1999-10-15

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from October 14 consideration of the motion for an address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her speech at the opening of the session and of the amendment.
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, continuing the debate today I would like to talk about health. Our health depends on safe and healthy food and I would like to remind the House that the agricultural industry in my riding is one of the largest in southeastern Canada.
The riding of Essex and the surrounding area has an ideal growing climate. It is situated on a flat peninsula, jutting into the United States farther south than northern California. The growing season is the longest in Canada, averaging 212 days, with 350,000 acres of rich fertile and relatively flat farmland. There are 3,000 farms and over 400 acres of greenhouse production, producing everything from apples and tomatoes to flowers and cacti.
Farmers provide an annual yield of fruits and vegetables, legumes and grains totalling over $200 million annually. Today more than 50 food and beverage processing plants account for over $1 billion in shipments.
Our farmers take pride in nurturing the soil and producing the freshest and healthiest produce possible. To assist the farmers in my riding of Essex and elsewhere we will use the upcoming World Trade Organization negotiations, including those on agriculture, to help build a more transparent rules based global trading system, one that ensures a level playing field, provides better access to world markets for Canadian companies in all sectors and respects the needs of Canadians, our culture and the environment.
I would like to remind the House that agricultural production and its future is the very soul of this nation. The Liberal government has been and will continue to be a very strong supporter of agriculture.
As the throne speech stated, Canada's ability to adopt innovative environmental practices and technologies will increasingly be a part of Canada's strength in the 21st century.
Just yesterday Canada's leading automakers announced a new fuel endorsement program designed to encourage gasoline retailers to sell fuels that meet strict specifications, including lower sulphur, positive combustion chamber deposit controls, no heavy metal additives and enhanced driveability characteristics.
Those retailers who meet these specifications will be able to obtain a licence to use the automakers' choice logo and designation. To quote General Motor's president Maureen Kempston Darkes: “If all vehicles on the road in Canada today could access automakers' choice gasoline, it would be the equivalent of eliminating the smog-causing emissions from almost two million cars and light trucks”.
This will positively affect all Canadians and my constituents by reducing the already unacceptable levels of air pollution in Windsor and Essex county.
We will go further. By improving our physical infrastructure for the 21st century we will not only aid trade and economic growth, we will ensure that we have clean air and water.
The government will work with other levels of government and the private sector to reach by the end of the year 2000 an agreement on a five year plan for improving physical infrastructure in urban and rural regions across the country. This agreement will set out shared principles, objectives and fiscal parameters for all partners to increase their resources directed toward infrastructure. It will focus on areas such as transport, tourism, telecommunications, culture, health and safety, and the environment.
Tourism is a multibillion dollar industry in Windsor and Essex which attracts day-trippers and vacationers by bridge or tunnel to an uncrowded, relaxed and safe destination. Tourism accounts for our fourth largest industry, with 12% of the workforce or 16,300 people employed in accommodations, food service, amusement and recreation. The Ambassador Bridge is North America's number one international border crossing, with over 10 million vehicles per year travelling between our two great nations. Municipalities in my riding and individual companies have communicated to me the importance of creating a better highway system to ensure the safety of our citizens, the efficient movement of our trades and goods, and to increase the movement of people to our tourist attractions.
With the millennium approaching, Canada is preparing for the arrival of the 21st century and its immediate future. We cannot speak of the future without looking to our children. This government recognizes that the viability and economic strength of this nation depend on the opportunities we give our children today.
If Canada is going to be the place to be in the knowledge based economy of the 21st century, young Canadians, our leaders and innovators of tomorrow, must be equipped with state of the art high tech skills. As well, they must have access to the tools and educational opportunities which will help them apply their creative talents and hone their skills. Our goal is to give today's young generation of Canadians, no matter where they live, a shot at personal success in the knowledge economy, at a job with a future that pays well, and at becoming our best and brightest.
SchoolNet has connected every public school and library in Canada to the Internet. Canada is the first nation in the world to accomplish this. The community access program has ensured that we will have public Internet sites connected in 10,000 rural and urban areas by the year 2000 and Computers for Schools, whose goal of providing 250,000 computers for Canadian schools, is 60% complete.
The throne speech reaffirms that we will build on this strong foundation and use the world leading high tech infrastructure we are putting in place, not only to enhance the skills and opportunities of young Canadians, but also to broaden their understanding of their fellow Canadians and the Canadian experience.
Canada is on the right track. The nation's finances have been restored and we are enjoying the longest economic expansion since the 1960s with the creation of 1.7 million jobs since we took office. As the nation's finances have improved, the government has begun to deliver broad based tax relief totalling $16.5 billion over three years. As the nation's finances continue to improve, the government will further reduce taxes to increase the disposable income of Canadians, enhance innovation and risk taking, and create a more robust economy. In its next budget the government will set out a multi-year plan for further tax reductions.
I have had my opportunity to comment on the throne speech and the vision the government has unveiled to bring our strong nation into the next millennium. I hope that my constituents will take the opportunity to give me their views at the prebudget consultation I will hold at the Essex Civic and Education Centre on November 9, 1999 at 7.00 p.m. Together we can build a stronger Canada for the 21st century.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want to take a look at some things that have happened since 1993.
In the agricultural industry in my riding and in other parts of western Canada farmers are piling grain on the ground. Their bins are full. They have no place to put it. They cannot move it. About 40% of farmers are considering bankruptcy at this very moment.
This morning there are about 166,000 out of every million children who are going to school hungry. They are living in poverty. That is nearly three times as bad as it was in 1993.
The people on hundreds of reserves in this country are living in squalor. I have seen it with my own eyes. I know what is there.
We have a fishery problem that is going on now.
It is unbelievable that it would come to this, and all since 1993.
We have first degree cop killers, murderers, walking away from minimum security institutions. We have killers in minimum security institutions and this throne speech talks about the safety of Canadians as a top priority.
When we look at what is going on today and that which has occurred since 1993, I would suggest to the Canadian people throughout this land that this entire front row is filled with incompetent people, including the Prime Minister. How would the member respond to these tragedies that are happening today, right before her eyes?
Susan Whelan: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the hon. member, which is hard for me to find right now, the government has already invested an additional $1.7 billion toward low income families and children. The member who just spoke voted against that. He now has the nerve to stand in the House and talk about poverty and children when he voted against money going to low income families and to children.
The Prime Minister has led the government and the country to the lowest unemployment rate in years. Canadians are back to work. We have new programs in our schools. We are connected to the Internet with leading edge technology. We are investing in research. We are attracting the best and brightest to Canada.
Maybe the hon. member should come to the industry committee once in a while and hear what researchers in Canada have to say about the opportunities that exist in Canada and what attracts them. The bottom line is not the dollars. It is where they can go and what they can do. If members on that side would show up at committee they would obviously know that. Since they are never there they cannot say anything about it.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, obviously we have again heard non-answers from a government member to some very direct questions from my colleague from Wild Rose.
The member talked about being on track. Someone needs to wake her up because there has been a derailment. The government is very off track.
The member mentioned broad based tax relief as though the government had actually delivered it. She talked about $16.5 billion of tax relief but, surprise, neglected to mention that the government at the same time has wrung $18 billion out of the Canadian people in tax increases. We talk about the $16 billion of tax relief but we do not mention that we have raised and wrung $18 billion more out of Canadians at the very same time. That is a net loss and the member has the gall to stand in her place and defend her government by saying that it has provided broad based tax relief. How can she do that?
Susan Whelan: Mr. Speaker, obviously the math on the other side is a little distorted as usual.
When we go from double digit unemployment to single digit unemployment we obviously will have more Canadians working. More Canadians working means more tax dollars. That is why we have been able to provide $16.5 billion in tax relief and why we made a very clear announcement in the throne speech.
In case they did not hear me the first time, we very clearly state in the throne speech that the government will set out a multi-year plan for further tax reductions. Canadians know that we have a balanced approach. Canadians supported us in the 1997 election on a balanced approach.
I know it bothers some members on the opposite side to think that Canadians want social programs at the same time as they want balance, with debt reduction and tax relief.
Just the other day I had a dinner meeting and by chance two people there, one from the health care sector and one who makes substantial amounts of money from a different type of profession, were at odds on what should happen, but both of them agreed that we have to support the social programs as much as we have to provide tax relief.
I very clearly answered the question when I stated that we have gone from double digit to single digit unemployment.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be part of the debate this morning. l enjoyed the throne speech, but the main event for me and I think for many in the media and others was really the Leader of the Opposition's reply to the throne speech. I always look forward to his comments. What a great job he did.
Reflecting on the throne speech, some Liberals seem to believe that spending money on government programs aimed at children will help with the challenges that Canadian families face. Unfortunately, investing in more new federal programs, the latest code word being investing, is really just more spending and spending financed by whom? It is financed by parents. It completely misses the importance of families in their struggles.
The issues and pressures facing Canadian families are bigger than a few new spending programs. Everything from fiscal and economic policy to justice and community safety issues all affect family units.
High taxes mean fewer family outings and more financial stress. High CPP premiums translate into a tax on jobs. There is also bracket creep. Tax inequalities and inequities mean that families have to consider what effect employment decisions will have on their tax bill.
A massive underground economy means that families are the victims of an especially unbalanced tax burden. A confused health care system means stress and uncertainty about the care of loved ones.
A low dollar, almost two-thirds of the American dollar, and once higher than the American dollar, means that families face a grocery bill and costs for fruits and vegetables higher than ever before.
Lower productivity means a less vibrant economy, higher long term and youth unemployment. Youth unemployment is almost twice the rate of overall unemployment. Many of the jobs young people get are across the border. The brain drain is a real thing and it is breaking up families. Oppressive regulations and bloated bureaucracies stifle the entrepreneurial spirit that is birthed within the family.
A lax attitude toward crime and criminals and using our communities as test laboratories for rehabilitating early parolees makes danger on our streets and violence in the playground sometimes a reality.
Probably a most significant concern to many in the House is the political interference and anti-democratic patronage which weakens the faith of our young people in the system. Special interest group funding, political slush fund contributions and other frivolous attitudes toward spending tax dollars encourages a sort of family tax rage. Children and families are all affected by these issues.
We have heard the government talk about its concern for children but I and other members of the House have repeatedly heard it refuse to deliver even when it had the opportunity to do so. This is a government that says it is against child pornography, it is for greater protection from child sex offenders and it is against family tax discrimination. Let us look at its actions because that is really the most telling sign.
We have seen, in the country, the courts strike down laws that make child pornography illegal. We saw 79 Liberal MPs and senators write a letter to the Prime Minister urging him not to wait for the appeal of the B.C. decision to be heard but to immediately act in defence of Canada's children. These Liberal members recommended that strong new child pornography legislation be introduced as soon as the House returns. That sounds good. I and I am sure all the members of my party would have signed that letter. In fact, they even went on in the letter to encourage the Prime Minister to consider the use of the notwithstanding clause to send a clear message that Canada's charter of rights and freedoms would never again be used to defend sexual abuse of Canadian children.
Tragically, we have the telling sign. These same Liberals voted against a motion in the House to do just exactly what their letter asked for. In February of this year every Liberal MP who signed this letter, except the four who are now in the frozen back land of the Liberal Party over there, the Siberia of the Liberal caucus, voted for the motion. All the others who signed the letter voted against it calling for the motion for child pornography laws to be upheld by parliament, not struck down, the laws shaped by parliament.
Let us talk about another situation. The Liberals had an opportunity to protect children from convicted sex offenders but failed. We all know the Liberals waited to prorogue the House this summer until they could get through Bill C-78. Bill C-78 allowed the government to get its hands on the pension surplus of public employees but they failed to pass another bill, a Reform-driven bill, Bill C-69 which protected children from convicted sex offenders. Bill C-69 was in the Senate before the pension bill but they overlooked that and went for the money. They pushed through the pension bill to grab the money and left our children less protected. If that is not a telling sign of priorities, I do not know what is. Actions speak louder than words to Canadians.
Let us look at another one. The Liberals have refused and failed to end the tax discrimination faced by single income families with children. We know that in the last federal budget a typical single earner family with two children, a family of four with a $45,000 income, pays about $4,900 in personal tax. The same single income family is paying 136% more than a dual earner family. That is right out of the budget. However, the Liberals voted against the motion in the House that addresses tax discrimination. They said no. The vote was 123 in favour, most united on this side, and 145 against on that side. This affirms again that the true vision of the Liberals is a continuation of their legacy of high taxes and less choice for families.
The Liberal MPs say that they are concerned about pornography and child pornography. What are they doing about it? Nothing. We hear that they are concerned about protecting our kids, but when they had a chance to do something about it they did nothing.
The Liberals talk about caring for and wanting to address tax discrimination in the country. They had the opportunity but did not move on it.
What is all this talk about a legacy? We hear them talking about a legacy. The Prime Minister wants a legacy. The Liberal member from St. Paul's was quoted in the Hamilton spectator as saying: “We want something that is a legacy”.
The Liberal member for Don Valley West was quoted as saying: “When they look back at us 50 years from now what will be the great thing that we did? Will anyone remember if we gave them tax cuts? If we are going to be remembered we must do some great thing, some great national project. What more appropriate thing for the millennium for our legacy”—he is concerned about his legacy—“than to do something for our kids”.
This begs the question of what is more important to them, their legacy or our children. Parents look after the needs of kids best but it looks like they might also be asked to finance the Liberals' legacy building project. What a question to ask: “Will anyone remember if we gave them tax cuts?” Where is the credibility in all of this when we hear all this talk about a children's agenda? To me it sounds more like an agenda for children.
