change a tire on a moving car. The thing is in progress and has a certain infrastructure and momentum and we are trying to fix it as it goes along. That is particularly true when the government gets involved, creates a number of initiatives that get into play and then discovers that maybe some aspects have worked well but others have not. I think that is the case in our support for research and development.
I am, and I declare it every time I stand in the House, a huge proponent of increasing the support for research and development, for the development and acquisition of knowledge, as a way of maintaining our competitive edge in the world. I am also a huge proponent of beginning to incorporating new technologies in the management of public space. That will allow us to meet a whole bunch of goals that I hear members of the House talking about, such as increased transparency and accountability. They are part of the paradigm of becoming smarter as a country.
At the same time I think there are some real problems in our research infrastructure. Some of them existed before the coming of this government, but some of them have been created, fostered and enhanced by this government. Let me reference two of them.
First, we have put a lot of new money into initiatives and granting councils such as the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. We did a big reform of the Institutes of Health Research and again added additional funding. These are important initiatives.
The Institutes of Health Research is a model of how a network research institution can be built. It incorporates the best in every province and builds upon their existing strengths. Alan Bernstein and others in that organization should be congratulated for their leadership and the very important work they do. I hope we will find a way to steadily increase the funding that is available to them. Similarly, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council is well networked and provides important support to researchers all across this country in understanding how we live.
But there are some problems. I would say that NSERC, the sciences research council, and the Canada Foundation for Innovation are stuck in an older model. Frankly, I do not think they have caught on to what needs to happen in a modern economy. I think that they basically have dismissed most of the country and have decided that there are only five universities in Canada worth supporting and have biased the majority of their funding toward those five. I think that is wrong.
There is another thing we have done. We have announced a multiplicity of programs. We now have health research, social sciences, NSERC, the Canada Foundation for Innovation and the chairs program, as well as another foundation for the environment, with a number of pockets of research money scattered throughout various departments. So universities have to bring on staff and divert professorial time away from actually doing research or teaching to “grantsmanship”. They run around trying to negotiate the multiplicity of doors they have to get through in order to assemble the financial support needed to do the work that they do.
In this throne speech, we see a series of commitments about continuing to increase financial support. I would hope and I will be arguing that we need to shape this support so that we correct the imbalance created by the Canada Foundation for Innovation and NSERC, so that we begin to recognize, as the Institutes of Health Research and SSHRC have done, that there is capacity in every single university in every single part of the country. I hope we will use the tools the government has to perhaps move those two organizations into a more modern view of management, one that is more responsive to the kind of Canada that I believe most Canadians would like to see built. There are other elements within that package. If we look at how the speech is written, we will note that there are a number of sections. This one is in learning and innovation. There is another section about smart regulation.
(1300)
There are going to be some debates here: changes in copyright protection, changes and finalization of a very important piece of work that was done by the health committee on new reproductive technologies, and pesticide use. These issues have been debated well by the House. The piece of work that was done by the health committee which I had the privilege to be a part of, the former leader of the Alliance, Mr. Manning, and others, was to me a model of how good work can be done on difficult, contentious issues.
Debates around here have a range from the pretty mundane, ordinary kind of boring debates right up to the hottest of emotional and personal issues. That topic took us right into all of the areas we are so fearful around, such as abortion and the rights of the unborn, and all of those kinds of things. Yet, that committee was able to grapple with those and come through that experience to produce a report that every member of the committee felt good about.
I once wrote a piece on how it is not possible for the House of Commons to make an optimal decision. What is optimal depends on the point of view of the individual putting it forward. No matter what people put forward they will not be thoroughly pleased or get 100% because the nature of this place is ultimately to compromise. It is ultimately to find the most optimal route from a complex set of opinions, a complex set of beliefs, and a complex set of needs. That was something we achieved in that committee on an exceptionally difficult topic. I was proud to be a part of it.
Now we are down to the work in the House. All the committees would like to work on their pieces of legislation. I had the privilege of being part of the work to create a new committee in the House. It was created before the summer recess. It is the new Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. Because it is a new committee there are all sorts of expectations and all sorts of things being brought to the committee for us to work on but I want to--
Mr. Darrel Stinson: We have no expectations from this side. We know exactly what it will do.
Mr. Reg Alcock: Well, I suspect members will get out of the committee what they choose to put into the committee, frankly.
The genesis of the committee comes out of a couple of things. It comes out of an interest of many members of the House to start to get better informed about how the new information and communication technologies can be a lever for change, substantial change in the nature of public spacing, public management, in citizen involvement and a whole host of things.
One of the things that has to happen is that people need to get up to speed on that. They need to understand that. They need to develop an understanding of what the capabilities are before they begin to apply it to something as complex as government. This committee has a mandate to do that. It has a unique mandate in that it has a mandate to look at things across government, not just down one department, but across every single government department.
It also has a mandate which arose from work that was done by a member of the Alliance and a member of our party who produced a report that talked about the need for reforming and improving the estimates process. We have a tool for significant organizational change. We have a lot of background understanding about how accountability structures work in the House and we have put them together.
We are going to try to build a committee process that allows all members from all sides to lead on these topics. I invite all members to be involved. The test will be whether or not we as members can come together and work collaboratively to produce substantive change. I invite other members to join in this and we will see what happens.
(1305)
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke of the importance of increasing the child tax benefit. My colleagues and I hope that the government will see fit to double the child tax benefit as Campaign 2000 recommended, the group of Canadians who have been working with dedication for many years in the fight against child poverty.
I want to ask the hon. member about a contradiction in the government's approach to people who are living in poverty. People with disabilities in many cases are some of the poorest of Canadian citizens.
At the end of August the government's Minister of Finance tabled a proposed regulation that is a shameful attack on people with disabilities. That regulation would cut people off from the disability tax credit in circumstances in which they need help to feed themselves. In this heartless and cruel proposal by the Minister of Finance, decisions of the Federal Court of Appeal and other courts are being overturned by bureaucrats and by the finance ministry. It is now telling people with disabilities, who are already struggling, that if they are able to get a meal from their plate to their mouth that is the end of the test. If they are struggling to get their food to the table, if they need assistance in getting the food, or assistance in feeding, tough luck. It is one of the most disgraceful and shameful attacks on people with disabilities.
I ask the member who spoke of the new generosity of the government, will he stand in his place and condemn that proposed regulation brought forward by his own government? Will he assure the House and the people of Canada that he and his colleagues will do everything in their power to join with the subcommittee on the status of persons with disabilities, my colleague from Dartmouth, who was our spokesperson on that committee, his own colleague, the former chair of the subcommittee, the member for St. Paul's, and say to the Minister of Finance to stop this appalling attack on people with disabilities?
(1310)
Mr. Reg Alcock:
Mr. Speaker, if I were to stand and do that, I would have to stand behind the lineup of Liberal members already doing that.
The member for St. Paul's, as the member rightly mentioned, is the former chair of the subcommittee on the status of persons with disabilities. The member for Fredericton spent a good portion of his time a few years ago helping to develop increased programs and support for disabled people.
I can tell the member from my own experience about a friend of mine who called me a little while ago. He has a daughter who was born without her left arm. When she was a baby the cost was not a big deal. It was not much different raising her. But as she got older and ready for school, where she had to have special prostheses and other things to help her fit in, he finally applied for the credit. He was refused. He phoned me and asked how she could not be disabled? We phoned the department. We were told she never had the arm and therefore how could she be disabled by the loss of it?
I want to be really clear about this. I am quite proud to stand here and condemn that decision, as most members on this side are. I do not know what has gone wrong. I do not know the rationale. We have tried to sort it out. All of us will be looking to see what the minister says because it is absolutely wrong. I had my staff go back and pull the speeches of finance ministers when they talked about, first, the introduction of the tax credit and then the changes.
I asked for the purpose of it. Over and again we saw ministers saying it was to help people deal with extraordinary costs created by their disabilities. It is not like we are giving people a gold plated road to retirement. This is not a big credit. It is a small amount of money that helps people deal with the extraordinary cost created by not being able to function like the rest of us. The actions of the department are shameful.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Red Deer.
It is a pleasure to rise and address the Speech from the Throne today. I want to address it first of all from the perspective of being a member from the riding of Medicine Hat in Alberta. In a moment I will talk about how it affects the portfolio which I critique, namely human resources development.
The first thing I would say in reflecting on the throne speech is that it seemed to put forward a number of ideas that we already have heard about many times in the past. We have heard the government talk endlessly in past throne speeches about the need to deal with child poverty. That is fine. We agree with that, but it seems like every time there is a throne speech the government comes up with some new proposal to address the problem but it never gets fixed.
The same is true of issues affecting aboriginals. We see new program after new program. Again there are new programs here but the problem never seems to get better. Oftentimes it seems to get worse. That should cause us to reflect a little about whether or not these programs are a good idea or maybe we need to come up with some completely new approaches.
We see the government addressing the issue of Kyoto in the throne speech. In my judgment that is completely out of step with where Canadians are at. Canadians want clean air and they want to deal with pollutants in the air. They want to get rid of smog. If the public understood all the implications of Kyoto they would not be supportive of it.
One of the things that struck me when I read the passage about Kyoto in the throne speech was the fact that the government said on the one hand that it would be ratified by Christmas, but on the other hand said that it was consulting right now. How can it decide that it will ratify the thing if it has not even finished consulting yet? It is an insult to the intelligence of Canadians to suggest that it is taking their input seriously if it already decided to go ahead and ratify the thing.
The government is planning on ratifying it without any plan to implement it. How will this work? There is nothing worse than uncertainty. We have individuals and businesses with billions of dollars ready to invest but they have no idea how Kyoto would be implemented. Obviously it will put a chill on investment and those people will withhold those investments until it is clear what is going on.
It is important that the government provide the public with some sense of what the impact of Kyoto would be. How can we have a meaningful debate if we do not know what the impact would be?
Members should consider for a moment what might happen to seniors under Kyoto. If energy prices go up even a little, and they are likely to go up a lot more than a little, what would be the impact on utility costs? Members should remember that the great majority of seniors are on fixed incomes. It is tight for them already. Utility costs are climbing. If Kyoto comes in, what would be the impact on seniors? Those are the sorts of questions that need to be addressed before we go marching forward to ratify the thing. Unfortunately the government seems determined to do exactly that.
Also notable are the things that were not in the throne speech. I spent a week this summer at CFB Wainwright through the Department of National Defence parliamentary outreach. We spent time out in the field and slept on the ground in a tent. I got a good sense of what it is like for the infantry of the Canadian military. It was a fascinating experience. I have tremendous respect for our troops. They are tough, disciplined, and extraordinarily professional, but they do not have the resources.
When we went out there we did live fire exercises and all kinds of things, but in many cases they did not even have enough ammunition to conduct live fire exercises. That is a real concern, especially when we consider what they are being asked to do: engage in peacekeeping roles, go to Afghanistan and perhaps now even go to Iraq. They need those resources but there was no commitment in the throne speech to granting any more resources. That is a disgrace.
(1315)
The throne speech talked about the issue of health care, which is something that is very important to Canadians. It said that somewhere down the road the Liberals would think about reforming it, but the immediate cash injection needed was not there. Again, the government has different priorities.
When it comes to agriculture, there is one sentence in the throne speech on it. I think it is generally accepted by the Canadian public that agriculture is in deep trouble right now. The government has provided no overarching plan to help us deal with the economic travails of the farmers and ranchers, and there are many, due to subsidies, drought and the fact that the government has put in place institutions that do not allow, for instance, farmers to market their own wheat and barley.
Finally, there is a problem in not addressing the issue of the economy. The world economy today is in desperate straits. The Canadian economy is doing okay but it cannot forever resist the pull and tug of the world economy. Right now the United States is in a difficult situation. There are some people who talk about the world going through a deflationary period and we need to be concerned about that. Unfortunately it is not addressed in the throne speech.
Let me talk a moment about my critic area, human resources development. There were a couple of mentions in the speech about things that the government would do such as scrap the youth employment strategy, which has the spritely acronym of YES. I guess we could say the government is now saying no to YES. The problem with dealing with that approach to dealing with social problems is the government is putting all the emphasis on the part that really only addresses the concerns of a small percentage of people. What I mean by that is, if the economy is really roaring, that will deal with about 90% of the concerns of ordinary Canadians. It provides a good income, a job, money that can go into an RSP, university and RRSPs for retirement.
Unfortunately the government has put no emphasis on the component of addressing Canada's social problems. Even today, when we have a relatively buoyant economy in a province like Newfoundland, we have unemployment rates of 16%. We need to remember that Newfoundland is one of the provinces that is leading the country in growth. However because of the structure of some of the social programs, including employment insurance, we have created disincentives to labour market attachment or staying employed in the workforce. The government is actually working against some of its goals with some of its social programs. We are very critical of that.
I know I do not have a tremendous amount of time so I will start to wrap it up. While we appreciate that the Prime Minister wants to leave a legacy as he prepares to depart this place after 40 years, we do not feel it should be done on the backs of taxpayers. We do not feel that the Prime Minister really enhances his image by running up a tremendous amount of spending on a bunch of social programs that have been tried for 20 or 30 years and still have not dealt with the issues that they were designed to address.
We think a much better approach would be to address his concerns to the concerns of Canadians. Health care, the military, national security and agriculture are some of the issues my friends over here have mentioned. These things need to be addressed. Unfortunately, they are not being addressed by the Prime Minister in the throne speech.
The result of that is, as we go into a very turbulent future in many respects in terms of the economy and where the world is going with respect to Iraq and the war on terrorism, we do not have a clear path ahead of us. The government has missed a glorious opportunity to put some focus on where the government will go to help us address some of those issues. However it missed that opportunity. Instead we received from the Prime Minister and the government a recycled throne speech, and I regret that very much.
Therefore, it is safe to say that our party simply cannot support either the drift or the specifics of this throne speech.
(1320)
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the comments of my colleague. I was interested in his comments about disincentives, and he used the example of Newfoundland. We understand that matters of this nature perhaps follow the course of least resistance and when it is easier to get money from programs of the government than to actually go out and get a job that is likely what happens. However I want to ask the member about the circumstances in British Columbia.
Rather than following the course of least resistance, the water running down the hill there has already reached the bottom and is in the puddle. With the softwood trade agreement falling apart, we have thousands of loggers and mill workers who do not have work and yet we cannot get the government to offer any support after the failure of the government to reach a satisfactory agreement with our trading partners.
Would the member comment on this aspect of perhaps that same question?
Mr. Monte Solberg:
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend's question. It is important to make a distinction between a safety net, which is designed to help people through short periods of time where they become unemployed through no fault of their own, and what really becomes a long term social program that really, in many cases, undermines the goals that the government is setting out to achieve, which ostensibly is to put people back to work and to give them some future and some hope.
What has happened in British Columbia is a good example of where the government has failed. Here we have a situation where the government has blown the trade file and the negotiations with the United States on softwood lumber. As a result, we have thousands of people who are unemployed, people whose livelihoods are in jeopardy and who are on the brink of losing their homes. The trade minister has promised for months that he would be providing some kind of help. That help has not been forthcoming.
On the other hand, we have these programs that simply are not effective and do not work, programs like the seasonal benefits, which I would argue have done more harm than good. Those sorts of benefits would be better addressed helping people through a short term crisis. If there is a crisis in the fishery, give them the benefits in the short run but do not leave them there forever. The same thing applies to softwood lumber. The same thing applies to other sectors of the economy.
Unfortunately, the government seems to have its priorities mixed up.
(1325)
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Medicine Hat for this very fine speech. I will be discussing it with him in further detail when we go to the Say Hay concert together in a couple of weeks, and I appreciate that support.
As we all know, and as the member knows, we are facing the most drastic conditions in Alberta, regarding the drought, than we have ever had in recorded history. It is the worst drought that we can imagine. It has been devastating to a number of farmers in my area and some in the hon. member's area as they abut each other in Alberta.
I want to ask the member this. When we listened to the throne speech, we heard the Prime Minister refer to the great needs in the agricultural sectors of Africa and other foreign countries at least a dozen times, for probably 15 minutes. Then when it came to our own agriculture, there was a tiny 5 or 10 second blurb. What does this tell the member and what does he think it tells our farmers?
Mr. Monte Solberg:
Mr. Speaker, we should not be surprised, is the first thing I would say. There is one sentence in the throne speech that deals with agriculture in Canada. In the past sometimes there has been no mention at all of agriculture, so we should not be surprised.
However what it underlines is how out of touch the Prime Minister is with where, in particular, the west is at. He seems to have no understanding or comprehension of the values and the needs of the west. To me that is underlined by his misunderstanding of how the west thinks with respect to Kyoto and the same thing with agriculture and the gun control issue. There are a number of issues like that.
It points out the fact to me that the Prime Minister and his cabinet simply do not understand big parts of the country. As a westerner, I will speak about the west. It is important that he does understand it because agriculture is in a serious situation today. We need to have some leadership from the Prime Minister and his cabinet to help us address some of the problems that really afflict agriculture today.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, there are many areas in the throne speech about which I would like to talk because there are so many deficiencies and reruns of what we have heard before. However I want to emphasize totally the section on climate change and the environment. As the environment critic, I feel that is what I should best address today.
I should first tell the House that my background is in biology. That is the field I was trained in in university. I have been known as an environmentalist probably most of my life. I have studied Kyoto extensively. I attended the Johannesburg conference, and our party does care about the environment. I get a little annoyed when I hear from across the way how we do not care about such things as contaminated sites, air and water and all those issues that are so important to us for life itself.
I also get a little annoyed when I see the hypocrisy from across when projects such as the Sumas power plant are being proposed for the second most polluted air shed in Canada. The government does not even have the nerve to stand before the NEB hearings that start on October 18 to say anything to protect that air shed. That is hypocrisy. It is great to have fine words about the environment and that we are all the good guy, but actions are what really count. There is an example of where they have missed the boat.