The Liberal member for Sarnia—Lambton was quoted recently. I have to agree with the member, although I think his career path in the Liberal Party is going to be severely stilted and derailed. He fears that the national children's agenda is a code word for big spending, social engineering and government meddling. He said: “To me it's all a lot of nonsense. It is as if having children is unnatural and the state is going to tell you how to rear your children”. This was said by a Liberal member and I can agree with him. He is right on.
I have to inform the government that it actually already has a legacy. The Liberal legacy is one of high tax, of high national debt, of increasing taxes and of a huge national debt borne by our children.
Families in Canada are actually aware of the Liberal government's agenda. They are quite confident that they have the ability to look after the children. Statistics Canada noted in a recent study that by far the majority of children living in Canada are in excellent and very good health according to their parents.
I do not think parents want interference by the Liberal government. They want to be left to raise their families as they see fit. They want a government that will give them less taxes and less government. They want a government that respects the natural authority of parents and the choices they are best suited to make on behalf of their children.
I have a lot more to say but I will leave it for another time. My number one concern is that families in the country be given the respect and the freedom to raise their children as they see fit. I would like to move an amendment.
I move:
That the amendment be amended by inserting after the words “airline industry”, the words: “and give Canadians some indication of its vision of Canada's airline industry in the 21st century”.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the amendment to the amendment.
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the last speaker mentioned that parents look after their children best. Over all I would agree with him except that there are situations where parents do not always look after the needs of their children best. It is not because they do not want to but in some circumstances they cannot.
Does the hon. member think that every parent should be the teacher of their child or the doctor of their child? As citizens, as a group, can we not help each other look after our children? Everything a government does is not necessarily some sort of nefarious interference with those of us who are raising our children. In fact we can help each other build a stronger society by helping relieve the stress of a single person or a single couple looking after their children exclusively.
Eric C. Lowther: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a very reasonable question. I want to be clear on this particular point.
I am in no way advocating that as a community and as a nation of caring people we do not support one another or that we do not encourage one another in the rearing of our children. What I am focusing on is the natural authority of parents in their families to make their decisions. When they want to seek help and when they want to get advice from their neighbours, their community or even from their government, that should be a decision left solely in the hands of the parents to decide.
I am not talking about situations of neglect or abuse where perhaps there is a legitimate requirement for a government to have some intervention. We are primarily concerned that public policy and government policy respect the role of parents to make the decisions in the best interest of their children. They should be able to make those choices in a fair way where tax policies do not discriminate against one choice over another. There should be a fair and equal playing field for parents to make the decisions because they are the ones who can best make the needs assessments of their children.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I just read over the hon. member's amendment to the amendment. After the words “airline industry” he wants to insert the words “and give Canadians some indication of its vision of Canada's airline industry in the 21st century”.
Could the hon. member tell me whether or not he is aware of the process the government and in fact all parties of the House of Commons are going through at this very moment?
The transport committee of the House of Commons is an all-party parliamentary committee. Members of all parties of the House sit on it. In fact his colleague sits as the critic on the committee. It has already begun its work. It is the only committee of the House of Commons to get moving on its work.
Yesterday we had our first meeting. As early as Monday afternoon we are meeting with an agenda. From all indications from my colleagues on the committee, as well as the critic for the member's party, the airline issue is probably the issue the committee will be seized with immediately.
There will be input from the Standing Committee on Transport in the form of a report. We all hope that it will be a unanimous report back to the House of Commons as soon as possible but within the limitations given us to do the job.
The member indicates that he is looking to the government to provide vision. There are members on this side of the House who are concerned. They are bringing their concerns to the attention of our internal economic development committee chaired by the member for Stoney Creek, and that will move forward.
Is the hon. member aware of all these different things that are going on, including the Competition Bureau which will make representation to the minister by the end of the month in the form of a report? The Minister of Transport is being seized with this issue and is getting all this input. I wonder if the member can acknowledge that all this work is being done.
Eric C. Lowther: Mr. Speaker, yes, I am aware of that work being done. I am also aware there was no mention of the airline industry in the Speech from the Throne. I am also aware that this issue was not led by any plan of the Liberal government. It was led by the industry itself. It had to take action because there was no vision from the government.
I am not saying it should intrude in that situation, but at the same time I am saying there is a vacuum over there. There is no plan. It is trying to cope with the realities of the marketplace and struggling with how to do it. I am aware of what the hon. member is pointing out, but we are not seeing any clear direction from the government at all. It is trying to cope with the situation.
Grant McNally: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to enter into the debate on the Speech from the Throne.
It is quite evident from what was not in the Speech from the Throne that the government is clearly failing in a number of areas. At a time when the throne speech is to lay out the government's priorities in the areas that it needs to pay attention to, it neglected four of the major issues that are huge in the country right now. Many people are talking about those issues and many people are looking to the government for answers. There was a failure of the Liberal government to acknowledge those issues or spell them out in any remote detail or even in any generality.
One of the major four areas is the fishing crisis happening on our east coast. The government did not talk about that or mention it in the throne speech. The government did not address agriculture in that throne speech. That is a major issue for many hard working Canadians in the agricultural field and it affects all of us.
It has neglected to talk about the airline industry, as was just pointed out by my colleague for Calgary Centre. It has failed to talk about immigration and the crisis happening in the broken system that became so clearly evident this past summer off the west coast of Vancouver.
I will focus most of my attention in my speech this morning on the broken immigration system and the failure of the government to address the crying need for change in that area. It is woeful that the government has not taken action. The incidents that happened this past summer of which all Canadians across the country are aware have in essence highlighted and shone a beacon of light on the government's failure in this area.
The immigration system has been broken for a very long time. Members of the opposition have been talking with the government, pleading with it for a number of years to change the system. My colleagues that were here years before I came here made a lot of proactive positive suggestions to the ministers of immigration, to the government, to the Prime Minister, and they have not acted on them. They rebut any idea of change out of hand because it comes from opposition members or from anybody else. They believe they have the answers and will do what they want.
With that kind of attitude and that kind of approach to governing the Liberal government gets itself into the position of crisis after crisis after crisis because of its inability to be proactive and its inability to look at positive solutions suggested by others, even by people in its own caucus. They are rejected out of hand. As a result of that attitude, that underlying philosophical approach to governing, the government neglects its responsibility. That is not acceptable.
Members of the opposition will continue to urge that the government take action. Failing that, we will work in whatever way possible to become the government so that we can put in place proactive positive approaches that solve glaring problems across the country which the government is not willing to even go near.
I will move into a little more detail about some of points made about our immigration system. I will quote a piece of information that came from a report commissioned by the minister of immigration entitled “Not Just Numbers: A Canadian Framework for Future Immigration”. This study was put together by some independent individuals who did a broad based consultation process, in the government's own words, to find out what needs to be done. Here is something that was included in the report:
In recent years in Canada, over half of all the asylum-seeking arrivals at ports of entry had destroyed all identification documents before being seen by officials—
It goes on to say:
Recent arrivals have mainly come from countries which are stable enough to provide identification documents. Generally, these individuals are uncooperative and refuse to provide their names, their countries of origin, or anything else that might assist the expeditious processing of their claim. The idea that all such persons are reluctant to give such details because of refugee-based fears, or that the persons helping them enter Canada are latter-day Raoul Wallenbergs, is naive. The people-smuggling business is now as lucrative as the international drug trade.
This was in a report submitted to the government, commissioned by the government and in fact has been lost on the government. It is another report that has simply been shelved or put away to gather dust for another day. We can say this because the government has rejected that notion out of hand as well as many other proposals which have been put forward. It is a shame that is its approach to governing.
Immigration department officials in response to the people smuggling that occurred on the west coast this past summer have said the following. An Immigration Canada spokesperson named Jim Redmond has said:
This is not a humanitarian movement; this is almost a slavery movement. It's hard on the people who are smuggled. It's organized crime at its worst.
He also said:
There is a good chance we could have more arrivals this year. It would be naive to say it's all over.
What appears to be happening is that the Liberal government is hoping the issue will just fade away. If it does nothing long enough other issues will pop up which will take the attention away from this glaring failure within its mandate so that it does not have to act on it. The underlying approach of the government is if it does not do anything long enough maybe people will forget about it.
People are not forgetting about it. They are realizing that the government is failing in the area of addressing the immigration system. I have sat with my colleagues for two years on the immigration committee. We have had many good debates. We have tried to work together. We have had many very heated debates at times too about the issue because it is a very important one.
We have been able to work co-operatively at times to look at ideas and solutions. What tends to happen is they get rejected because they are not approved by the minister, by the prime minister or by the cabinet. That is a shame too because there are many things we would like to see happen that are not happening.
The Reform Party offers a proactive positive approach rather than this force of negativity of doing nothing offered by the Liberal government. We have ideas, suggestions and solutions which have been put forward time and time again. I will mention a few of them.
We have to move away from the voluntary compliance system within the immigration system when individuals claim the protection of Canada. They can come, claim refugees status and then be told to appear tomorrow or next week at a hearing.
Those who are not true refugees will abuse that and often do. They disappear and do not go to their hearings. That is a problem. We need a system that addresses that, a system that has individuals maintained in an area until it is determined whether they are really refugees or not.
That process needs to be expedited. It cannot go on for years and years and years as it currently does. Members know that refugee cases go on for years. People's lives are in limbo. It is not fair to them and it is not fair to Canadians.
That process needs to be determined quickly, in a matter of days and weeks, not months and years. It needs to be done quickly, and once a decision is made, then it should be acted upon. If the person is determined not to be a refugee, then they should be removed from our country post-haste. If a person is determined to be a refugee, then they should be integrated into our communities as quickly as possible.
The Liberal government's approach is to leave people's lives in limbo, to allow people who are not refugees to be here and then to go after people who are true refugees and deport them. The system is broken at both ends and this Liberal government is failing.
The facts are in. The perception across our country is that this government does not think it is a problem. The Prime Minister himself said there is nothing wrong with our immigration laws and there is nothing wrong with our refugee process. He said that this summer. In light of what is happening on the west coast, it is unbelievable. It is absolutely shocking that this government, in the light of information, details and facts from its own people, fails to act. It is unbelievable.
I urge my colleagues on the government side to apply pressure to change the system. Failing that, the members of the opposition will work day after day in this place, in committee and on the streets of our nation to be proactive and positive. We will make a commitment here and now that we will change the system not only within immigration, but within all the other areas outlined in the Leader of the Opposition's speech for a positive vision for the future of this country, because it is clear that today in this land the Liberal government has failed and is visionless. We will carry the day. We will put in place the positive solutions that will reshape our country and take our country ahead for the next generation.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member to comment on something I find very interesting.
There has not been one question or comment on his presentation from the members opposite. We see members from Vancouver, members from Toronto, members whose constituents are upset that the government has taken no action on the issue. Obviously government members must have been told to keep quiet on this very serious issue. The Liberals are afraid to tackle difficult issues and this is a difficult issue.
I would like the member to comment on the government's handling of this issue, in particular that none of the government members are willing to ask a question or make a comment on the issue.
Grant McNally: Mr. Speaker, I can only say in response to that very good comment from my colleague that it is clear that the government has no answers.
The member for Vancouver—Kingsway across the way is a member of the immigration committee. She is simply not offering any solutions.
Members of the government, ministers of the crown have said very interesting things. The Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific said it is sad that Canada's screening process is being abused, and he is angry because the generosity, the goodwill Canadians have toward genuine refugees has been abused. That is what he has said.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: Wait until winter.
Grant McNally: That is right. The minister said wait until the weather gets bad so the ships stop coming. What kind of approach is that? That is the government's solution to a very important issue. It is a do nothing approach, just wait and hope that people do not notice. Well, people have noticed. If the Liberals will not change the system, we will work day after day to sit on that side in order to put in place our proactive solutions.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker let me say to the deputy citizenship critic for the Reform Party that as usual he has it wrong.
Look at Canada and the success that we have had. As a matter of fact Canada has been named the best country in the world for the last six years and it is because of the people we have in this country. The people in this country were immigrants or refugees at one point in time.
When the member says he wants to make a determination on refugee cases in a matter of days or weeks, he is wrong. We cannot have a judicial system or any system that has any kind of justice that can make a determination on somebody's life in a day or a week. This is the problem the Reform Party brings to this House. The Reform Party has simplistic solutions that are not viable. I do not want a commandant deciding in a day if somebody gets due process. It takes some time. Our government is acting responsibly to combat international smuggling of human beings.
The opposition parties, particularly the Reform Party on this issue, are like ambulance chasers. They run around looking for a problem and they point fingers. We are working. It is succeeding. Members opposite can blow and shout but the reality is we have a system which we are continuously working on to improve. It is a very good and a very fair system, one which will be even better.
Grant McNally: Mr. Speaker, it is a broken system. The member is in la-la land. The member sits on the immigration committee and he talks about simplistic answers. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration said wait until winter so the boats do not come anymore. What about that for a simplistic answer. That is the suggestion offered by the minister and her mouthpiece the member for Kitchener—Waterloo.
I was in the member's community. Talking about immigrant communities, I talked to some of his constituents who said they gave the member a petition and he lost it. That is the kind of approach the member takes to constituent work. Now he has no answers. His government has no answers to this crisis. It is clear. The facts are in.
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my colleague that our government not only cares but it also takes action.
Last month the Chinese government invited a small delegation of three Liberal MPs to go there. We had a very long and detailed discussion to establish co-operation between China and Canada to tackle the problem of human smuggling. It is the beginning of our work on immigration. There are many things we can tell the House. We not only take on our concerns but members' concerns are also in our hands. We are trying to solve the problems. We do not just sit in this House and talk. Talk is too easy. The government takes action.
Grant McNally: Mr. Speaker, to simply say something and say it is true is an interesting concept. Actions speak louder than words. The member's solution to the immigration crisis is to make an educational video and send that across the waters to folks so that they know to please not come because we are not sure what to do with them when they get here. That is the member's approach to this crisis.