A lot of people in Canada wonder what Kyoto is about. The government has forgotten to tell them about Kyoto, and so there are many questions.
If people are asked if they are in favour of protecting the air, they will say yes. However Kyoto is not about the air. Kyoto is about CO2. Kyoto is about getting levels to 6% below 1990 levels. Kyoto is about removing 240 million megatons of carbon dioxide from our emissions. We are now between 22% and 30% higher since 1990. The government of course says we will achieve those targets.
This agreement, which started in 1992 with Rio, was basically one of transferring wealth from the north to the south, but we never hear that very often from across the floor.
Let us talk about the reasons for opposing Kyoto. I do not have a lot of time, so I will obviously be summarizing.
First, the developing countries are not part of this. Countries such as China, which is doubling its CO2 emissions every 12 years, are not part of this agreement. India, Mexico and Brazil, all those developing countries are not there. They represent about 5 billion people who will not even be part of the Kyoto agreement, and yet they say this will really make a difference to the environment.
Then we have this great idea of emissions trading. It is rather interesting that in today's paper the EU in Brussels has been told today by their chief economist that it will be unable to reach its Kyoto targets by the year 2012. The Europeans are the guys who have been pushing this whole thing and have been pushing it on Canada but they cannot meet their targets. What does that say for us?
I have been to the emissions trading seminars. What does this mean? We will send money and we will to get credits so that then we can keep putting the CO2 into the air. Somehow I do not understand how that helps the environment. It seems to me that it is simply again of transfer of wealth and nothing about the environment.
When I have attended those seminars, I have simply said emissions trading equals bureaucracy. Who will do all of that? We get into the sinks. Who will count trees? Who will go out and figure out that the young trees are there and they absorb so much CO2, or that older trees do not absorb so much or that this method of farming does that. Will farmers get credit for that or will the government get credit for it? Who will pay the bill for all this?
We do not know what this means. Even they do not know what it means. Ask the Europeans this at some of these international conferences, “What is your thought on sinks?” They look skyward and say, “The science is not really there, but that was kind of a throwaway at Bonn just to keep Canada in the agreement”. I do not think that is good enough. As Canadians learn more, I think they will also find the truth out about that.
(1330)
The government promised that it would have a plan. It said it would have a plan shortly after signing in Kyoto in 1997. In November 1997 in Regina, a week before going to Kyoto, it promised the premiers, “We will have a plan. We will not sign anything before we consult you”. Yet one week later the government signed the agreement.
The government promised the industries that they would be fully consulted and would be part of this. Talk to the industries now. Ask them. Every day in the newspaper we read about another industry saying, “We have not been consulted. We will work with the government if we just know what its plan is”.
Most important, the people have not been consulted. There were 14 meetings held in June this year, with selected speakers and a prepared list. The media was not allowed access. Is that public consultation? It might be Liberal public consultation but it sure as blazes is not what the people think is being informed about what Kyoto is all about.
It reminds me of Charlottetown. I was involved in fighting the Charlottetown accord. I was doing sometimes as many as six or seven town halls a day against Charlottetown. This was a top down plan conceived in Ottawa with little consultation. Above all, the government forgot to talk to the people about it. It figured the people would not get involved. The people ordered 12 million copies of the Constitution. The people did get involved and the people defeated the Charlottetown accord.
We are exactly there with Kyoto. The government did not tell the people. It did not consult with the people. A bunch of elites and bureaucrats designed this UN concept of wealth transfer. They did not talk to all the people. It can be defeated as well. It is going down. The EU is saying it cannot achieve them, and Canadian companies and the seniors a member previously talked about, all are reasons that it will not happen.
We need to talk about the costs to Canadians. Canadians are starting to ask what it will cost to ratify Kyoto. It will cost jobs. Even the Prime Minister's secret report from his bureaucrats said it will cost 200,000 jobs. The manufacturers have said it will cost 450,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector, and so on.
What about electricity? Most Canadians do not realize that close to 50% of our electricity comes from coal, which produces the most CO2 of anything. There is new technology coming but by forcing the ratification of Kyoto. There is no way that electricity costs will not go up. SaskPower a week ago said its rates could go up as much as 25%. A half an hour later, IPSCO had a news conference saying, “If our rates for power go up 25%, we will move our plant to the United States”. There will be little benefit to the environment, but a lot of bureaucracy will be created.
What is a better way? A better way is a made in Canada solution, one that involves conservation, one that involves energy efficiency, one that involves setting targets for industry working with industry, and setting targets with people. Transitional fuels, be they biogas from sewage, garbage and feedlots, and ethanol biofuels all have the potential to be a transition to the hydrogen energy of the future. Then we get into alternate energy. It will not be the sole answer, but it will help us to achieve a better and cleaner environment. Whether it is wind, solar, or ultimately fuel cells, at least it will help us get there.
The Canadian government needs to have a vision for the future. It needs to have a vision of where it is going. It needs to get companies onside. It certainly needs to get the provinces onside. It needs to get Canadians onside. That is a better plan.
The plan the government has is no plan. It will not release what it will do. The Prime Minister says he has 10 years to develop it. He has had 10 years since the Rio conference in 1992 and he has had five years since signing in 1997 and he has done absolutely nothing.
Let us tell Canadians we care about the environment, that we want to do something that will make a difference. The throne speech is just more words, more promises and no action.
(1335)
Mrs. Karen Redman (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to pose a question to my hon. colleague, who is the Alliance critic on the environment committee. I find his comments somewhat surprising because I know that in his heart he is an environmentalist and it is good to have his hard work on the environment committee.
This past summer, on behalf of the Minister of the Environment, I was able to make an announcement of $7.9 million into an organization called Fluxnet. It is doing the necessary scientific research to look at good agricultural practices, indeed to look at the very question the member raised in his comments, which is how we deal appropriately with carbon sinks. Clearly, the geography of Canada is somewhat unique. I commend the Minister of the Environment for taking an active and indeed a leadership role during the Kyoto protocol negotiations.
I would ask the member to comment on the fact that we have been consulting since 1997 with all of the stakeholders, including industry, some of which he referred to. Indeed, there are industries that are already ahead of the government in looking at how they can key into this new technology, as well as the new commerce and the potential of carbon trading that we are looking at.
There are four proposals put out by the Canadian government which can be picked up on the environment website. We will be coming out shortly with one of those in order to receive comments. I believe it was of the order of 2,500 people who were involved in the consultations that the member depicted as being very closed. I would see that as being fairly embracing.
I ask the member opposite, in the face of all of these efforts and the fact that I know he is a father and a grandfather, how can he justify not acting on this very important issue?
(1340)
Mr. Bob Mills:
Mr. Speaker, the whole point is the fact that the government is not acting, does not have a plan and is going nowhere. As far as consulting 2,500 people, I am sure there are that many people on the Liberal membership list.
With respect to the money, the $7 million, the U.S. government put forward $4.6 billion just for fuel cell research. The Danish and German governments are way ahead of us. We have been sitting on our hands for 10 years. We did not even negotiate properly. Australia negotiated 8% above 1990 levels because it has an immigrant population.
We start talking now about clean fuel credits in 2002. That should have been on the table in 1997. We have blown it. Canadians do not understand. If and when they do understand, they will ask for a better way. That will help my grandchildren.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the opposition critic, mentioned SE2. I would like to ask him a question with regard to that.
SE2 happens to be an American corporation trying to build a generating plant in Sumas, Washington right across from my hometown of Abbotsford, British Columbia. It will be spewing hundreds of tonnes of effluent emissions in the air in the Fraser Valley. The residents have been fighting hard to dislodge this as the American corporation wants to build a transmission line across our community in Abbotsford to get the plant running. All of our MLAs, myself, all of our local city councils, regional districts, everyone is basically opposed to this. Yet the federal government, through the Minister of the Environment is probably the most silent on the issue. He is conspicuous by his absence.
In view of the throne speech mentioning nothing about the seriousness of issues such as this one, could my colleague possibly shed some light on just why it is that when the issue of emissions in an already overpolluted Fraser Valley comes up, there is absolutely no support? Is it because it is from British Columbia, or is there some other reason?
The Deputy Speaker:
I will ask the hon. member for Red Deer to respond in the last minute while we are being somewhat distracted by some strange sounds in this place.
Mr. Bob Mills:
Mr. Speaker, obviously the government does not want to do anything about SE2 because that would require some real action in the second most polluted air shed in Canada.
When I talked to the minister about that, he said, “I am a good friend of the governor. Governor Locke and I are like this and we talk about these issues. I know Governor Locke will not approve this and I know it will not happen”, wink, wink, nod, nod, “We will take care of it”. That is not the way to have an environmental policy. That is not someone who has a conscience about the environment. That is not the way to act. I say that the environment minister has no environmental conscience.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak to the subject of the throne speech. I must say that one of the problems I was faced with in preparing for this was trying to pick which aspect of the throne speech I would like to address. It has so many positive aspects and shows the continuing vision of the government as we head well into the next millennium.
The subject I chose to speak about was the issue of children and families. I am pleased to endorse the Government of Canada's continuing agenda with respect to children and families.