Rather than work for legislative change with some teeth in it that will make a change and send a message internationally that Canada is not an easy mark for those who would abuse our immigration system, the member and her colleagues sit idly by and offer solutions such as waiting for winter so the boats stop coming, or putting together an educational video so that people stop coming. Those are their suggestions, rather than using the legislative powers we have in the House to take action and make a change.
We can work together in the House to make legislative changes to send a message internationally that Canada will not be an easy mark for those who choose to abuse our system. We want a positive system.
A member has shouted out a comment that I am not going to repeat because it is in contempt. He said it the other day in question period under his breath. He does not have the intestinal fortitude to stand in his place and make that accusation because he knows he would be thrown directly out of this place. He does not have the guts to stand and deliver; rather he holds his hand in front of his face and utters scurrilous remarks toward opposition members.
That is the approach of the government, to run scared, to do nothing and utter attacks against those who offer positive proactive solutions for change. Shame on the member and shame on every one of the Liberal members for standing idly by and doing nothing once again. That is the Liberal government's approach to governing. Shame on the Liberal members.
The day will come soon when we will be in the Liberal government's place making positive proactive solutions to address the concerns of this nation because the Liberal government simply refuses to do so.
The Deputy Speaker: I know we could go on with questions and comments but really the time has expired. Given the liveliness of the debate for a Friday, perhaps we should move on to Standing Order 31 Statements by Members.

Statements By Members
Older PersonsMr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on October 1, 1999 the Canadian Medical Association joined the United Nations in celebrating the International Day of Older Persons which was put in place to recognize the contributions to society of our older citizens.
Older persons across the country and around the world are an active and important part of society. As fellow members of society, it is our duty to ensure these older persons receive the health care and special services they need and deserve. The federal government recognizes these needs and is committed to working with Canadians to continually improve our health care system.
We must accommodate the changing demands of our aging and increasing population. The International Day of Older Persons gave us the opportunity to really look at this important sector of our population. Older persons have special health care needs and services which must be made readily available to them.
I would like to applaud the Canadian Medical Association's efforts during this international day. I urge Canadians to work together with each other and with the government to ensure our older persons are well taken care of.
Genetically Engineered FoodsMr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on behalf of many Canadians in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan and across the country who are concerned about the introduction of genetically engineered foods to the marketplace.
While everyone is interested in ensuring that the world's food supply grows and that the hunger pangs of children and indeed all people disappear, there are many who share concern about the safety of genetically engineered foods. There are too many outstanding issues and too many questions of what if. These questions require full answers.
The safety of our food supply cannot and must not fall into question. We must learn from past failures, such as the testing of our blood supply, and ensure the public that the same mistakes will not be made again. We must take time now to ensure that the safety of these foods is without question.
I have currently submitted a private member's bill to be drafted that calls for further investigation into the regulations concerning genetically engineered foods and their mandatory labelling. Until this process is complete, I believe that the questions will remain unanswered. In the near future I will be asking for support of this bill by the members of the House.
Gasoline PricesMr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there was a huge jump in the price of gas in Ontario this summer. In addition, the major oil companies continue to jerk around gas prices and Canadians to maximize their profits.
I know the price of crude oil has gone up, but that in no way explains current high gas prices. Some say that more than seven cents of the new price is excess profits for the corporations. I urge the government to initiate another inquiry into the lack of competition in gas pricing in Ontario. I believe the virtual elimination of small retailers has produced a monopoly in the province.
I also urge the government to persuade the Government of Ontario to use the threat of gas price regulation, which is clearly in the jurisdiction of Queen's Park, to pressure the oil companies to change their ways.
Wade MaclaughlanMr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate a fellow islander, Mr. Wade MacLaughlan, on his recent appointment as the President of the University of Prince Edward Island.
Mr. MacLaughlan was installed as the fifth president and vice chancellor of UPEI on October 3. He was chosen from among the country's leading academics for, among other things, his solid record in university administration with the University of New Brunswick.
Mr. MacLaughlan holds several degrees, including a Master of Law from Yale University. His passionate commitment to the island, outstanding experience in university administration and wealth of connections to the community will help strengthen UPEI.
In Mr. MacLaughlan's address he called on governments to reinvest more generously in the university and expressed his heartfelt desire to reverse the brain drain. He said: “We have to be leaders in planning for and implementing the brain gain”. Indeed, UPEI will be the place to be as we turn the century.
Congratulations to Wade, his family and all islanders.
Organ DonationMs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure it will surprise many to learn that Canada has one of the lowest organ donations rates in the world.
Last spring the Minister of Health asked the Standing Committee on Health to examine this very important issue and to make recommendations about ways to improve Canada's regretful donation rates.
The committee tabled its report in April and I am pleased to inform the House that the Minister of Health tabled the government's response to that report with the clerk earlier today.
I am also pleased to note that when Canada's health ministers met last month in Charlottetown they agreed to establish a council on organ and tissue donation and transplantation in Canada. This will give Canada a co-ordinated, comprehensive and integrated donation and transplantation strategy across the country. The council's business plan will be reviewed in November.
It is my hope that these efforts will go a long way to improving Canada's organ donation rate.
Aboriginal AffairsMyron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege over the past two years of working with some of the most extraordinary Canadians I have ever met.
First and foremost is a lady by the name of Leona Freed. Ms. Freed has built the First Nation's Accountability Coalition in an effort to restore hope to those feeling hopelessness at the hands of chiefs and councils on their reserves. In a single year the FNAC has grown to include coalitions from B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick.
Leona Freed is one of the most committed people I have ever met. I know she will not stop until there is true accountability on all 600-plus reserves across this nation.
I must also recognize people like Yolande Redcalf, Greg Twoyoungmen, Rita King, Edwin One Owl, Roy Littlechief, Mike Calder, Laura Deedza and Debbie Neepoose, just to name a few. Each of these people have selflessly contributed to the fight for a better life for future generations.
As I move to a new portfolio I wish all aboriginal people well and I want them to know that I will never forget the experiences we have had together.
World Food DayMr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Saturday, October 16 has been designated World Food Day.
At the world food summit in Rome in November 1996 Canada joined 186 other nations to endorse the summit's goal, which is to reduce the number of undernourished people by half by the year 2015. Canada's action plan for food security, launched by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food on World Food Day last year, is the result of that commitment.
As a major exporter of food and related products and expertise, and as one of the largest donors of food aid, Canada has made some very valuable contributions to world food security.
Fighting food insecurity is a collective effort by government, by civil society, by business and by communities. It is also an individual effort from all of us. On behalf of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and myself I encourage everyone to demonstrate their concern by contributing a food donation to their local food bank.
This year's theme is “Youth Against Hunger”. This is a good time to remind Canada's young people of the positive role they can play in the fight against worldwide hunger and in the achievement of food security for all.
Foster FamiliesMr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we forget and all too often minimize the contribution made by foster families in our society. In Quebec, the third week of October is set aside to officially honour foster families.
I therefore take this opportunity to pay tribute to the extraordinary support foster families provide in our society.
They look after children and adolescents providing the support, protection and training these young people really need, and this help is not negligible, because the Fédération des familles d'accueil du Québec alone represents nearly 3,250 families.
We therefore honour foster families for their invaluable contribution to society. On behalf of the members of the Bloc Quebecois, I would like to thank them and congratulate them on their unending efforts on behalf of our young people.
Dystonia Awareness WeekMr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this past week, October 10 to 17, was designated Dystonia Awareness Week.
Dystonia is an illness characterized by involuntary spasms and muscle contractions. This condition results in abnormal movements and posture and can affect various body parts like the eyes, neck and limbs.
Dystonia is often diagnosed as another ailment like arthritis or stress. To date there is no known cause or cure, but efforts have been made to change that. The Dystonia Medical Research Foundation offers support to sufferers through patient advocacy, public awareness, professional education and fundraising for research.
I invite my colleagues to join with me in congratulating the many volunteers with the Dystonia Medical Research Foundation. We offer them our best wishes for a successful campaign.
Julius NyerereMr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday one of the most visionary and illustrious sons of Africa passed away. Julius Nyerere, the former president of Tanzania, who was one of the leading figures in Africa's struggle for independence in its post-colonial era, lost his battle with leukemia.
As a former citizen of Tanzania I can attest to his greatness. While I disagreed with his economic and political philosophy, he commanded a high degree of respect from all Tanzanians, Africans and other citizens of the world. He was respected because his citizens came first.
Throughout Tanzania and Africa he was best known as Mwalimu , which means a teacher in Kiswahili. After his retirement he continued to play an advisory role in Tanzanian and regional politics. The world looked upon him to play a role in carving a bright future for Africa.
To Mwalimu 's family, the government and people of Tanzania we would like to express our profound sympathy. I end by saying:
Kwahir Mwalimu.
Doctors Without BordersMr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all members of the House will want to join with me in congratulating Doctors Without Borders on their nomination for the Nobel Prize this year.
Doctors Without Borders represents for most of us the best of what has developed in the latter part of this troubled century. It is an international NGO, formed originally in France, which is now throughout the world, including Canada. It provides the opportunity for doctors to serve their fellow human beings across the globe, often at great risk to themselves and in places such as Kosovo, East Timor and remote corners of Asia and Africa.
As we go into the 21st century the world is changing and borders are losing their significance. Doctors Without Borders is leading the way in breaking down those borders in the name of humanitarian principles which respond to the way in which Canadians see the world.
We all rejoice in their recognition by the Nobel committee and wish them well in their important work.
Nuclear Test Ban TreatyMr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party of Canada and its members of parliament join with the Canadian government, the prime ministers of the United Kingdom, Germany and France and many others around the world, including of course millions of Americans and President Clinton, in regretting the tragic, stupid, shortsighted and dangerous decision of the American Senate in rejecting the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty.
If some day the world is destroyed because of a nuclear war, those who are left, if there are any, may look back on this week as a negative turning point in the struggle to rid the world of nuclear weapons.
A senate dominated by right wingers decided to trust in their nuclear chariots and their determination to take on all comers in a possible nuclear war instead of encouraging and building a world in which nuclear non-proliferation and abolition of nuclear weapons is seen as the way ahead.
Perhaps the Republicans should check the historical record to see what eventually happens to empires which trust more in their weapons than in the will of God for a just, peaceful and non-nuclear world.
Ordre Du Mérite Agricole 1999Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on September 30, Quebec announced the winners of the Ordre du mérite agricole 1999 contest, thus giving recognition to the work of the agricultural producers, artists of the land, who have been feeding Quebec since its beginnings.
The purpose of this competition is to recognize excellence and it has long been a part of the Quebec farm scene. This was its 110th edition.
Among the winners chosen from 132 agricultural enterprises were: the Lajoie and Sons farm of Saint-Bruno, Lac Saint-Jean; the Rodrigue and Brothers farm, of Saint-Anaclet-de-Lessard; the Sim-Nord farm of Saint-Edmond-des-Plaines; the Marc-A. Turcotte farm of Val-Brillant; the Viel farm of Saint-Alexandre-de-Kamouraska; the Carol and Alain Perron farm of La Baie; the egg producers Les Oeufs d'or of Val d'Or, the nursery La Pépinière Aiken of Rouyn-Noranda and the Pétri farm of Saint-André-de-Kamouraska.
Today I would like to draw attention to the excellence and expertise of these agricultural professionals, and to wish a continued long life to the Ordre du mérite agricole competition.
Honourable Antonio LamerMr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this past August 21, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court announced his resignation in the following words “Having heard 1,317 cases on the Supreme Court and written reasons in 345 of them, I have decided to hang up my robes early in the next millennium”.
Called to the Bar of Quebec in 1957, Antonio Lamer practiced criminal law until his appointment to the Quebec Superior Court on December 19, 1969. In 1978, he was appointed to the Quebec Court of Appeal. Two years later he was appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada, and became Chief Justice of Canada on July 1, 1990.
Mr. Lamer has had an impressive career and the people of Canada wish him the best in his future endeavours.
Tobique First NationMr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker, members of the Tobique First Nation are fed up. The department of Indian affairs transfers $13 million annually to the Tobique band council, yet the council has recently run up a $10 million deficit. Over the past year many band members have met with me to show how the council's mismanagement and the department's lack of accountability have prevented band members from realizing the benefits of tax dollars.
Last year the band had to suspend medical services and lay off their nurse. At the same time, councillors voted to raise their own pay to $1,000 per week. Cheques worth $152,000 were written without invoices, authorization or approval. The council has violated every one of the remedial management plans it has signed with the department.
We must have self-government, but government money has to go toward solving the serious social problems at Tobique instead of to band politicians and accountants. The members of the Tobique First Nation and I call upon the minister to appoint a third party administrator for Tobique so we can get the band back on its financial feet and help this community thrive.
Jean DrapeauMr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this past August 17, the people of Quebec paid a final warm tribute to Jean Drapeau, mayor of Montreal for 29 years.
No one could remain indifferent to this man of action. One could oppose him or support him, but never ignore him.
Jean Drapeau was a man of ideas, with dreams of bettering Montreal. He was successful in creating pride in his city, through such concrete accomplishments as Expo and the métro.
The memory of this humanist and man of action will remain forever in the contemporary history of Quebec.
Thank you, Mr. Drapeau, for your great contribution to building the international renown of Montreal.
RefugeesMr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, more than 10 years ago the Tory MP at the time, Chuck Cook, called a meeting to discuss immigration at the 800 person capacity Centennial Theatre in North Vancouver. So many people came to express their dissatisfaction with Canada's sloppy refugee processing system that hundreds had to be turned away at the door.