The directions outlined in the Speech from the Throne build on the government's sound investment in this area. These new commitments improve and strengthen the programs and services we already have in place for children and families.
Canada's future lies with our children, there is no doubt about that. Their success and Canada's depend on children getting a good start in life. That is why we believe that no investments have a greater payoff than ensuring that children have a good start in life and that families have the tools they need to care for and to nurture their children. No investments do more to maximize the potential of every Canadian. That is why we have committed in the Speech from the Throne to increase our support to families and children and to help poor families to break out of the welfare trap and end the cycle of poverty and dependency.
Our commitment to the children and families of Canada has been an abiding one. Canadians recognize that the country's ability to grow and thrive rests on its ability to nurture the next generation. We know that children need a good start in life if they are to participate actively in society and the economy as they grow up into adulthood. Governments have a pivotal role to play in supporting families to achieve this goal.
In recognition of this role, the Government of Canada in cooperation with the provinces and territories launched the national children's agenda. It sets out a vision to ensure that children in Canada are provided with the right opportunities to realize their full potential. With this vision as a guide, we have built on and introduced policies aimed at giving children the best possible start in life.
The national children's agenda sets out four broad goals for Canada's children: health; safety and security; success at learning; and social engagement and responsibility. It also identifies six potential areas for collaborative action to improve child well-being: supporting parents and strengthening families; enhancing early childhood development; improving economic security for families; providing early and continuous learning experiences; fostering strong adolescent development; and creating supportive, safe and violence-free communities.
Under the auspices of the national children's agenda and acting in unison as Canadians want us to, the federal government and the provinces and territories introduced the national child benefit. Started in 1998 the Government of Canada now invests $2.5 billion annually to help to reduce and prevent child poverty and to help parents enter the workforce. This is on top of the $5.4 billion provided in the basic benefit of the child tax benefit.
If we translate this into how it supports individual families, it means that a family of four with two children can receive a maximum benefit of $4,680 per year. The benefits have been indexed to keep up with the cost of living so that by 2004 the figure will rise to about $4,800 per year. In the coming months we will be working with our provincial and territorial colleagues to discuss how we can collectively make more progress in addressing the needs of low income families with children. This program puts extra money every month into the pockets of low income families with children. It also provides an incentive to move from welfare to work.
Easing the financial burden and working with poor families leads to better learning environments for their children, more opportunities for the parents to upgrade their skills, and a better chance for the family members to improve their quality of life over all.
The results show that the national child benefit has had success in reducing the incidence of child poverty and reducing the welfare wall for families with children. The “National Child Benefit Progress Report: 2001” contains for the first time results of the direct effect of the national child benefit on the prevention and reduction of child poverty.
(1345)
I will give one example from the report. In 1999 about 16,500 families with approximately 33,800 children rose out of the low income bracket. These very positive results are expected to improve.
We are proud of the national child benefit program but it is not the only way the Government of Canada is working to support Canadian families and children. Based on the knowledge that experiences from birth to age six are of critical importance for the healthy development and long term outcomes, we have focused our attention on supports for the early years.
In September 2000, the first ministers announced the historical early childhood development agreement. This agreement commits all levels of government to work toward a comprehensive system of services for young children and their families through investments in four key areas: first, pregnancy, birth and infancy; second, parenting and family supports; third, early child development, learning and care; and fourth, community supports.
In this agreement, the Government of Canada is transferring $2.2 billion over five years to support provincial and territorial investments in early childhood development programs and services for young children and their families.
We are also investing significant funds toward improving early childhood development supports for aboriginal children. These supports include child care, the aboriginal head start programs and support for families caring for children with fetal alcohol syndrome or fetal alcohol effects. Our aim is to provide young aboriginal Canadians with the tools they need to take better advantage of the opportunities Canada has to offer.
Through the early childhood development agreement we are working to ensure that young children can fulfil their potential to be healthy, safe and secure, and that they are ready to learn, be socially engaged and responsible.
The Government of Canada also supports families through the employment insurance family supplement by increasing benefits up to 80% of gross salary for Canadians from low income families with children. Helping Canadians balance family and work responsibility is a priority of the government.
In areas specifically related to children, we have extended parental and maternity benefits under employment insurance from six months to one year. This measure allows parents to spend more time with their babies in the critical first year of life.
Other important changes directed at parents have been made to the EI program. We have increased the flexibility of the payment of parental benefits to parents of newborn or newly adopted children who are hospitalized. We have also ensured that full access to special benefits for mothers who claim sickness benefits before or after their maternity claim. We also adjusted the re-entrant rule for parents in recognition that returning to the workforce can be difficult for parents who have taken extended absences to care for their young children.
Through these changes we are providing parents with greater choices and more options.
However the government understands that Canadians have many caregiving demands and the need for support can arise beyond a child's first year. Workers face particular challenges when a family member falls gravely ill. That is why we are pleased that the Speech from the Throne commits us to improving support to working Canadians so they can provide compassionate care without putting their jobs or incomes at risk.
We also intend to help some of the most vulnerable members of our society, that is those low income families who are caring for severely disabled children. Nobody needs to explain how many such families face additional costs in providing care. As a result, we will take steps to relieve these economic hardships by increasing income support for families caring for children with severe disabilities. We will work with our provincial and territorial partners to ensure these benefits are passed on to the low income families.
With this commitment, we are building on work that has gone before through tax measures for families of children with disabilities. These include: an increase in the disability tax credit from $4,293 to $6,000; a raise in the disability tax credit supplement for children with severe disabilities from $2,941 to $3,500; an expanded list of eligible expenses under the medical expense tax credit; the provision of a refundable medical expense tax credit to low income earners; and a raise in the child care expense deduction limit for a child with a disability from $7,000 to $10,000.
(1350)
We have taken these measures because we recognize that there are higher costs associated with the care of children with disabilities. We want these families to have the support they need to assist in this care.
Combating child poverty is a major priority of the Government of Canada. This is why during this fiscal year about $7.9 billion will be invested under the Canada child tax benefit, including about $2.5 billion under the national child benefit. These benefits are tax free and fully indexed.
In addition to these supports directly to families with children, we also believe that it is our collective responsibility to care for the welfare of our children. With this in mind, we will reform the Criminal Code to increase the penalties for abuse and neglect and provide more sensitive treatment for children who take part in justice proceedings as victims or as witnesses. We will also reform family law by putting greater emphasis on the best interests of the child, expanding the unified family courts and ensuring that appropriate child and family services are available.
With the vision set out in the national children's agenda as a guide, and building on strong foundations to enhance income security, promote healthy early childhood development and provide a safe, secure environment, we are moving toward a comprehensive system of supports for children and families in Canada.
The Speech from the Throne reaffirms our commitment to ensure that no Canadian child suffers from the effects of poverty and that every child in this country is provided with the best start in life.
(1355)
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it really disturbs me when they come out with some general, broad, sweeping statements about young people, about where we are going and about how much money we are going to spend; that we are going to end child poverty, and these kinds of things.
I have been working on an issue for a number of years and that is the age of sexual consent. It has been lowered from 16 to 14. I would like to find out from the government's perspective why an issue like this is not important but spending money on other things is. I will give the member the reason.
I have been involved in getting a number of young people out of crack houses. These are kids, girls from the ages of 14, 15 and 16. The police cannot do anything about it because the age of sexual consent is 14. Guys who are 30 and 40 use these kids for sex and for selling drugs. If they get caught breaking the law for selling drugs, they come under the Young Offenders Act. There are all kinds of problems with this age of sexual consent.
Could the member explain why it is not a priority to re-look at this? It is a very important aspect of services to young people.
Mr. John Maloney:
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the member has brought up this important issue. I am also very pleased that he has seen nothing to criticize in the speech and has chosen to go into another area, the age of consent.
Certainly the age of consent is an area that requires consultations at the federal, provincial and territorial levels. These consultations are ongoing. I would think that in the very near future we may see some initiatives in this regard as far as raising the age of consent. It is an area that has been debated in the House and I hope we will see it on the floor of the House very soon.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[S. O. 31]
* * *
[Translation]
Women's History Month
Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, October is Women's History Month. This year's theme is “Women and Sports--Champions Forever”. During the month, a variety of activities will take place commemorating the successes and the obstacles of sport for girls and women through its history.
Canada has had its share of sports champions, starting with “Canada's sweetheart”, Barbara Ann Scott, still the only Canadian woman to have won an Olympic gold medal for senior women's figure skating. Since then, among others, Myriam Bédard, the internationally renowned biathlete with her Olympic gold, and Canada's women's hockey team, with their Olympic gold at the 2002 winter Olympics.
These great athletes have followed their dreams, come hell or high water. Their determination has opened many doors for other female athletes and, today, I wish to pay tribute to the female athletes of yesterday, as well as those of tomorrow.
* * *
[English]
Breast Care Awareness Month
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, October is Breast Care Awareness Month.
Breast cancer continues to be the most frequently diagnosed cancer in Canadian women. This year alone it is estimated that 20,500 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed and 5,400 deaths will be attributed to this disease.