Within a couple of years of that meeting Chuck Cook was privately telling voters in North Vancouver that the only way to get the laws changed would be to vote Reform in the next election.
How right he was. More than 10 years later, even though the solicitor general's department has now confirmed that Canada's sloppy immigration system has turned us into a haven for organized crime, absolutely nothing has been done to address these problems. The present minister sends out meaningless form letters to the concerned Canadians who are contacting her on this issue, and Chuck Cook's truth of 10 years ago remains the truth today. The only way the system will ever be changed is when people vote Reform.
First NationsLouise Hardy: Mr. Speaker, the supreme court decision in the Marshall case demonstrates the negligence of the department of Indian affairs. The minister initiated “Gathering Strength—Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan” which was supposed to be a new relationship with first nations. The government would negotiate, not litigate.
Now we face old tensions and anger just because this government forces first nations into the courts and refuses to negotiate.
There should never be a question of honouring a treaty. The government makes sure we all abide by the NAFTA and the WTO, but it has ignored agreements signed with the first nations. If the government continues to force the first nations all the way to the supreme court we will face more upheaval rather than the peace and friendship the treaties were meant to bring.
FisheriesMr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, Chantal Hébert's column “Political dance on native rights” is only partially correct. She correctly states that eastern political parties are walking on eggshells but she fails to recognize why.
My colleague from West Nova and myself as the member of parliament for South Shore understand the fragility of the licensed lobster fishery based on conservation. The reason this industry is lucrative is that lobster fishers have adopted licences, carapace sizes, trap limits and an inhospitable winter season to assure a quality product for domestic and export markets.
This year one lobster fisherman in LFA 35 has been lost at sea. We can all see that the cost of being in the industry is extremely high. The real story is that the political parties do not understand this issue. The Liberals have no plan to resolve this crisis. The Reform misled fishers into falsely believing that the decision can be struck down. The NDP has completely turned its back on eastern Canada.

Oral Question Period
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the government needs to move quickly if it hopes to relieve tensions in New Brunswick and to prevent similar conflicts from happening in other parts of the country.
The government has an obligation to all its citizens, not just to select groups. It cannot allow the courts to draw racial boundaries through Canada's natural resources.
We have only two days left. Why will not the government petition the supreme court not to overturn the decision but to stay the decision and then ask for clarification of this Marshall decision?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not see why the Reform Party is again using the term race. Frankly that is not the way to approach this matter. We have to approach it on the basis that we are working together to find solutions which are fair to all concerned.
Why do we not have the support of the Reform Party in this direction rather their using the term race in this matter?
Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, because the government has failed to act we are forced to use the word race. By not petitioning the court it is ensuring that we will have a race based fishery in the future. Most Canadians want equality of all citizens and groups.
While both groups of fishermen have rights, both native and non-native fishermen, by not petitioning the court, by not asking for clarification, it is ensuring that one group of fishermen has superior rights over another. That is not right.
What gives the government the right to unilaterally quash the principle of equality? Both groups of fishermen have rights. Why not ask the court for clarification on that point?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the supreme court came down with a judgment on September 17, 1999. We as the government respect the treaty right and we will live within the spirit of that judgment.
We have to make clear this is a right by law that the courts have recognized, a contract. This is a contract and a treaty. We respect that. The crown should respect the promises that it made whether they were made yesterday or whether they were made 240 years ago. We will ensure that we live with that.
Today I am happy to announce that I will be appointing a federal representative to start the talks immediately on a long term arrangement to deal with this issue.
Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, the problem is about to get bigger. Some native leaders now claim that the Marshall decision gives them the right to harvest timber without a licence. Others claim that they now have mineral rights. If the minister does not think that is true, he just has to look at what has been going on in British Columbia all summer.
I expect the minister may wish that this problem would go away. He only has two days left. I would urge him to petition the court. Why will not the government ask the supreme court to stay the ruling, not overturn it, ask for clarification of its meaning, tell all fishermen that their livelihoods will be protected and establish a fisheries policy that has equality as its cornerstone?
Herb Dhaliwal: Mr. Speaker, what is really important today is that we will have a federal representative who will talk to aboriginal and non-aboriginal groups and sit down to make sure we look at the long term arrangement in the fisheries area.
In terms of the broader issues, my colleague, the Indian affairs minister, is working very hard so that we can also deal with the broader issues that go beyond the fisheries as well.
We are making excellent progress. Why will not that party support that progress? Why will it not support aboriginal people and work with us instead of always trying to tear down what we are trying to build up?
Child PornographyEric C. Lowther: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are outraged by the government's unwillingness to uphold the law against child pornography. I have already submitted 150,000 signatures on petitions calling for the government to uphold the law. Today I will present another 150,000.
That is more than a quarter of a million people who have demonstrated their outrage against the government. Yet the justice minister refuses to budge. Children agenda my foot. How many more concerned Canadians will it take for this government to protect our kids?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows and as I think everyone on this side of the House is well aware, the government is committed to children and committed to a national children's agenda, unlike our hon. friends on the other side who are in the business of gunning programs that help families and children in the country.
In relation to the issue of child pornography let me say that our friends on the other side are scaremongers. They suggest there are no pornography laws in force in the country. It is against the law to produce child pornography, to distribute it, to sell it, and to import it. I would ask the Reform Party, as opposed to—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, but the hon. minister's time has expired.
Eric C. Lowther: Mr. Speaker, 300,000 Canadians have signed petitions. They are not scaremongers. They are calling on the government to act.
The government talks about caring for children, but on October 13 the Calgary Herald reported that the Alberta Court of Appeal ruled that a man convicted of possession of child pornography would be allowed to base part of his appeal on the B.C. court decision. This situation is getting more and more out of control while the government congratulates itself about a we love children throne speech.
Why is the government being led by nine judges, rather than—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice.
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, again the hon. member chooses to distort the facts. He refers to the Alberta case. What he fails to accentuate is that the accused person was convicted in that situation. Convictions for possession of pornography are taking place all over the country. Police investigations continue. Charges are being laid.
I have made it absolutely plain that we will respect the rule of law. We are intervening in support of the attorney general of British Columbia. We are intervening in support of other attorneys general and other interested groups that work with children. We are—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis.
Gm Plant In BoisbriandMrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry seems determined not to support the Government of Quebec's efforts to modernize the automobile industry in Quebec.
Does the minister realize that, by not backing Minister Landry's proposal, he is standing in the way of a plan that, on the one hand, will further the policy of developing new technologies in Quebec and, on the other, will make it possible to train a workforce specialized in this sector and keep it in Quebec?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will not repeat what my colleague, the Minister of Industry, said, because I might not be as eloquent. What he said was that the Quebec government is jumping the gun. Together, we have decided to form a partnership so as to help GM's Boisbriand division.
At this point, I think that everyone agrees that the most important thing is to help the Boisbriand plant find a new model. This was the focus of discussions. My colleague and I also participated in the study done by the survival committee, and we went to Detroit.
We are available and will continue to support employees of GM's Boisbriand plant.
Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, more speechifying from the government, but we have nothing concrete to show for it. The minister says that the plan is irresponsible and poorly thought out, but the federal government is hardly close to the action.
Does Quebec's plan bother the federal government so much that it is prepared to sacrifice Boisbriand for the 14 plants in Ontario?
Martin Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, Quebec's plan does not necessarily bother the federal government, but it should bother Quebec taxpayers.
At this stage, the important thing is to come up with a new model. It is well known that if we can, as a partnership, come up with a new model, the odds are good that GM will not need government assistance, given what happened in the other provinces. But now that the Government of Quebec has tipped its hand, there will obviously be no turning back, should a new model later be found. The $360 million is already on the table and probably ill-advisedly.
Audiovisual ProductionsMr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this morning the Journal de Montréal reports that the Montreal urban community police department just completed an investigation on a production company that allegedly falsified the identity of some screen writers and unduly benefited from federal tax credits.
The newspaper adds that the production company has also been the target of an RCMP investigation.
My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Can the minister assure us that she will do her utmost to shed light on this issue, even if some people close to the Liberal party might be directly involved?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I myself found out about the investigation this morning. I believe the investigation is still going on and we should let the police do its job.
Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, since the minister presumably made some checks, can she confirm that the production company CINAR, which is a contributor to the Liberal Party of Canada and which is headed by Micheline Charest, who is said to have organized a fundraising evening for the Liberal Party of Canada that was attended by the Prime Minister, is not the target of this investigation?
Sheila Copps: Mr. Speaker, I did not have any discussions with anyone about the investigation, because it is a police investigation. I respect that and I do not get involved in police matters.
AgricultureHon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of agriculture. Yesterday the minister told his counterparts in Manitoba and Saskatchewan that they had to put up some money for the farm crisis themselves. That is like asking the farmers to pay for their own crisis as R.B. Bennett did in the 1930s.
The minister knows that in Saskatchewan there is a joint position of all parties in the farm groups asking for an additional $1 billion in emergency farm aid now, on top of what they already have from last year under AIDA.
Will the minister be forthcoming with that money since he took money out of the programs by eliminating the Crow a few years ago? How much money will come back to the farmers on the prairies?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I did have a very frank and candid discussion with the ministers from Saskatchewan and Manitoba yesterday.
As they already know agriculture is a shared jurisdiction. The safety net support to agriculture for the last numbers of years has been shared 60:40. Provinces can contribute in that way. They can also contribute in other ways as was demonstrated yesterday by the province of Alberta.
Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the minister is obviously not listening. I have a letter from a 14 year old girl in Carragana, Saskatchewan. She is saying that nobody in parliament is listening to her on the farm crisis.
I wonder if the minister could answer my question directly as to whether or not there will be an extra $1 billion going to hard pressed farmers on the prairies. This is the worse farm crisis we have had since the 1930s. Could the minister answer that question directly? Would he screw up his courage and come out to the prairies to see for himself the severity of the crisis?
Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, I have been out to the prairies and I have seen it for myself. I have farmed for a number of years and I know the stress the producers are going through.
In answer to the specific question, is there another $1 billion for the province of Saskatchewan on top of the programs and the money that are already there, no.
FisheriesMr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, we welcome the news that the federal government would appoint a federal negotiator in the Atlantic fisheries crisis.
It is indeed regrettable that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans can no longer be directly involved in negotiations to settle a fisheries management dispute. Would the minister agree that the appointment of the negotiator was necessary only because he and his senior bureaucrats have lost all credibility with the people involved?
Herb Dhaliwal: Mr. Speaker, that is total rubbish. We have been working very hard. We have had both a short term and a long term plan.
I know Mr. James MacKenzie who is from Nova Scotia will do an excellent job to make sure we sit down, get all the parties together, and have a long term arrangement.
Meanwhile we have a regulatory fishery out there. We are ensuring that we have interim agreements, but this should not reflect on our long term arrangement. That is why Mr. MacKenzie has been asked. I am very happy that someone of his calibre has accepted this position.
Charlie Power: Mr. Speaker, it is not total rubbish. It is total chaos which the minister has created.
On Monday, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will be meeting with native leaders in Ottawa. The fact that the meeting is taking place in Ottawa is just another slap in the face to Atlantic Canadians.
We would like to know why the ministers are hiding away in Ottawa. Why can they not go to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and meet these people where the problem really is?
Herb Dhaliwal: Mr. Speaker, I have been to Atlantic Canada before the hon. member even knew the issue existed.
I met with all the commercial groups. I met with the aboriginal groups. We have been working with them. We will be willing to meet with them. We now have a federal representative who will start working on the long term arrangement which is really the important part. It is extremely important that we sit down to ensure that the aboriginal communities can exercise their treaty rights for the benefit of their members. We are going to continue to do that.
ImmigrationLeon Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I talked to the immigration officials in B.C. and they informed me that only four of the 600 Chinese migrants have gone through their initial IRB hearings. Do the math. At this rate the initial hearings of the 600 Chinese migrants will not be completed until 2034.
The minister assured Canadians that extra resources would be dedicated to expedite the process. Is this the minister's idea of expedience?
Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear on this question. The government has acted and is acting to expedite the process. Let me further inform the member. He knows that the issue we are dealing with is an international one which involves the smuggling of human beings. The member knows that this country is one of the leaders in the fight internationally. The member knows that but he is trying to exploit it.
Leon Benoit: Mr. Speaker, even if the minister manages to get the initial hearings completed in a year, the appeals process will take years. These people will spend a significant portion of their lives in detention camps set up by the government. I find this to be unacceptable. Further, every Canadian knows that the longer the process takes, the more it is going to cost taxpayers.
I want the minister to tell Canadians how much it is going to cost taxpayers to complete this process.
Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear for the Reform Party. This government is acting expeditiously. In a speech in the House a few minutes ago before question period a Reform member said that if the Reform Party were the government it would deal with the issue in days or a matter of weeks. We know that we cannot have justice in a day or a matter of weeks unless we have adjudicators of a commandant form and we are not going to have them.
Air TransportationMr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the Onex affair, one of the minister's conditions is Canadian control of the future air carrier.
The present Canadian International Airlines-American Airlines agreement gives American veto power in any major decisions, including a potential merger with Air Canada.
The law limits foreign control of a Canadian carrier to no more than 25%. By blocking any Air Canada offer, American has de facto control over Canadian International Airlines. Can we trust the minister to respect these five conditions, when he is not even ensuring respect of the present legislation?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yes, the Canadian Transportation Agency is mandated to examine the conditional agreement accepted by Air Canada's shareholders. And I have no doubts that the agency will protect the interests of Canadians, and that it will protect the Canadian industry so that it will be operated by Canadians in Canada.
Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, according to the minister, if section 47 was applied, it was because time was of the essence, since Canadian International Airlines was on the verge of bankruptcy.
Yet the presidents of Canadian International Airlines, American Airlines and Onex all say that Canadian International Airlines will not be going bankrupt in the near future. Who is telling the truth?
David Collenette: Mr. Speaker, there have been no changes in the arguments that led the government to invoke section 47.
I believe the hon. member has raised a good question but, with all due respect, I suggest he raise it with Mr. Benson during the transport committee meetings if he wants the right answer.
AgricultureMr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today we have found out that there is no new money for western Canadian farmers who got nothing from AIDA.
The minister of agriculture has been quoted in the Western Producer as saying that government could help farmers by offering retraining for a new career. Does he not realize that the average age of farmers in Saskatchewan is 59? What career does he think is appropriate for a 59 year old farmer who has lost everything? Follow his path and take up politics?
Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, this government has shown very clearly that we care for Canadian farmers to a greater extent than the party across the floor. We put in $900 million last December and in February this year.
During the summer we made changes to the NISA program to make another $121 million available to Canadian farmers. We have encouraged them to use those programs. We have made changes to the crop insurance program. We have made changes to the AIDA program which we said we would continue to look at. We are continuing to work in those directions.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as an emergency assistance program, AIDA has been a cruel joke. After almost a year of Liberal fiddling, only a fraction of allocated funds has trickled down to desperate prairie farmers. The minister said that money is on the table. Money on the table is not in farmers' pockets. The worst feature of the program is that to qualify, a farmer has to have three profitable years immediately prior to 1998.
My question for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is why was AIDA crafted to avoid paying anything to those farmers most in need?
Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, I think it is sad that the hon. member said that $900 million from the federal government and $600 million from the provincial government is a cruel joke. It is a significant sum of money.
I can assure the hon. member that all of that money will be spent to assist Canadian farmers.
East TimorMrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Six weeks after the referendum in East Timor, no Canadian soldiers have yet joined the implementation force on the ground. Our soldiers are still waiting for their inoculations, which they were late receiving, to take effect.
How does the Deputy Prime Minister explain such a delay, when the Minister of Foreign Affairs himself was warned by NGOs returning from East Timor that there would be a blood bath? He was warned as early as February 22. How does he explain the delay?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all we do have troops in East Timor. In fact, the air crews in the Hercules have flown some 40 missions. They have taken troops. They have taken humanitarian aid. They have been going in and out of East Timor. They have had one of the highest levels of use of transport aircraft of any of the allied countries involved.
Second, HMCS Protector will again bring more supplies. It will be docking shortly and will be in full service. Today our troops in Valcartier are on their way to East Timor. They will be training with the New Zealanders and going in at the same time as the New Zealanders.
Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, that is all very fine and well but, in the throne speech, the government said that Canada has the expertise to protect people from threats to their rights, their safety and their lives.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister think that Canada's slowness to act is consistent with the policy of human safety advanced by the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the United Nations?
Art Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, the only reason the ground troops have not been in there earlier is because of the need for inoculation from a very deadly disease. Would the hon. member have us send our troops in and risk their lives? No, we would not do that. We want to make sure they are properly protected to be of service to the people of East Timor.
The Australians are very anxious for us to get there. We are getting there just as quickly as we can. We will get there at the same time as the New Zealanders and they are right next door.
AgricultureMr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Alberta government recognized the worst farm crisis in Canada since the Great Depression by announcing a $100 million emergency farm program.
Canadian farmers are suffering from circumstances far beyond their control, such as foreign export subsidies, but what is the Liberal government's response? A disaster income program whose criteria are so tough that farmers cannot access the money. I suggest that is the real disaster, the government's program.
What will it take for the minister to wake up and realize that farmers are in a very serious crisis?
Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, we know a number of farmers are having very stressful financial times presently. That is why we put the program in place. As I said a few minutes ago, the criteria will trigger all of the $900 million of federal money and the $600 million of the 60:40 split of the money we announced earlier this year.
TradeMr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, here is another example of how western farmers are getting the shaft from the government. Western cattle producers facing a 6% tariff from the Americans spent their own money to travel to the U.S. to hammer out proposals to end the dispute. But the trade and agriculture ministers refuse to listen and do nothing to defend the farmers.
Will the the minister act immediately to implement the ranchers' solutions which they hammered out to end this discrimination tariff?
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that when the decision came down it was a win for Canada. We won a lot of this decision and the hon. member should be happy with that.
Before we sat down and before we put forward the Canadian position on this, we talked to the groups, the industry and the provinces to make sure the position being put forward by the Government of Canada was best reflective of their views. We will continue to do that.
Audiovisual ProductionsStéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the minister just told us she did not contact the police. Can she also confirm that no member of her staff or her department was in touch with police forces involved in the investigation into the Montreal production company?
Sheila Copps: Mr. Speaker, I read in the newspaper that Canadian Audio-Visual Certification Office officials are meeting with Revenue Canada, next Thursday. So I presume public servants have been in touch with the police.
Health ResearchMr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
The government recently made some interesting announcements in the area of research. I am thinking in particular of the Canadian institutes of health research mentioned in the budget, and of the announcement made yesterday by the Prime Minister concerning university chairs.
Could the minister give us an example of funding for university research?
Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Gatineau for his interesting question.
Over the coming weeks and months, we will have the opportunity to discuss the issues of research chairs and institutes of health research.
At this point, I would like to remind the House that, last month, the Minister of Health and his colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, announced an $11.7 million subsidy for health research to the Université de Montréal. That money will be used to conduct research on AIDS, cancer and ethical issues relating to genetic changes.
TaxationMr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are saying that taxes are far too high. Cheryl in Burlington wrote to the Minister of Finance this summer and said: “As a stay at home mother of four small children the tax system is unfair. We are penalized because we believe that we are best to care for our children, not daycare”.
When will tax discrimination which puts purchased daycare over parent care end?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is obviously not aware of the national child tax benefit by which the government put untold millions of dollars into the hands of families. It was precisely for middle income families. We do recognize the costs incurred by those who have to raise children. Children are the future of our country.
The real issue is why the Reform opposed the national child tax benefit. That is the main issue.
Paul Forseth: Mr. Speaker, the finance minister has it wrong again. He did not answer the question.
Another taxpayer, Don from Ta Ta Creek, also wrote the minister. He said: “Your policy of high taxation is virtually killing small business. I would like to invest and expand my business but because of heavy tax I have decided to sell out and move”.
How is any entrepreneur going to be persuaded to invest in the country when the tax burden is literally breaking the back of small business?
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, again the hon. member ought to check his facts. The fact is we have cut unemployment insurance premiums by $4 billion. That affects small business immediately. We have put money into the small business loans program. We had a team Canada mission helping small business export across the country.
The fact is that the government recognizes that small business is the major job creator in the country and we have supported it to the hilt.
I will go back. The hon. member says that I do not answer questions. Why did he not answer the question on why the Reform Party opposed the national child tax benefit?
Canada Customs And Revenue AgencyLouise Hardy: Mr. Speaker, the new Canada Customs and Revenue Agency is having a big party November 1. It is going to have to work really hard to collect the cash for this party because this tax party will cost $1.4 million.
Where will the money come from: our pensioners or all the northerners who have been so heavily audited recently? What can possibly justify this $1.4 million tax party?
Martin Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, obviously the amount referred to by the hon. member is wrong.
I will tell the member one more time that the November 1 event will launch the new Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. We feel it is worth proceeding with some celebration because, together with our employees and our unions, we are working toward having an agency that will be more client oriented. As a government, we are proud of this agency.
Louise Hardy: Mr. Speaker, the government will not honour pay equity. It will not honour child care. It will not even provide housing. There is a farm crisis. We have first nations people in the country who go hungry. They get $51 a month for food for them and their children, and there is going to be this huge party.
Will this new tax agency do what it wants, when it wants with our money?
Martin Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Speech from the Throne has stated quite eloquently what the government has done and what it will do in the near future.
With regard to the new Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, I told the member that we are very proud of what we are doing. This agency will provide much better services to the population. We are providing good services now but we want to do much better in the near future.
Standing Committee On TransportMr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker, a week before the first meeting of the transport committee, the National Post and the the Globe and Mail reported that the Minister of Transport had selected the member for Hamilton West to be elected as the new chair of the committee, even though there had not been a meeting. Yesterday, right on schedule, all the Liberal members on the committee voted just like the minister predicted they would.
Will the minister commit to respect the committee system and honour the system not preordained—
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that while the question may be of interest it does not fall within the administrative competence of the government. It is out of order.
Does the hon. member have a supplementary question?
Bill Casey: Mr. Speaker, you are probably right, it is out of order because the minister is supposed to stay out of committee affairs. Committees are supposed to answer to parliament but the minister preordained the vote in a committee meeting.
I am asking the minister to commit to never doing that again, allow the committee to do its work—
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that the hon. member is in as much trouble with his supplementary as he was with the one that he admitted was out of order at the beginning.
The hon. member for St. Paul's.
Crime PreventionMs. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
On Tuesday the Speech from the Throne said the government would work with Canadians to ensure that our communities continue to be safe.
Could the minister tell us what initiatives the government has taken to help communities deal with crime?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, this gives me the opportunity to share with the House the remarkable success of a program that we on this side of the House are very proud of. That is, of course, our crime prevention strategy.
We on this side of the House believe that one only delivers real public safety and security through an integrated approach to the issue of crime, unlike the hon. members in the Reform Party who seem to believe in simply putting more people in jail for longer.
On this side of the House we believe in working in communities, with communities in partnership to address the root cause of crime.
TaxationMr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, further on high taxes, in a letter to the Minister of Finance, Clinton from Dartmouth wrote, “I'm part of the working poor. Instead of creating useless programs, do me a real favour and give me some real tax relief. P.S. I want more than just a couple of hundred bucks. And get rid of bracket creep while you are at it”.
Does the Minister of Finance hear Canadians? Will he tell us and Clinton how the total final tax bill will be reduced this year?
Paul Martin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, approximately $4 billion this year, $16.5 billion over the next three years, the most significant tax cuts the country has seen in over a decade. That is the answer.
Audiovisual ProductionsStéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, my question is again for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Can the minister confirm whether or not members of her political staff in her office have contacted the police forces involved in the investigations on a production company from Montreal?
Sheila Copps: Mr. Speaker, no one from my office gets involved in a police investigation.
Auto PactBill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister who is one of the few members of parliament who was here when the auto pact came into being. He was probably here as well when parliament and Canadians were assured that the auto pact would not be endangered by the WTO.
Given the number of jobs that are threatened by the WTO decision, many in his home city of Windsor, what does the government plan to do to safeguard the auto pact and the tens of thousands of jobs that are associated with that managed trade?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the hon. member has recognized what Liberal governments have done over the years to build the auto industry. This endorsement by the NDP will be listened to carefully by people in Windsor and other automotive cities.
I assure the hon. member that we are looking very carefully at the interim ruling which has been received in confidence. We will be making our representations to the WTO with respect to what should be in any final ruling and we will act in our responsibilities as we always have to protect the interests of Canadian workers—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.
Intergovernmental AffairsMr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, with things as they are in Quebec at this time, the scenario of a third referendum seems rather vague, despite the continuity of the Liberal government' s hard line.
Now a number of people are contemplating a new type of scenario, which could comprise a referendum on the new offers Quebec might make to Canada.
My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Is the minister going to prepare a plan A and/or plan B for this new scenario, and is he open to such an exercise originating with Quebec?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the Progressive Conservative intergovernmental relations critic for his question.
I believe that when such issues are at stake, it is very important for us to limit to a minimum any disagreement between the parties that believe in Canada.
The hon. member has certainly realized that a referendum is not necessary in order to improve Canada, to improve our highly decentralized federation. He has certainly realized that Quebecers, like all Canadians, do not want to be thrown into the upheaval of a referendum and he knows that, if ever there was a government that would have no credibility for this type of initiative, it is the present separatist government.
Global PopulationMr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this past week the world welcomed its sixth billionth citizen. By year 2050 the world's population will be 8.9 billion. Our global ecosystems and economies cannot continue to support this growing population forever.
My question is for the Minister of International Cooperation. What is the government doing to help alleviate problems associated with global population?
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as members know, almost all of the population growth is taking place in developing countries, aggravating the issues of poverty and social tensions in those areas.
However, much of CIDA's programming is devoted to supporting women in developing countries, including their quality of life, as well as targeting funding for reproductive health programming.
I would also like to point out that we do a great deal of work with girl child education. In fact, if 1,000 girls were given the opportunity to go to school for one extra year only, it would save 60 children.
ImmigrationGrant McNally: Mr. Speaker, so much for another Liberal infomercial.
The Liberal government has clearly failed to fix the broken immigration system. This week we learned that some of the ringleaders of the west coast people smuggling ships will not be prosecuted. The minister assured Canadians that people smugglers would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
This is an important question and hopefully a junior secretary will not get up to answer it. Why has the government gone back on its word to prosecute these people smuggling criminals?
Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, let me thank the assistant critic for the Reform Party on immigration for the question.
Let me further say to to the member that our values as a government in dealing with the very serious problem of people smuggling are not the same as the Reform Party's values. We believe in the charter of rights and freedoms. It does not.
Airline IndustryMs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport has admitted that he is letting corporate shareholders decide the future of the Canadian airline industry. Instead of showing leadership, he is sitting in his office waiting for Gerry Schwartz to give him a call to tell him what to do. This is a shameful abdication of his duty in a vital part of Canada's infrastructure.
Will the minister do his duty and table specific conditions for an airline merger before the Air Canada shareholders' meeting, or is he going to wait until after the meeting when Gerry gives him a call and tells him what to do?
David Collenette: Mr. Speaker, it is true that we are waiting for the shareholders of Air Canada to pronounce upon various proposals that either come along or will come along.