Nearly half of all new cases occur among those women aged 50 to 69, as the likelihood of a woman being diagnosed with breast cancer increases rapidly with age. Mammographic screening for women in this age group has been proven to save lives. The earlier the detection the better.
It was my privilege this week to meet with a cancer researcher who has developed a simple blood test that will make detection even quicker. Research dollars are working.
It is through the work of organizations such as the Renfrew County Breast Health Network and their member support groups in Pembroke, Arnprior, Eganville and Barry's Bay that women are being made aware of breast health.
Support for survivors happens in their local communities.
Events are planned throughout the month of October and I encourage all women to become more aware of the resources available in their local areas. Cancer can be beaten.
* * *
(1400)
The Environment
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the ratification of Kyoto announced in Monday's throne speech has spawned false claims, including the loss of 200,000 jobs accompanied by huge investment losses.
We heard the threat of investment loss before with the acid rain program and with the removal of lead from gasoline.
As in the past, investments will continue but in new, less damaging energy forms like natural gas, ethanol and other renewables.
As to jobs, Kyoto opponents forget that jobs will also be created because of new opportunities in renewables, energy efficiency and conservation. Opponents also fail to take into account job losses from not acting on climate change such as the high costs to agriculture because of more frequent droughts, shipping because of lower water levels, or insurance rates because of extreme weather.
This is not the time for fearmongering and false claims. In order to protect the public and private good, the government and parliament will ratify Kyoto and move Canada toward a new energy future.
* * *
[Translation]
Julien Galipeau
Mr. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to draw attention to the recent victory of a resident of my riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry, Julien Galipeau.
In the weightlifting competition at the Commonwealth Games, held this past July 30 through August 3 in Great Britain, this young man captured silver and bronze medals. Galipeau lifted 192.5 kilograms in the clean and jerk to finish second, and then took a bronze in the overall with a total of 342.5 kilograms.
This victory carries him to the next competition, the senior worlds, to be held November 18 through 26 in Warsaw, Poland.
The 21-year-old Julien is a model of discipline and perseverance for other young people. I congratulate him and wish him the best of luck at the world championships.
* * *
[English]
International Cooperation
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Minster for International Cooperation announced today in Calgary the winners for the national Butterfly 208 contest. Mr. Joshua Kertzer from Calgary, Alberta, won the grand prize, a trip to Ecuador where he will visit CIDA supported projects. The three runners-up, Jocelyn McIsaac from Nova Scotia, Bridget Allin from Ontario and Marie Pier Lemieux from Quebec, each won a home computer.
The national Butterfly 208 art and essay contest is for Canadian youth aged 14 to 18 and was organized by the federal government through CIDA. Over 300 students from across the country found innovative ways to express their thoughts and feelings about issues like the HIV-AIDS pandemic, education, child soldiers and world hunger.
I encourage all my fellow parliamentarians to visit the contest website and take a look at what Canadian youth are thinking about international development.
* * *
Agriculture
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, six years ago a group of Canadians made a bid for freedom. They were treated as hardened criminals. They were arrested, charged and jailed, handcuffed and shackled. They were strip searched and humiliated. Their families have been harassed and intimidated, and their property confiscated.
For six years they have been dragged through the legal system in an attempt to break them financially and to make an example of them. Four weeks from today this group will be jailed.
These people are regular folks: hard-working, law-abiding, salt of the earth, and good neighbours. The crime for which the government has persecuted them is taking a small amount of wheat across the United States border. The manager of this campaign of intimidation and fear sits in the House, the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.
Will he finally listen, do the right thing and give these farmers the same opportunity that the rest of Canada has: the right to sell their own wheat? Or is he actually prepared to jail Canadian farmers for marketing their own wheat? The countdown begins. He has four weeks.
* * *
[Translation]
Marc Gagnon
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to honour an exceptional Canadian athlete who, last week, announced his retirement from the national speed skating team.
Marc Gagnon, who is from Chicoutimi, thrilled Canadians at the Salt Lake City Olympic Games when he won several medals, including the gold in the 500 metre race and in the men's relay. Marc has won more medals at the winter games than anyone else in Canada's history.
During his ten years as a member of the national speed skating team, Marc Gagnon has won four gold and two silver medals at world championships. Marc has been a leader on our prestigious short track national team.
On behalf of all Canadians, I thank Marc for his contribution to Canada's success at the international level and I wish him a great deal of success in his future endeavours.
* * *
(1405)
Don Cherry
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, in the latest report of the CBC, we are told that “English Television continued to implement its transformation plan to change significantly the face of Canadian public television”. Is Don Cherry on Hockey Night in Canada the new face that the CBC wants to have?
As regards the delivery of licences, the CRTC provides that “No licensee shall distribute... any abusive comment... that tends to... expose an individual or group... to hatred or contempt on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin”.
Do the abusive comments made by Don Cherry toward francophones, European athletes and women not violate the obligations imposed on the CBC by the CRTC, and do they not contribute to lower the level of journalistic ethics?
Moreover, in a ruling on Don Cherry's behaviour, the CBC ombudsman stated that it is his right to call Quebec sovereignists crybabies. Is this not a sign of intolerance and incomprehension regarding the political opinions that are expressed?
* * *
[English]
The Environment
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Prime Minister and the Minister of Canadian Heritage on today's announcement of an action plan to create 10 new national parks and 5 national marine conservation areas and to restore the ecological health of Canada's existing national parks.
This action plan will ensure the protection of some of our nation's most spectacular wilderness and marine areas and ensure that they will passed on unimpaired to future generations. It is a bold agenda that will be achieved with the cooperation of provincial and territorial governments, aboriginal people, northern and rural communities, and Canadians in general.
It will result in the government taking measures to ensure the long-term health of our 360,000 square kilometres of Canada's rich natural heritage, protected by Parks Canada. To protect the global environment we must act locally. Today's announcement will ensure that through the participation of local people our nation will protect areas critical to national and global ecosystems.
I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister and the Minister of Canadian Heritage for their global leadership on the creation and protection of national parks, an important symbol of our national identity.
* * *
Justice
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce to the government House leader that the government will soon be tabling sex offender registry legislation.
I wrote the legislation in 2000 modeled after Christopher's bill in Ontario. Credit for this critical legislation must go to: Jim and Ann Stephenson, Christopher's mom and dad; David Griffin, executive director of the Canadian Police Association and all police associations across Canada; victims of crime; the attorneys general of each province, especially Bob Runciman of Ontario and my friend Rich Coleman of British Columbia; the people of Langley--Abbotsford, British Columbia who supported the efforts to lobby for such an important issue; my colleagues in the House of Commons; and the member of Parliament for Cardigan, Prince Edward Island who finally saw the light, swallowed the bitter pill of humility and finally recognized it is more important to be right than partisan.
* * *
Jimmy Ng
Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness that I rise in the House today to express my condolences to the family of Constable Jimmy Ng.
Constable Ng was killed on Sunday, September 15 when a speeding vehicle broadsided his police cruiser. Jimmy was just 32 years old and a six year veteran of the RCMP. He was a promising, dedicated and valued police officer committed to helping others.
On September 21 some 1,200 uniformed personnel travelled to Richmond, British Columbia from across Canada and the United States to pay tribute to Jimmy's memory. Their message to their fallen comrade is one I reiterate in the House today. We must all work together to stop road racing.
On Saturday, October 12 the community of Richmond is organizing a symposium to discuss ways to combat road racing. In the meantime our thoughts and prayers are with Jimmy's family, the Richmond RCMP detachment and with all those who serve our country.
* * *
(1410)
National Memorial Day
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, last Sunday, September 29 I was present at the opening of a new park in my riding. The park is named after Ronald Houston, a Winnipeg police officer from Transcona who was murdered on duty on June 27, 1970. The opening of the park coincided with Police and Peace Officers' National Memorial Day.
As the MP for Winnipeg--Transcona I wish to pay tribute to the memory and the sacrifice of Ronald Houston, and I am honoured that my riding is the location of what is apparently the first park in Canada named after a police officer. As NDP justice critic I wish to pay tribute to all those who have been killed on duty over the years and whose names are inscribed on the memorial here in Ottawa, especially those whose names tragically had to be added this year.
Finally, not far away from Ronald Houston Park is a street named Alex Taylor Drive. It is named after a former Transcona police chief, my maternal grandfather. His record of service to the community of Transcona is one of which I am very proud, and I wish to pay tribute to him also at this time.
* * *
[Translation]
Taxation
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, this Monday and Tuesday, the Government of Quebec will be hosting a forum on the fiscal imbalance. Both opposition party leaders have announced that they will attend. Various stakeholders will have an opportunity to learn more about the scope of this phenomenon and to identify the needs that could be met if this injustice were corrected. The reports of both the Séguin commission and the Conference Board were unequivocal in demonstrating the severity of the problem.
Meanwhile, Canada's Minister of Finance has announced an underestimated surplus of $6 billion and the Speech from the Throne has promised investments that will entail long-term commitments by the government. Does this not demonstrate that the federal government has endless means at their disposal? Also in the Speech from the Throne, the federal government announced investments in health, family and municipalities, all of which are provincial jurisdictions. Does this not acknowledge that the needs are really in Quebec and in the provinces?
The affirmative answers to these two questions proves that there is a fiscal imbalance. Because of this imbalance, Quebec is deprived of $50 million every week. The federal government's stubbornness in denying this reality is another example of the urgent need for Quebec's sovereignty.
* * *
[English]
Iraq
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is with great concern that I rise for the first time in this second session of the 37th Parliament.
Over the summer many people in my riding made a point of telling me how concerned they were with the level of conflict in the Middle East. The situation with Iraq has become dangerous waters and the United Nations is facing one of its greatest tests. The UN represents a dream, a dream of a world without the scourge of war.
Canada has been determined to ensure that Iraq meets its United Nations disarmament obligations. We must continue to work through the UN and understand the danger posed by unilateral action in the Middle East. We must not abandon the UN. We must work collectively for the world we want and the pursuit of peace.
* * *
Urban Affairs
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, PC):
Mr. Speaker, in 1996 at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities convention in Calgary the Prime Minister acknowledged the importance of municipal governments and that it was time to recognize municipal governments in their own right. To this day, the Prime Minister has not officially recognized municipalities.
There are over 4,400 municipal governments in Canada that are the first order of government, the level of government closest to the people. Yet the Prime Minister refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of these governments. The federal infrastructure program was really the brainchild of the Canadian Federation of Municipalities. If government programs are to be successfully implemented, the government closest to the people must have a voice at the table and be consulted.
When will the Prime Minister recognize the legitimacy of the first order of government in Canada or will this be just another broken Liberal promise?
* * *
Women's Institute
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, September 7, the South Simcoe Women's Institute celebrated its 100th anniversary.
Adelaide Hoodless founded the first branch of the Women's Institute in southern Ontario in 1897. The Women's Institute is now an international organization and its motto, “For Home and Country”, provides an educational forum for women with an emphasis on civics.
Now is the time when governments and organizations throughout North America are searching for ways to enhance the quality of life in our communities, to increase opportunities to bring people together and to further social cohesion. This is one of the primary ways to prevent isolation and fragmentation which too often results in social breakdowns.
I wish to congratulate the South Simcoe Women's Institute for 100 years of strength and leadership.
* * *
(1415)
Say Hay Concerts
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, as most of us know, it has been a devastating summer for the farmers in Alberta. In my lifetime I have never seen a drought this severe. During this catastrophe the outpouring of support from across the nation has been overwhelming. From hay donations to fundraisers to corporations stepping up to the plate, everyone has helped in their own way.
Today I would like to pay tribute to the organizers of the Say Hay concerts. These benefit concerts will raise funds for drought stricken farmers and ranchers and will take place October 13 in Edmonton and October 14 in Calgary. These concerts hope to raise a million dollars and have shaped up to be one of the biggest Canadian country music events of the year.
I urge each and every one to personally support this endeavour and spread the word throughout the constituencies.
As usual, it is the heart and actions of the average Canadian that unifies this country, not the grand schemes of assistance provided by this government.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Oral Questions]
* * *
[English]
Ethics
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister about his new ethics package coming out of the throne speech. This package sets a new standard for double standards, an independent ethics counsellor for MPs and their spouses but the current lapdog arrangement for cabinet ministers. What the Prime Minister wants to do is have control over people who do not make the decisions around here and have no control over the people who do make the decisions.
Will the Prime Minister agree to withdraw this proposal?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I cannot withdraw what I have not tabled.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I guess we will see if he intends to proceed with it.
We all know what he is trying to do. He is not fooling anyone. He has scandals and conflict of interest problems with his cabinet and instead of dealing with those he is trying to insist that somehow there are ethics problems with ordinary members of Parliament, and there is not.
If an independent ethics commissioner is good enough for backbench MPs, it should be good enough for the Prime Minister and his cabinet. Will the Prime Minister commit to introducing a truly independent ethics commissioner for all parliamentarians?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, last week the Leader of the Opposition and his party tabled a paper where they were advocating that we have guidelines on ethics for members of Parliament. That was their suggestion which we have not yet implemented.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister continues to avoid withdrawing his own proposal for a double standard between MPs and cabinet ministers.
[Translation]
The Prime Minister is proposing an independent ethics counsellor for backbenchers and their spouses, but a carefully chosen duty counsel for himself and his cabinet.
Will the Prime Minister pledge to withdraw this proposal and propose instead an independent ethics commissioner for all parliamentarians?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, just as in French, in English, I cannot withdraw what I did not propose. So, the member will have to wait. He can criticize our proposal after we have made one. But how could I withdraw it if I have not tabled anything yet? English or French, the answer is the same.
* * *
[English]
Government Contracts
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, here is one example of why we need an independent ethics commissioner. A senior government official just admitted that he was asked to bend the rules when awarding ad contracts. He said, “I was requested by the Privy Council Office to hire agencies without going through the normal competitive process”.
Why is this Liberal government demanding that its employees break the rules?
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, back in the middle of May the Prime Minister indicated with respect to the sponsorship program that where there were administrative mistakes, they would be corrected. Where there were overpayments in terms of funds, that money would be recovered. If and when there was any legal wrongdoing, that would be prosecuted under the law.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, here is the problem with that answer. We now find that the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister's Office had their hands in this scheme. That is the problem with that answer.
Every parent and every teacher in this country tries to teach their children to not break the rules. Why does the Liberal government do exactly the opposite?
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, pursuant to the comments made by the Prime Minister back in May where he indicated that all matters in respect of the sponsorship program would be thoroughly investigated, certain matters have been referred to the Auditor General, certain matters have been referred to the police and certain matters are subject to internal review, including most recently an administrative review by the deputy minister of my department, to ensure that all requirements of the financial administration act were duly complied with and if they were not, there will be consequences.
(1420)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, on the subject of sponsorships, yesterday, Charles Guité confirmed that the usual rules for awarding contracts had been bent with the approval of the Privy Council. The former public servant thus confirmed the version given by the Prime Minister, for whom anything goes in the war against sovereignists.
Will the Prime Minister admit that it was his orders that gave rise to an entire system of misuse of public funds and that he himself is the one most responsible for the sponsorship scandal plaguing his government?
[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, the Prime Minister has been among the very first to say that wherever there was wrongdoing it would be pursued, investigated and prosecuted. Administrative mistakes will be corrected. If there were overpayments, they will be recovered and if anyone, that is the word used by the Prime Minister, broke the law there will be consequences.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the minister is right. The Prime Minister is the first to have made such a statement, once the truth was out. As long as nothing was known, it was to the Prime Minister's benefit; he was the one giving the orders. That is the fact of the matter.
Given Charles Guité's admissions, how can the Prime Minister deny that he is the mastermind behind the entire sponsorship scandal, since he is the one who has allowed it to go on? With all his experience, he is the one at the centre of the scandal.
[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, again, let me remind the hon. gentleman that as far back as the year 2000 there was an internal audit conducted by the internal audit division of Public Works at the insistence of the deputy at that time. That was followed by an action plan to implement the recommendations of the audit. That was followed by further improvements instigated by my predecessors, followed by the complete review, the references to the Auditor General and the police activity of this year.
In all respects every dimension of this file is being pursued and properly pursued.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Guité could not have said it any more plainly. He acted illegally because he was at war, and he acted with the approval of the Federal-Provincial Relations Office, which has a direct line to the Prime Minister's office. These words are very clear.
Will the Prime Minister admit that his blind determination to defeat sovereignists caused him to dispense with the most elementary caution and depart from the normal rules of proper public management, and that he has become the person who allowed this entire scandal to go on?
[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, it is rather easy to make such allegations within the protection of the privileges of this House. Obviously the Government of Canada has worked very hard to ensure all Canadians, including Canadians in Quebec, that this country is strong and unified and welcoming to all Canadians. That included activities with respect to sponsorships. However it also included action in the House with respect to regional vetos. It included recognition of distinct society, and of course the clarity bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been in politics for 40 years; he is sufficiently familiar with the rules and the lines that must not be crossed. Yet he allowed the system to go on, he gave his support to the officials involved and, when necessary, he shifted the ministers who were in hot water.
If he is so set against a public inquiry, is it not because the focus would quickly shift all the way up to him?
[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, I have already indicated the various levels of inquiry and investigation that are already underway with respect to this matter. There is absolutely no evidence that the Prime Minister instructed or condoned in any way the violation of any rules or laws. In fact what the Prime Minister has done is to fight for this country with every ounce of his being for the last 40 years, and that deserves and enormous amount of thanks.
* * *
(1425)
National Revenue
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. While we debate the usual stuff here, many Canadians with disabilities are fearful of what the government is up to by way of proposed amendments to the Income Tax Act having to do with disabilities.
I want to ask the Minister of Finance this. Is he prepared to get up now, today, in the House and say that the government will drop this cruel nonsense of making the definition of disability even harsher than it is already?