The market will decide on the corporate structuring, but the market alone will not decide on air policy for Canadians.
The members of the House, the Senate and the government will decide what is in the public interest and what conditions have to be put on any agreement that comes forward. That is a way that airline policy will be guaranteed for all Canadians.
Trucking IndustryMrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, problems in the trucking industry have been in the news a lot lately.
We know that nearly 80% of trucking movement is interprovincial, meaning that it comes under federal jurisdiction. We also know that the National Transportation Act will be deregulated in January 2000.
My question is for the Minister of Transport. Will he tell us what his plans are for eliminating the chaos in the trucking industry?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, how interesting that the Bloc Quebecois wants the federal government to interfere.
What I can say is that appeals from truckers are already before the CLRB. We must wait for the board's decisions.
Intergovernmental AffairsAndré Bachand: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs did not really answer my question.
What we want to know is how open the government would be to any change that might come from the regions or provinces, specifically from Quebec.
What plan A or plan B would it introduce if a region, or a province or provinces, held a referendum on major changes within the federation?
Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, the question is too hypothetical to answer.
All that can be said is that, with respect to the present Government of Quebec, Premier Bouchard said during the last election campaign that he was not in the business of renewing federalism. This statement was repeated yesterday by Quebec's Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
The Government of Quebec therefore has no credibility on this score. In any event, Quebecers, like all Canadians, do not want a referendum. I therefore expect governments to listen to Quebecers as they would listen to all Canadians.
JusticeMr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a recent survey of 450 Canadian judges found that 80% of them are so skeptical about the way conditional sentences are handled that they are leery of handing them out. Many cited inadequate supervision for the offenders as their main concern. If criminals cannot be supervised, public safety cannot be assured.
When will the justice minister change the sentencing laws to ensure that violent criminals are ineligible for conditional sentences?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, as I have said on a number of occasions in this House, five cases were heard by the Supreme Court of Canada on this very issue some months ago. We are now awaiting the decision of the supreme court. I have made it plain that after the decision of the supreme court is rendered, if changes are required to the conditional sentencing laws in this country, they will be made.
I am also awaiting the report of the justice committee in relation to conditional sentencing.

Routine Proceedings
Committees Of The HouseHon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to a commitment I made to the House some time ago and pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I am pleased to table, in both official languages, guidelines for preparing government responses to the House of Commons committee reports.
National DefenceRobert Bertrand: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 1998-1999 report of the Department of National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman.
Public Service Of CanadaMr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the pleasure to table, in both official languages, a copy of the employment statistics for the federal public service for the period April 1, 1998 to March 31, 1999.
Committees Of The HouseMr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government response to the 18th report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, entitled “The Year 2000 Problem: Will Canada Be Ready?”
Order In Council AppointmentsDerek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order in council appointments recently made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.
Government Response To PetitionsDerek Lee: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to 12 petitions.
Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation ActDon Boudria: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-4, an act to implement the Agreement among the Government of Canada, Governments of Member States of the European Space Agency, the Government of Japan, the Government of the Russian Federation, and the Government of the United States of America concerning Co-operation on the Civil International Space Station and to make related amendments to other acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Canadian Tourism Commission ActDon Boudria: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-5, an act to establish the Canadian Tourism Commission.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents ActDon Boudria: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-6, an act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances, by providing for the use of electronic means to communicate or record information or transactions and by amending the Canada Evidence Act, the Statutory Instruments Act and the Statute Revision Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, this bill is in the same form as Bill C-54 from the first session of this parliament and in accordance with the special order of the House of October 14, 1999 I request that it be reinstated at the same stage that it had reached at the time of prorogation.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair is satisfied that the bill is in the same state as the previous bill, as indicated by the government House leader and, accordingly, the bill stands in the same position it would have been at the time of prorogation of the last session.
(Bill deemed read the second time, referred to a committee, reported with amendments)
Criminal CodeDeepak Obhrai: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-219, an act to amend the Criminal Code (breaking and entering).

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise on behalf of the constituents of Calgary East to introduce my private member's bill in the House today.
The bill would establish a minimum two year sentence for second or subsequent convictions for the break and enter of dwelling houses. Canadians view the crime of break and enter as more than just a property crime. They view it as a crime against the person.
It is my hope that this private member's bill will receive support from my colleagues so we can effectively address this national problem.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Cultural Grants Acknowledgement ActDeepak Obhrai: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-220, an act to require that in the advertising and at the opening of a cultural project supported by public money a public acknowledgement be made of the grant and the percentage of the total cost that the grant represents.

Mr. Speaker, again it is my pleasure to rise on behalf of the constituents of Calgary East to introduce my private member's bill in the House today.
This bill calls for more accountability and transparency in how government spends taxpayer money. This bill will require the recipients of the grants of public funds for cultural projects to acknowledge that a grant has been made. It would also require recipients to specify the percentage of the total cost that the grant represents at the time the program is announced or advertised and opened to the public.
I believe it is only fair that Canadians be informed of their investments in these projects.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Prairie Grain Elevators ActLee Morrison: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-221, an act respecting the transfer of grain elevators located in a prairie province and the discontinuance of their operation.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to require persons who operate grain elevators located in a prairie province and who plan to discontinue operating any of these elevators to provide potential buyers with an opportunity to purchase them. This would place the grain companies on an equal footing with railway companies and make them jump through the same hoops that railway companies must jump through when they abandon a rail line.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
First Nations Ombudsman ActMyron Thompson: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-222, an act to establish the office of first nations ombudsman to investigate complaints relating to administrative and communication problems between members of first nations communities and their first nation and between first nations, allegations of improper financial administration and allegations of electoral irregularities.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the aboriginal grassroots people from across the country who have worked so hard over the last two years to try to bring accountability to their reserves, I am pleased to introduce this bill at their suggestion.
I am also pleased to hear that the new minister has supported the idea of accountability being very high on his priority list.
I am looking forward to strong support for this bill for the benefit of our grassroots natives who are suffering a great deal on our reserves.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Witness And Spousal Protection Program ActJay Hill: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-223, an act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act and to make a related and consequential amendment to another act (protection of spouses whose life is in danger).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reintroduce my private member's bill that I call the new identities act.
Each year in Canada hundreds of women and children live in fear for their lives. Many women go into hiding, leaving behind their jobs, families and friends in order to cover their trail to hide from an abusive, violent spouse. Unfortunately, many are found and beaten, and some are even killed.
If passed, this bill will serve to formally protect those persons whose lives are in danger by bringing them into the witness protection system.
This summer I contacted over 500 shelters and organizations across Canada for their input on this bill. In return I received an incredible amount of support, constructive suggestions and, most importantly, the horrific stories that necessitate this bill.
We as parliamentarians must address the crisis of domestic violence and through the new identities program provide an escape for threatened individuals who have nowhere else to turn.
I hope that members on all sides of the House will give this bill the non-partisan support it deserves.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Questions On The Order PaperDerek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion for an address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her speech at the opening of the session, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Rural Development)(Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to the vision set out by the government in its Speech from the Throne. I particularly want to expand on what that vision means for rural and remote Canada.
This is a very exciting time in the history of our country. The Speech from the Throne is the last for this millennium and lays out the government's vision as we move into an exciting era of the 21st century. By investing our resources in focused ways, we intend to make sure that we have an infrastructure in place that will further the well-being of all Canadians. This includes not only the physical infrastructure so crucial to the renewal and development of rural communities, but also investments in children and youth, in innovation, in further tax relief and debt reduction, in health and in the environment.
Our agenda will create opportunity and prosperity for Canadians no matter where they live. One of every three Canadians lives outside a major centre, whether it is a small community near an urban centre or a more remote community, be it a farming town, a forestry or mining community, or one based on tourism or manufacturing. The government recognizes the special circumstances of rural Canadians and it specifically addressed rural Canada in its Speech from the Throne.
We know that rural Canadians have faced numerous challenges. Like all Canadians they have faced those challenges with ingenuity and an inspiring commitment to their families and their communities. Hailing as I do from a rural area of central and northern Ontario, I have seen firsthand the dynamism of our rural areas, our towns, our villages and the entrepreneurialism and energy of those who live there.
The Speech from the Throne has clearly laid out the direction in which the government intends to go in the coming months. This direction applies very much to rural Canada.
The government continues to believe that vibrant communities and a sustainable resource base are the foundations for a strong rural Canada. It is a rural Canada where residents have access to the tools, information and skills they need to make informed decisions and to take full advantage of opportunities for personal and community development. It is a rural Canada where citizens have access to science and technology, infrastructure and services to be full partners in Canada's knowledge based economy and society.
As the throne speech said, we know that technology can open new doors to all Canadians, tearing down the old barriers of distance or access and allowing rural as well as urban communities to compete globally. We have made a commitment to encourage the development and adaptation of new technologies, recognizing that they hold the promise of greater economic stability for rural communities traditionally dominated by single industries like mining, fishing, forestry, or agriculture. In other words, investments in new technologies are a critical tool in the bid to strengthen rural communities and enable them to break out of the cyclical economies. We will make those investments.
The government has also committed to work with its partners in other levels of government, in the private sector, in the voluntary sector and with citizens in general to build a better quality of life for Canadians everywhere. As the Speech from the Throne indicated, this includes rural Canadians.
I would like to point out that my appointment as Secretary of State for Rural Development is in itself a strong signal of the importance the government attaches to rural Canada. The purpose of creating a separate additional Secretary of State for Rural Development is to bolster and reinforce the government's focus on rural Canada. I am deeply honoured to serve in that position.
In my new role I plan to lead the government's efforts in improving the quality of life for Canadians who live in rural and remote Canada. I intend to work with my colleagues on both sides of the House. Most important, I intend to work with individual Canadians to ensure that we take a co-ordinated approach to rural Canada and that we work together for common priorities which have been identified by rural Canadians themselves.
In the months ahead I will be concentrating on three particular areas.
First is the rural lens. This is essentially a way of making sure the potential impact on rural Canada is taken into consideration before federal policy decisions are made.
Second is to help Canadians who live outside our cities have better access to all the resources that are available to them. That means making sure they know what programs and services are out there, as well as making sure they are able to use them.
The third area I will be focusing on is the task of turning our strong commitments into specific tangible actions that truly help rural citizens.
As I have said, rural Canadians face many challenges, a number of them quite similar from community to community, for example, the challenges presented by distance from markets, low population density and the cyclical nature of resource based industries. Depending on where one lives in rural Canada, whether it is a remote Newfoundland outport, a small rural municipality in Saskatchewan, or a community in the far north, circumstances and cultures can also be quite different.
The Government of Canada is committed to reflecting those differences and those realities in our policy decisions. In adopting the principle of the rural lens, cabinet has made a commitment to ensure that the challenges and priorities of rural Canadians are understood and taken into account, both in current initiatives and in long term planning. As Secretary of State for Rural Development, I look forward to the opportunity to work with my cabinet colleagues in applying the rural lens.
This brings me back to my second priority which is to improve the communications and information flow between the government and rural citizens. As well as sharpening our focus on rural concerns within the government, it is also critically important that we do more to let rural Canadians know what assistance or programming is already available. We have made a good start. This year for example, our departments and agencies worked together to provide information on programs and services for rural Canadians in a booklet that went out to two and a half million households in rural and remote Canada.
We also need to inform rural Canadians about the progress being made toward meeting their priorities. One key way of doing this is by producing an annual report which measures our achievements in dealing with rural issues and challenges. Not only is the government committed to helping rural Canadians, it also expects to be held accountable for doing so. Early next year I will table this report in parliament, thereby providing an opportunity both for my colleagues in the House of Commons and for all Canadians to engage in a public discussion on how we chart the future of rural Canada.
Developing rural Canada and assisting rural Canadians will be a transparent process, one that is bottom up and not top down driven. That is why at the end of April I will host a national rural conference inviting individual rural Canadians from across Canada to come to Magog in the province of Quebec. The conference will promote and showcase rural Canada. More than that it will be an opportunity to discuss our successes, our challenges, our vision, and most important the specific actions we need to take to ensure the future of rural Canada.
The third area I want to talk about and the most important part of what I am charged to do relates to specific actions to be taken to bring about tangible developments and improvements for rural Canadians.
The direction set out in the Speech from the Throne will guide us as we work to deliver the results in rural Canada. Rural communities will be involved in drafting a five year plan for improving physical infrastructure. They will also be key partners in our efforts to make Canada a nation that is highly connected through the information highway so that rural citizens have ready access to the education, technology, skills and other tools that will allow them to share in the country's wealth and opportunities.
Our focus must now shift from process to results to take the steps necessary to develop action items into specific deliverables in rural Canada and make concrete progress on the priorities of rural Canadians.
In some cases this may simply mean bringing together different departments that do similar programs to focus resources in one area. In other cases we may need something new in addition to what is already being undertaken. For example, Health Canada through the office of rural health is taking the lead on the development of a rural health strategy to ensure that Canadians in rural and remote areas have access to quality health care. In another initiative a number of service Canada projects are being tried out in rural areas as a possible way to improve access to government programs and services.
Before closing I would like to mention that I wear another hat, that of Secretary of State for Federal Economic Development Initiative in Northern Ontario, more commonly known as the FedNor program. That brings with it a responsibility for community futures which plays a role in providing access to capital and facilitating business development for rural Canadians.
The community futures development corporations are administered by four different entities within the federal government: three regional development agencies, plus Industry Canada. The program works very well. It is an excellent example of one community level program which works across several different agencies, yet is very rurally focused.
Over the next few weeks I will be discussing with my ministerial colleagues other co-operative initiatives that involve their departments or agencies. Those initiatives will be directly targeted at the priorities set forward in the Speech from the Throne, and the federal framework for action in rural Canada which rural Canadians themselves helped to write and helped to develop.