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne just the other day the government said that it would put in place targeted measures for low income families caring for severely disabled children to help them meet the needs of the child and the family. That is on top of about a 70% increase in the amount that has gone out under the disability tax credit over the past three years.
Rather than tightening, we have seen a broadening of those able to access the disability tax credit.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I am surprised with the Minister of Finance. He usually shows more respect for the content of the question. I asked the minister about the proposed amendments.
Many members on his side of the House in response to repeated questioning from this side of the House during the throne speech debate have said that these proposed amendments are wrong. There was a committee in March that recommended that the definition of disability be made less harsh. Everyone agrees except the Minister of Finance.
Will he respect the wishes of the members of the House and drop these proposals now?
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I understand what the member is asking. He is asking about a very targeted area which was determined in the view of the department to broaden the definition quite considerably beyond that which was intended.
A number of members of Parliament have raised this issue with me. I have agreed with them that we will review it very carefully.
It is important for us to pursue a broadening and deepening of the disability tax credit to ensure that the benefits flow to those who truly need it, and not that we allow it to flow to people who perhaps do not.
* * *
Government Contracts
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the RCMP is conducting an investigation into who broke the law in the Groupaction case. The other issue is who gave the orders.
Chuck Guité has now told The Globe and Mail that he was acting on instructions when he broke the rules and hired Groupaction. Who gave those instructions? Was it the then secretary to the cabinet, Ron Bilodeau? Was it Jean Pelletier or Jean Carle or someone else in the PMO? Which minister authorized the decision to abandon the normal competitive process in hiring Groupaction?
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, I indicated earlier in the spring that there were serious difficulties with the sponsorship program which needed to be corrected.
A whole series of corrective actions have indeed been launched. A departmental review by my officials examined 720 files over the course of the summer. A report will be forthcoming on all of that very shortly. The Auditor General will be doing a government wide audit of all sponsorship and advertising matters. The cases that have raised legal questions have always been referred to the police.
There is a whole series of activities that is underway to get to the bottom of all of this.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC):
Mr. Speaker, someone in the government is trying to hang public servants out to dry. We heard the fog from the Minister of Public Works. He tries to deny there was any wrongdoing. We know there was wrongdoing. They are trying to blame public servants.
Which minister gave the instructions? Which minister has the guts to stand up in the House of Commons and tell the public what instructions he or she gave in the Groupaction case?
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, I have said very clearly and the Prime Minister has said very clearly that all matters in this file would be thoroughly investigated. The administrative errors will be corrected. The overpayments will be recovered. Wherever there is wrongdoing, that will be prosecuted according to law.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. We have learned, through access to information, that Everett Roche, a chartered accountant and the Solicitor General's official agent in the 1997 and 2000 election, was awarded a sole source contract to provide advice to senior departmental officials on criminal justice issues.
Can the Solicitor General justify hiring his old political friend, a chartered accountant, at a rate of $975 per day, up to $140,000?
(1430)
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, all I can do for my hon. colleague is get the information and report back to him. If the department hired somebody for some information, that was a decision of the department.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we have seen a record of friends and contracts and dollars. The 2001-02 sole source contract of Everett Roche was retroactively amended and then extended for an additional year. The amended contract specified that he was to submit monthly reports, a clause that was not in the initial contract.
Will the Solicitor General admit that for a full year his official agent was paid up to $70,000 without receiving written reports to prove that any work was ever completed?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I said before, what I will do is find out from the department exactly what was required, what he was hired to do, and report back to the member.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Immigration denies all involvement in the hiring of Everest to organize his tour when he was secretary of state.
Yet a fax dated March 17, 2000 from the director of the national sport policy task force to the contract officer at Heritage reads as follows:
| The firm the secretary of state wants hired is Everest. They have a standing offer with Public Works Canada. I have no other details. I would like to meet with them to see what expertise they have to offer. |
What is the Minister of Immigration's explanation for this?
[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, the contract in this particular case was awarded according to the rules by my department, on behalf of the Department of Canadian Heritage, to deal with certain matters having to do with amateur sport.
I take it from the hon. gentleman's question that he is asking for some details with respect to the firm's expertise in relation to the project that was undertaken. I will make the appropriate enquiries and report back to him.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Immigration is denying any involvement in the hiring of Everest. Yet the contract was awarded to this company, which was not on Canadian Heritage's list.
Of necessity, someone intervened here. If it was not the secretary of state, directly or indirectly, it must have been the heritage minister who intervened on his behalf.
How else can the minister justify the hiring of Everest, when no one in his department was familiar with this company?
[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, it is my information that the firm was indeed on a standing offer list and that the firm appeared on that list as a result of a fully competitive process according to the rules that are applied for contracting with the Government of Canada.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General is pleading ignorance that his friend and official agent received a $140,000 windfall. His pleading ignorance does not surprise us at all, but what we cannot understand is how he thinks he can bend and twist Treasury Board guidelines to this extent and get away with it. How can he explain that?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated before in the House, what I will do is find out what he actually did for my department and I will report back to him and--
The Speaker:
The hon. member for Battlefords--Lloydminster.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, how could the Solicitor General have his department extend the contract, retroactively double the money and not know what his friend was doing? He was his official agent and his buddy.
He cannot stand there bald-faced and tell us he did not learn from his other colleague, the former minister of defence, that one cannot hire one's friends with taxpayer money like this and get away with it. How can he justify this?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, all I can tell my hon. colleague is that I will find out the information from the department and make sure he is fully aware as to what this individual did.
* * *
(1435)
[Translation]
Ethics Counsellor
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is getting ready to introduce a new ethics bill. Will the Prime Minister tell the House that, regardless of the formula selected, the ethics counsellor will report to Parliament and nobody else?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the member is asking us to comment on a document which has not been tabled. Naturally, if it has not been tabled, it cannot be commented on.
We all know that some excellent work was done a few years ago by a parliamentary committee chaired by the excellent member for Kingston and the Islands. Naturally, as we indicated in June, we intend to submit this document to parliamentarians.
Mr. Pierre Brien:
Mr. Speaker, the minister himself commented on this bill right here, outside the House. It might perhaps be interesting for him to tell us about it too.
Can we have a guarantee that all parliamentarians, the Prime Minister and ministers included, will come under one ethics counsellor, a truly independent counsellor, contrary to what we are hearing, which is that ministers and the Prime Minister will come under a different regime, where the counsellor will not be independent?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I spoke to my colleagues in all political parties in May and June about the excellent report produced under the leadership of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. I am surprised that the hon. member is not familiar with the contents. Most of us learned it practically by heart, given the excellence of the work done at the time.
* * *
[English]
Guaranteed Income Supplement
Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the government made a deliberate policy decision to deny our poorest and most vulnerable seniors access to the guaranteed income supplement they were eligible for. It has already accepted responsibility and settled one case with an elderly widow.
Could the minister tell Canadians how many billions of our tax dollars her department has put at risk as a result of this massive administrative and policy foul-up?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, it has never been the intention of the government to deny seniors access to very important benefits like the guaranteed income supplement.
The hon. member will know that as of late there have been over 100,000 documents sent to seniors who may well be eligible for this supplement. They have returned their forms and I can say that over 70,000 will now be in receipt of that vital supplement.
Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we know that there are at least two class action suits that have already been filed against HRDC and the Solicitor General. We know that an analyst's study said that the minister knew the names and addresses of thousands of potential GIS recipients all along and failed to adequately inform them.
My question: If she knew all along who the potential GIS recipients were, why did the minister refuse to adequately inform these seniors of their right to apply for the guaranteed income supplement?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.):
Again, Mr. Speaker, let me clarify for the hon. member that as a result of a new relationship between my department and the information that is held by the Minister of National Revenue, we have been able to better identify seniors who may be eligible for the guaranteed income supplement but in the past have not applied.
It is because of this new relationship and a sharing of information that is appropriate and responsive to personal information and its protection that we have identified these seniors and have corresponded with them directly so that they can have access to the benefit.
* * *
Ethics
Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government House leader. I have to come back to the so-called ethics package. It is evident that members from both sides of the House have concerns with respect to a code of conduct for parliamentarians.
Would the government House leader please update the House on when the government will introduce legislation that will reflect the concerns that have been raised by members of the House?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the excellent question that he has raised this afternoon about this issue that is important for all of us.
As I indicated a while ago, the government of course said in May and June and repeated again in the throne speech that it intends to proceed with such a document, reflecting, of course, the views of all members of Parliament in the House and with the new-found interest, at least last week, of the Leader of the Opposition.
* * *
(1440)
Health Care
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, there has been an incredible proliferation of private, for-profit health clinics in Canada in recent times. In fact private MRI clinics have increased over 800% in the last five years.
The health minister has the authority and indeed the responsibility to investigate these clinics for potential violations of the Canada Health Act, particularly given the likelihood of queue jumping and other threats to our public health system.
Has the health minister done so and will she table the results of her investigations in the House?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we do in fact make inquiries. Whenever a concern is brought to our attention we monitor the situation very closely for possible violations of the Canada Health Act. We in fact work closely with provincial officials. We require information in many cases. I must say that the information is generally forthcoming. If there continue to be concerns that I may have in relation to the operation of a clinic, be it in relation to queue jumping or other things, we pursue that further and if necessary I take it up with my provincial counterpart to ensure that we are able to resolve the concern.
* * *
Foreign Affairs
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. On June 13 this year the Senate passed a motion calling upon the Government of Canada to recognize the 1915 genocide of the Armenians and to designate April 24 of every year hereafter throughout Canada as a day of remembrance for the 1.5 million Armenians who fell victim to the first genocide of the 20th century.
I ask the minister: Will the government now finally join with the French government and many other elected bodies around the world and support this long overdue recognition of the Armenian genocide?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will recall that when this was last debated in the House the parliamentary secretary made a statement to the House which clearly indicated that the government shares with the people of Armenia the sorrow as a result of the terrible tragedy and loss of life in those awful circumstances during the course of the breakup of the Ottoman Empire.
I met recently with the Speaker of the Armenian legislature, who was here, and with various Armenian members of their legislature. We continue to examine this question. The Armenian people know that the government sympathizes with their cause and sympathizes with the suffering they had, and we will continue in that line.
* * *
Government Expenditures
Mr. Rex Barnes (Gander—Grand Falls, PC):
Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague pointed out yesterday, the government is cutting benefits for Canada's disabled while wasting millions on new Challenger jets.
The government's own officials, including the assistant deputy minister of public works and the deputy minister herself, have stated that the Prime Minister's personal demand for the purchase of new Challenger jets was unnecessary.
Could the Prime Minister point to one department official at his level or any level who recommended to him that the purchase was in fact a necessity?
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, it is perfectly appropriate for Canadians to scrutinize every government expenditure. That is why we have our very elaborate process for reporting on those expenditures, and it is important for government to be able to balance a whole range of priorities all at the same time. Investing in aircraft is one of those priorities, but so also are health care, where we invest $29 billion every year, children, $7 billion every year, innovation, $7.5 billion every year, and aboriginals, more than $6 billion. The government has very balanced priorities.
Mr. Rex Barnes (Gander—Grand Falls, PC):
Mr. Speaker, while the cabinet ignores advice from its own officials, wasting millions of taxpayers' dollars on Liberal luxuries, rural Canada is actually being forgotten.
I can guarantee that the people of Gander--Grand Falls do not want jets. They want jobs. The Prime Minister twice misinformed the Canadian people on this issue, first when he stated that the purchase decision was made on the advice of officials and second when he stated that the rules were all followed in granting the contracts.
Now his own minister says that the government was not sued only because the deadline had passed. When is the Prime Minister going to come clean about these Challengers and give the public what it deserves--the truth?
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, indeed the records show that all of the rules were properly followed in this transaction to acquire the aircraft. The government needs to address those priorities like it does have to address all of the other priorities, including job creation, in Atlantic Canada and elsewhere.
I am very pleased that in the most recent financial information released by the Minister of Finance he indicated that Canada does in fact today enjoy the best job creation growth record in all of the G-8.
* * *
(1445)
Government Contracts
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I want to quote from the contract with the Solicitor General's official agent. It states:
| Payments will be made to the Contractor upon receipt of an invoice and approved by the Executive Assistant to the Solicitor General of Canada. |
Does the Solicitor General really expect the House to believe that he is unaware of a contract between his official agent and his department, a contract that his own executive assistant has to sign off on?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I have said a number of times, I will get the details from my department and inform the House of the details.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is a good thing that the Solicitor General is sitting between two lawyers because he is going to need them.
The situation is unbelievable. The minister is trying to convince the House that he is unaware of a contract with someone who was twice his official agent, a contract that his own executive assistant, who is probably sitting in the lobby, has to sign off on. Why does the minister not come clean and simply tell us the details of this sordid contract?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I never said I was unaware. What I told my hon. colleague was that I will get the--
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker:
Order, please. We have to be able to hear the minister's answer.
[Translation]
Order, please. There are other questions. The hon. member for Mercier. We need to be able to hear.
* * *
Iraq
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the proposed resolution made public yesterday by the United States seriously weakens the UN's role in resolving the conflict in Iraq. First, inspectors will be accompanied by American soldiers; second, it will be up to member states, not the UN, to decide if Iraq is demonstrating goodwill or if force is necessary.
Now that it knows the American position, does the government still support the U.S. resolution?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the member is fully aware, this is a draft resolution that was given to the media. We have not yet received the official version.
This resolution will be debated at the Security Council. Once the Security Council makes a decision, because it is up to the council to decide, we have said that the Government of Canada will support the Security Council's decision on the conditions involved in sending inspectors into Iraq.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, France is opposed to the idea of giving carte blanche to any country to launch a war against Iraq. Russia says that it will not support any resolution unless the inspectors deemed it useful to their work.
How is it that Canada can claim that it wants the UN to maintain its key role in resolving international crises, when it supports a position that essentially sidelines the UN?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, if the Security Council passes the resolution, then it will be the Security Council that will have decided. So, we will support the Security Council. However, the member does not know what the outcome of that debate will be. Let us wait to see what the Security Council decides. The Government of Canada will support the Security Council after it makes its decision.
* * *
[English]
Government Contracts
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I want to give the Solicitor General an opportunity to clear up the matter of this contract here and now.
Will he state for the record when he became aware of the contract with his two time official agent that was signed off on by his own executive assistant?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I said many times, I will get the details and make the member aware.
(1450)
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, that is completely unacceptable. He just said that he was unaware and a moment ago he said that he was aware.
It is incumbent upon him as a minister of the House to stand up and state when he became aware of this contract. When did he become aware of a contract with his own official agent that was signed off on by his own executive assistant?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I said to my hon. colleague, when I get the details I will make the member aware of the details.
* * *
[Translation]
Government On-Line Initiative
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne delivered on Monday does not mention the Government On-Line initiative. Earlier this week, it was reported by some media that the Government of Canada was about to set aside this important initiative and replace it with an agenda more closely related to social issues.
Could the President of the Treasury Board and minister responsible for the Government On-Line initiative tell us about the government's intentions? Does she intend to implement the GOL by the year 2005?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Shefford for raising an issue that is important to our fellow citizens.
Yes, our government maintains its commitment to become an e-government by the year 2005. We allocated moneys in the year 2000 budget to achieve this objective within five years. Incidentally, Canada has been recognized as a leader in e-government initiatives, because our public-based approach. Main services will be provided online by 2005, and I hope that parliamentarians will take a close interest in this issue.
* * *
[English]
Government Contracts
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General said that he will get back to the House as soon as he knows what is going on, but the details that we know about so far today are not very encouraging.
What we know so far is that his official agent was given an untendered contract. We know that his executive assistant had to sign off on that contract. We know that the Solicitor General earlier today admitted that he knew there was a contract but that he just did not know what was in the contract.
When did he find out that his official agent for the last two elections was given an untendered contract in his department?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, what I have said many times and what I will say again is that I will go back to my department, get the details and then make them available.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, that is hardly an adequate answer.
When the Solicitor General's executive assistant signed off on this contact to his official agent and friend, did he give the Solicitor General any advice about potential conflicts of interest? Did a light bulb not come on over there that this was following a pattern typical of the government?
Why did the Solicitor General and his department give an untendered, sole source contract to a friend and official agent of the Solicitor General? What were they thinking about?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
All I can tell my hon. colleague, Mr. Speaker, is that I will get the details and make them available.
* * *
[Translation]
Official Languages
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, this morning, the Commissioner of Official Languages reminded us of the government's slowness and apathy regarding the issue of official languages. While urgent action is needed, the minister responsible is suggesting that he may postpone until this winter the tabling of his action plan, which we have been waiting for two years.
How does the Prime Minister explain this new delay in the tabling of the action plan, considering that the Commissioner of Official Languages is increasingly insistent in condemning the slowness, lack of leadership and apathy of this government in the area of official languages?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government is very receptive to the report of the Commissioner of Official Languages. We are pleased to note the commissioner's new approach to also recognize examples of leadership and success. This week's Speech from the Throne clearly demonstrated the government's commitment to revitalizing our whole official languages program.
Rest assured that an action plan will be tabled in the near future.
* * *
[English]
Government Contracts
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am going to try again with the Solicitor General. This man is responsible for important security matters. We expect a half answer to an intelligent question
He said earlier that he was aware of this contract. We can get the details later and we will get them. Why does he not just come clear with us and tell us when he became aware of this contract?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, all I can do is tell my hon. colleague what I have told his other colleagues. I will get the details and I will make the members aware of the details when I receive the details.
* * *
(1455)
[Translation]
Regulatory Framework
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, this past August 12, in London, Ontario, the Minister of Justice said that there has never been an Enron-style scandal in Canada. He went on to say that the government must be prepared to act should this become necessary.
How can the present Minister of Justice say such a thing when, during his time as Minister of National Revenue, he himself refused to cooperate with the RCMP in the Cinar affair, thus enabling the Cinar officials to escape any criminal charges?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is always easy to make such insinuation