The Speech from the Throne lays out a vision and opportunity for prosperity for Canadians. It is my personal commitment to ensure that rural Canadians are equal partners in that vision, that they have the technologies, the tools and the infrastructure to build a better quality of life for their chosen communities.
Rural Canada is the foundation on which a large part of our economic wealth is built. It is a place of great energy and great ingenuity. It is our past, it is our present and it is our future. It is a way of life, a way of unique traditions and a specific social structure. Most important, rural Canada is home. It is home to my family and other members' families. It is home to our friends, it is home to my constituents and it is home to nine million Canadians. It is a place with a great future. This government is working to make sure that that future for rural Canadians is as bright as possible.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Madam Speaker, my question for the minister is a very simple one. He speaks of the nine million Canadians who live in rural Canada. I think he has tried very gallantly to revise the biggest single omission in the throne speech and that is the fact that there was no mention of agriculture.
I represent the riding of Kings—Hants which has 50% of the agriculture output for the province of Nova Scotia. The fact is that many of the farm aid programs currently do not meet the needs of farmers either in my riding or in western Canada. The AIDA and NISA programs simply do not meet their needs. Some of those programs are based on 70% of the last three years' earnings. In my riding the last three years have been disastrous due to the drought. Of course, 70% of nothing is nothing. For farmers who are facing this crisis and bankruptcy there was absolutely nothing in the throne speech.
The minister speaks about rural issues. One of the most pivotal and important issues for rural Canadians is agriculture and food output. The throne speech did not address that.
The minister did not speak of the seasonal workers in Atlantic Canada and my riding. Seasonal workers have been devastated by the EI reforms and the cuts by the Liberal government. Many seasonal workers who did work periodically and who did contribute and participate in the economy are now forced on provincial social assistance. They have gone from working seasonally to not working at all. That is a significant concern.
The minister did not speak of the concentration in the food distribution business which increasingly is forcing producers to effectively deal with one or two major purchasers. It is denying the producers any ability to control price or have any control over their own business affairs. The minister does not address that.
The minister spoke at length about e-commerce, the growth in the high tech sector and the importance of connectedness in terms of technology in rural communities. I share with him in his optimism that in the long term these may play a role.
However, does he really believe that the government's focus on e-commerce and on Internet connectedness for rural communities is going to help? Does he really believe in the short term that a 50 year old farmer who is facing bankruptcy is going to be turned into a computer programmer or a high tech worker and suddenly will be transported back from the edge of the abyss of poverty, despair and into some new e-world of prosperity and future potential?
I believe he is being very naive and that the government is being very cold-hearted in turning its back on rural Canada and particularly on the agricultural sector, both in the west, in Ontario and in the east.
Andy Mitchell: Madam Speaker, part of what we see here, from the comments made by the hon. member who represents the Tory Party, is a good example of how its inability to deal with two separate issues at the same time led to an administration in the country from 1984 to 1993 that resulted in record deficits, increased unemployment and lower economic growth.
The reality is that we are dealing with all the issues that the hon. member mentioned. He talked about nothing being done in terms of the farm income prices.
Let me make it very clear for the hon. member, who seems to have missed it, and for other hon. members in the House and obviously for Canadians, that there was $900 million, when combined with provincial contributions of another $600 million, meant there was a $1.5 billion package to assist Canadian farmers through an income crisis they are experiencing right now. That work is ongoing and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has indicated his willingness to continue to work with his provincial counterparts, with the industry and with others to do the things that are necessary to help.
Beyond just simply helping in the income crisis, as important as that is, we must also ensure the long term viability of rural Canada. That is what the hon. member and his party have missed. We cannot just simply deal with the issues of the day, although we must and it is important. We must also ensure the long term viability of rural Canada and rural Canadians.
We must make sure that there is a future for rural Canadians. We must make sure there is a future for our children so that they can choose to live in rural Canada. It means more than simply identifying or dealing with one specific industry. It means more than just simply identifying with any one specific problem. It means dealing with the broad issues that face rural Canadians. It means understanding that rural Canada has separate challenges and separate needs and to respond to them.
That is what the government committed to do in the throne speech. As the minister responsible, I will attempt to ensure that those commitments come to reality and fruition.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Madam Speaker, I have listened carefully to the speech by the new Secretary of State for Rural Development, and I wish him good luck, despite my belief that the federal government has no business whatsoever interfering in this area.
I would invite him to speak to the Minister of Human Resources Development. With his responsibility for rural areas he is surely aware that, since employment insurance reform, there has been a serious problem that has to do with the rule of intensity. Seasonal workers are penalized by the deduction of 1% of their benefits every time they have used 20 weeks of employment insurance, which means that after three years, instead of receiving 55% of potential benefits, they will receive 50%.
Yesterday, the Minister of Human Resources Development gave an interview to a Moncton newspaper. She thinks that the rule of intensity must not be done away with, nor the period of benefits extended, because that is no solution. More employment must be created, and seasonal employment must be enabled to last longer.
I say to the secretary of state and to the minister “Why not do both at the same time?” When they state that the industry's season must be lengthened, it is as if they were telling people “You are not working longer because you do not want to.” The Secretary of State for Rural Development must surely know, and I hope he agrees with that view, that there is no one in Canada who does not want to work. This is not a situation where, contrary to what the Prime Minister said in the past, the unemployed are beer drinkers. That has been demonstrated. There are no more cheaters among the unemployed than there are in multinationals or elsewhere. Generally speaking, people do want to work.
It is not by hitting them on the head or by imposing unacceptable rules regarding minimum income that things will change. In rural areas, when a person works 15 or 20 weeks, if that person does not collect enough benefits, even if he or she has a job, even if he or she is among those who worked during the year, that person will still get poor because we do not have a good employment insurance program.
So, will the Secretary of State for Rural Development make representations to the Minister of Human Resources Development to have that situation changed, and is he not deeply upset that the throne speech says nothing on this issue?
It is important for the secretary of state to get the bureaucracy moving and force the government to stop viewing the employment insurance program strictly as a surplus generating scheme; this could have a positive impact in an area of federal jurisdiction. The EI system is also a tool for economic stabilization.
Will the secretary of state do that in the years to come?
Andy Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity as the chair of the natural resources committee to author a report called “Think Rural” which outlined many of the issues in rural Canada. Even though the hon. member was not a member of that committee, he took the time, effort and energy to provide input into the development of that report. He is committed to his rural area.
In terms of the issues in HRDC, I know that he and the minister have had debates in the House and that they continue to have discussions. The member forgets to talk about the other parts of the HRDC regime. He forgets to talk about active measures and all the other labour market adjustment type of initiatives that are undertaken by HRDC and which certainly help rural areas.
I had the opportunity not too long ago to travel to his part of the country. Their concern was not particularly over jurisdiction. There was not a concern over nationalism in Quebec. There was a concern about improving the quality of life of rural Canadians no matter where they live. That is what I am trying to, that is what the government is trying to do and that is what we will accomplish. We will improve the quality of life for all rural Canadians.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I, like some of my other colleagues, will begin by pointing out to Canadians and to the members of the House an issue that was not addressed in the Speech from the Throne: the state of Canada's airline industry.
We were all inundated over the summer months with positions both for and against changes in the airline industry but the government remains silent. There was absolutely no mention in the throne speech of the crisis in the airline industry. It is very clear that major changes will be coming. These are the questions I have. Where is the government's vision for the future of the Canadian airline industry? Where does the government feel Canadians want to see the airline industry go?
It is the government's apparent lack of vision that causes concern. The government seems to always be responding or reacting to situations rather than working out some of the problems or finding solutions in advance. Unfortunately its history of popping up into the issues and trying to influence the private sector is usually done for the wrong reasons.
Once the dust settles over the current airline industry situation, government and parliament must work together in a non-partisan fashion. We must work together with the stakeholders to develop a clear blueprint for Canada's airline industry in the 21st century.
I do not think there is a Canadian who has not heard of Onex, Air Canada and Canadian Airlines International. Canadians accept the fact that Canadian Airlines International is in trouble. I think everyone is aware of the Onex offer to merge the two airlines to stabilize Canada's airline industry under one major airline.
I do not think there are many Canadians, and I am one of them, who are aware of what Air Canada's counterproposal may be. However, I would suggest that one way or another it looks like we will only have one national airline in Canada. More importantly, parliament must play a role and it must be done in a non-partisan fashion.
The Reform Party believes that the role of government should be to facilitate a private enterprise solution to this problem. That means less government regulation not more. It means that the government must establish the priority of protecting the interests of Canadian consumers at both the national and regional levels, the interests of the Canadian taxpayer, the interests of the airline employees and the interests of those who invest in Canada's airline industry.
Maybe a starting point would be a comparison with the airline industry in Australia. It is interesting that in Australia where the demographics and the geography is very similar to Canada and where it has similar concerns and issues that Australia can have two profitable national airlines. Maybe there is something that we can learn from Australia's airline industry.
We also have to look at what role this government and previous Liberal and Conservative governments played in bringing our airline industry to the point where it is today. More importantly, the issue we have to address is how to fix the problem.
I will move on from the airline industry because there are other transportation issues in the country that must be addressed. Canada is on the brink of entering a new century. We can either enter the new century boldly or we can enter it timidly and in response to other situations around the world.
The brief mention of infrastructure programs in the throne speech leaves a lot of questions in the air. It mentions that the federal government will work with the provinces and the private sector over the next year to develop a new five year plan for improving the infrastructure. I think that is very short sighted of the government and of our country.
We have to take a much larger and longer vision of where we want to go with our infrastructure and on how we are going to get there. We would be remiss if we were not looking in ten 20-year cycles as opposed to only looking five years down the road. Not only is that true for our infrastructure program but it is also true for our national highway system.
Government has studied the problem of Canada's highway system for years. It really is time to quit studying and to do something about it. It is time for the government to implement a national highway strategy program. It is also time for the government to invest more than the 10% it collects in gas taxes into our highway infrastructure. It is time that the government started recognizing that highways and the ability to move people and goods is very important. It is important for rural Canada, it is important for urban Canada and it is important for the well being of all Canadians that our transportation networks are sound, well planned and certainly in good condition.
One of the issues that is very dear to my heart is the issue of trade corridors. A large part of the reason for Canada's economic improvement over the last years is due to the massive increase in trade, mainly with the Americans. I do not know that Canadians understand or realize that over $1.5 billion worth of trade happens across the Canada-U.S. border every single day of the year.
I am really pleased to see that the Liberal government has decided that trade is good for Canada, but if this growth is to continue, if we are to continue to maximize the future of our trading partners on the North American continent, our infrastructure must grow to accommodate that trade.
It is not just good enough to have trade agreements. It is not just good enough to have agreements among countries and documents that are signed between the leaders. We have to be able to move the goods that we have agreed to trade. We have to make sure that the movement of those goods is done in an efficient and timely manner.
I do not think we can ignore rail transportation, particularly the movement of grain across our country. That has been an issue for a number years and it remains an issue that has to be resolved. Two reports have been produced for parliament to consider, the Estey and Kroeger reports. I look forward to the coming years and seeing this happen.
There are also environmental concerns. If the Minister of Environment is concerned about vehicle emissions then I would suggest that he go to any major commercial border crossing. He could go down to the Ambassador Bridge between Windsor and Detroit and see 100 trucks on either side of the bridge, idling for hours waiting to fill out unnecessary paperwork at customs. He could watch the fumes from their diesel engines billow into the air and check why Canadian and American archaic cabotage rules are forcing many trucks to travel on the continent empty. It is time to address some of these issues.
More important, the government's plan of talking with the provinces about highways is not just good enough. We need to develop a seamless transportation system involving our highways, our railways, our waterways and skies to move goods and people in the most efficient manner not on a national basis but on a continental-wide basis. Only then can we ensure that we are looking after the health, safety and economic well-being of all Canadians.
Howard Hilstrom: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to represent the people of Selkirk—Interlake and to speak to the throne speech today. The government has been speaking about the good aspects of the speech so I do not have to go over those details again. They are few and far between, but it highlighted the ones it thought were important.
I have a couple of issues that did not get fully addressed in the throne speech. One of them was that Manitobans expected to see more in the area of health care. There was nothing in the speech but a reiteration of the fact that the government was putting $11.5 billion into health care over the next several years. That is totally insufficient. They would like to have seen something in that regard.
Also the government seems to have recognized that it has been fumbling the first nations accountability issue. The throne speech mentioned that the government wanted to foster accountability on the part of elected officials on our first nations. The Indian affairs minister has said in speeches privately in Saskatchewan that was one of the government's objectives. It is certainly worth recognizing that.
Physical infrastructure work was mentioned with regard to what I assume will be roads. This may have a benefit for farmers if the physical infrastructure it is talking about enables roads to be built sufficient to carry the large trucks which are now necessary to carry grain from the farmers field to the inland terminals and out to port by rail.
Those are all the items I saw in the throne speech which were directly pertinent to farmers. Certainly we needed much more.
A couple of points in the throne speech were scary for farmers. Certainly we are concerned about the government's intentions with regard to its Kyoto commitment and how they will impact upon the government.
Another thing that is bothersome is the Endangered Species Act. It will be implemented and passed in such a way that it will not have the negative impacts on agriculture that we found in the United States with its legislation.
An immense concern to my riding, to all of Manitoba and really to all Canadians which was not mentioned in the throne speech, involves an issue in the riding of Provencher in Manitoba. I am referring to the closure of the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited nuclear research station. The government is in the process of closing that research station. In fact it has virtually closed it now.
What it is leaving behind can only be described as waste and byproducts. The nuclear contamination from that site is still there. That is a natural issue which happens. However it is the government's responsibility to show some vision and direction with regard to atomic energy uses in Canada and to clean up that site. Manitobans want to use that site for private industrial development, but it is impossible to do so because the government is standing in the way of cleaning up the site and arranging for it to be used for industrial purposes.
The mayor of Pinawa, the town in which it is located, and the Hon. Darren Praznik, MLA for that area, have clearly brought to my attention that they need assistance to bring to the attention of the government in Ottawa that this nuclear contamination and the clean up of the Whiteshell site are of utmost importance.
I can only tell the resource minister that I will be raising this matter in the House over upcoming months. It should have been in the throne speech. We will make sure that it is raised and something is done about it.
I will point out one last thing about it. When hot cells, nuclear contaminated cells, in Tunney's Pasture in Ottawa were decommissioned a couple of years ago, they were completely demolished and the site was returned to a green field state. Why should Manitobans and the people of Selkirk—Interlake and Provencher expect anything less than what was done in Ontario?
As the chief agriculture critic I will devote the rest of my speech to agriculture issues. Our leader has spoken quite eloquently with regard to the lack of emphasis on agriculture in the throne speech.
For the last two years farmers across Canada have faced destructive drops in farm income. Realized net income in Canada fell by 21% in 1998 and is predicted to fall by another 15% in 1999. That brings the figure down for Saskatchewan in terms of realized net income to a negative $48 million for 1999. Farmers will be losing massive amounts of money in Saskatchewan.
Saskatchewan farmers are so desperate that they are actually involved right now in a tax revolt involving the education taxes on their properties. We are finding that these farmers are being pushed into doing anything they can do to reduce the cost of government in particular and other costs that are helping to drive them out of business.
I will use the gross figures for Manitoba. We talk about a realized net farm income drop in Manitoba to $64 million according to Statistics Canada figures. These figures are not something I made up myself. They are right from Statistics Canada. That drop to $64 million is $100 million below the $164 million earned by Manitoba farmers in 1998 and well below the five year average of $231 million.
The program the government brought forward to address the income crisis was AIDA, the agricultural income disaster assistance program. The government had the understanding or misunderstanding, really, that the situation with regard to farm incomes was simply a one year drop in income in 1998 but that the drastic drop may happen in 1999 also.
The government took the program that came to it from the safety net advisory committee, which involves a lot of farmers' groups, et cetera. The government changed that recommendation around to make the program fit the budget the minister thought he could get for it, instead of making the program fit the crisis and address the problem. That is exactly why AIDA has not worked.
I will just give a couple of examples of farmers who were applying for AIDA and receiving nothing. One story is that in May of this year two brothers who are farmers in Manitoba applied. Their application is still sitting in the review area of AIDA. The way the farm is set up, they expect to get approximately $70,000 back from AIDA. They have received nothing and they are on the verge of going bankrupt.
Over past months, certainly since last fall in particular and in fact right from 1993, the Reform Party has made many suggestions to the government on how it can increase the income of farmers. That is the subject of a minority report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture. It involved matters such as reducing the cost of government, reducing user fees and making the Canadian Wheat Board a voluntary board.
As a result, I would only suggest that the government review all the material we in the Reform have produced, take those suggestions and implement them immediately to help solve the crisis in western Canada and across the country.
Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, I happen to represent a riding that has a lot of farmers in it, although admittedly the farmers in my area are more mixed farmers than grain farmers. We certainly are aware of the crisis that is taking place on the prairies with farmers. I would like to ask my hon. colleague to comment on a couple of points.
First, we lost the benefit of the Crow rate under the Liberal government. I am rather surprised at that because these days we are talking about the fishing rights of the natives, apparently based on an agreement which was some 200 years old. It is said to last in perpetuity and cannot be changed. It seems to me the Crow rate agreement was also an agreement in perpetuity, but the government just said with impunity that it would wipe it out and give them a bit of a cash payment which hopefully would cover it.
Could the member comment on to what degree the cash payment came even close to covering the long term costs of farmers transporting their grain to the ports?
My second question is with regard to transportation problems. When I was a youngster my dad used to ask “How come when I buy a combine or a tractor that is manufactured in Ontario I have to pay the freight to get it from Ontario to Saskatchewan, but when I sell them my wheat I have to pay the freight to send their wheat back to Ontario?” I would like the member to comment on those two points.
Howard Hilstrom: Madam Speaker, in perpetuity are two words that have devastated western farmers and made them so mad. They are madder than a boiled owl when they hear the words spoken, so I hesitate to even use them.
That Liberal promise along with the promise of the Conservatives over the years assured western Canadian farmers that the Crow rate, which was a subsidy for exporting grain, would be kept in perpetuity. Western Canadian farmers certainly knew better than the Liberal and Conservative governments. They realized that the Crow rate was not allowing western farmers to diversify their incomes. As a result when the Crow rate went it was beneficial in that farmers diversified and have certainly improved the western farm economy in that regard.
The real devastation regarding the income problem and the cash taken out of farmers' pockets when the subsidy was not received anymore was that starting in 1993 with the trade agreement and in 1995 with the federal budget, domestic support for agriculture was drastically reduced by the government in an attempt to balance its deficit. In doing so it brought in user fees and all kinds of charges, increased taxes and all of the things that have taken away the meagre incomes farmers were getting from exporting their grain.
It is domestic support that is lacking from the government. We heard it today in question period. Farmers are asking for that support to be reinstated at least to the level where they can remain viable and on the farm, to provide Canadians a secure domestic food supply. It is in our national interest that that be done.
What do we see? Nothing is happening by way of money for the majority of farmers in western Canada in particular, and in Ontario, to keep them on the farm and keep the farms going. What will happen? It will end up that this country's farmland will be owned by absentee landlords.
Charlie Penson: Madam Speaker, Peace River country has had a double whammy. It has had a series of very wet years that have caused farmers to have a low three year margin net income.
The government put together an AIDA program that said it would base payments on a three year margin net income. Guess what? It was so low that farmers do not have the income to get a payout. That is why they are failing again to pay—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We have to resume debate.
Sophia Leung: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to represent Vancouver Kingsway and take part in today's debate. I am splitting my time with the hon. member for St. Paul's.
We are entering the century of the Pacific. It is very fitting, as the Prime Minister has noted, that a Canadian who came to the country as a young refugee from China should be the new Governor General.
That an individual who arrived in Canada as a refugee can attain the position of Governor General, a post deeply rooted in our tradition, is a symbol to the world. It is a very special appointment and symbol that Canada affords to all citizens the opportunity to participate fully in our society. It is a symbol that all citizens, whether born on Canadian soil or having arrived as migrants from other nations, can and do make meaningful contributions. It is a symbol that Canada is a nation that recognizes talent and diversity. Indeed over the last century our society has blossomed with migrants from the four corners of the globe arriving and contributing.
The appointment of the Governor General is a true reflection and celebration of cultural diversity in Canada today. I would like to congratulate the Prime Minister on this important appointment. That such an appointment has been made under this government demonstrates its recognition and appreciation of the rich and beautiful cultural fibre that our nation has.
That so many aspects of this country are flourishing is a credit to our Liberal government, but we must continue to build on our strengths. We must strive to increase the quality of life of all Canadians. This government has proven it has the courage and the vision to do so. Concrete plans have been formed to help Canadians face the challenges of the new century.
Children are at the forefront of our investment in the future. This government is committed to ensuring that children receive the support and attention they need. Many studies demonstrate that the early years of a child's life are very important. Loving and involved parents are the cornerstone of the well-being, happiness and success of every child.
The government is to be commended on its solid commitment to extend employment insurance maternity benefits and parental leave. Maternal leave time will be extended from a current maximum to a full year, a year that will provide invaluable time for all our children.
The government has shown its insight in providing new benefits to accommodate the diverse needs of Canadian families. Those benefits will be more flexible, more adaptable to the wide range of realities that face Canadian families. This government wants to ensure that children are equipped with all the capacities they need to be ready to learn when they begin school and to grow into healthy productive adults.
As a government, as responsible citizens, we have no higher priority than our children. As our children grow they must be well educated in good schools and institutions that will provide them with skills that will prepare them for work and future challenges, that will prepare them to be successful in a global economy. That is why the investment this government has announced for our post-secondary institutions is so crucial.
In the Prime Minister's address, he endorsed a plan to create 1,200 new chairs for research excellence in universities across Canada and more important, a plan for the financial support needed to make them internationally competitive. That was not an empty commitment: $60 million in the first year of the plan; $122 million in the second year; $180 million in the third year; and following that, a further $120 million will fund 800 additional chairs.
Canada needs those university chair endowments to compete for, to attract and to retain researchers of international calibre. Furthermore, those researchers will train our students to become the best and the brightest in the world. Such investment in post-secondary institutions ensures Canadians will have the resources and expertise to be successful in a highly competitive world. Those endowments will ensure Canada is at the forefront of the knowledge based economy.
The Canada Foundation for Innovation has already been created. That $1 billion endowment is helping to build a leading edge national system of innovation. Knowledge and technological innovation are the cornerstones of a higher standard of living and a better quality of life. The investment of the government will ensure Canadian institutions have the resources, the laboratories and the university infrastructure to carry out their creative work, but this is not all.
In January the Canadian millennium scholarship fund will begin to generate over 10,000 scholarships. The government's SchoolNet project has connected every public school and library in Canada. The community access program will have public Internet sites in 10,000 rural and urban communities before the end of this year. The government has and will continue to increase support for lifelong learning to ensure Canada has the most highly skilled and knowledgeable workforce in the world.
The previous commitments of the government and those outlined in the Speech from the Throne indicate the level of commitment this government has to ensure Canadians will embrace the challenges of the 21st century. This investment in education and research will fuel the Canadian economy of the next century. Our economy will continue to strive and to grow. Canadian families will benefit.
Continued tax reduction will foster an even more dynamic economy. Canadian families have already seen the benefits of tax cuts totalling $16.5 billion in the last two budgets alone. That trend will continue. The next budget will lay out a multi-year plan for further tax reduction. I am a member of the finance committee and we will be conducting prebudget public hearings to listen to Canadians for their ideas and suggestions for our next budget.
We are one of the leading industrialized nations in the world. The future will see great advances in business, government and society. The way to the 21st century is to invest in the cornerstones of our society. We will invest in our children, in our families, in our researchers and in our educational system.
Let us be clear. What this government will not do is sacrifice our financial health. Canadians from British Columbia and indeed from coast to coast to coast recognize this is the direction for Canada in the next century. The government is doing what Canadians want.
Hélène Alarie: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member.
She said that the 21st century would belong to the Pacific region. Will the hon. member be able to influence her government colleagues, so that they take a stand regarding the labeling of genetically modified products?
We know that the Minister of Agriculture took a stand when he said that such labeling was optional. However, the Asian market requires that genetically modified products be labeled.
May be the hon. member can influence her colleagues. I would like to hear her comments on this issue.
Sophia Leung: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her very thoughtful question. It would be very interesting for our government to consider and I think a lot of study will follow.
In the meantime, very strict regulations will be set up. I thank her for calling this matter to our attention.
Jay Hill: Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech with great interest. I noted that she said repeatedly throughout her speech “We will invest. We will invest. We will invest”.
The problem I have with that is that what she and her colleagues in the Liberal Party do not seem to understand is that when they talk about investing they talk about spending taxpayers' money. Typically the Liberal answer is to set up more programs. She outlined a whole raft of them in her speech for which they are going to need taxpayers' money.
She also talked about providing a higher standard of living. She said “We must strive to improve the quality of life for Canadians”. Certainly, something like that we can all agree with. However, I wonder when she and her Liberal colleagues will get it through their heads that the easiest way to improve the quality of life for Canadians is to lift the oppressive tax burden which they face.
I do not want to hear the hon. member insult Canadians' intelligence by talking about $16.5 billion in tax cuts. Canadians know quite well that is more than offset by the $18 billion in tax increases over the past couple of years that the government has foisted on them. Really, they are worse off. That is very clear when they look at their take home pay.
I want the hon. member to answer very honestly and truthfully—and do not insult the intelligence of the Canadians voters who are watching this debate today—when her government is going to deliver real tax relief, not this bogus $16.5 billion they always talk about.
Sophia Leung: Madam Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that we very successfully eliminated the $42 billion deficit. Last year we not only reduced taxes, we also eliminated the 3% surtax. We all know that. It is on the record.
Now we are entering an era where we will have a balanced approach. There will be tax cuts, but at the same time we will not overlook the most important things, such as health care, social programs and the children's agenda. We are now spending under a very cautious, socially balanced program.
Scott Brison: Madam Speaker, the hon. member speaks again of investment, which is really spending, but the fact is that many Canadians are finding it difficult to invest themselves. While the government is currently in the black, at an unprecedented rate Canadians are in the red. We have the highest level of personal debt in the history of our country.
In the 1990s Canadians have seen an 8% drop in their personal disposable income because of the tax burden imposed by this government. During the same period Americans have enjoyed a 10% increase.
Would it not be better if Canadians were able to invest for their own futures as opposed to the government taking more money from Canadians and then trying to invest where it feels the priorities are?
Sophia Leung: Madam Speaker, we do not just take from Canadians. We are also trying to create more opportunities for trade and we are trying to help medium and small business people gain more business so they will have more cash in their pockets.
We are doing both. We are meeting the social needs of Canadians and, at the same time, we are trying to help business and other sectors.
Carolyn Bennett: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to reply to the Speech from the Throne.
Building a higher quality of life for all Canadians is an ideal theme, as we are about to celebrate the new millennium. It is the greatest legacy that we can leave to Canadians.
It is about vision. It is about what kind of country we want to live in. It demonstrates a real understanding of the broadest determinants of quality of life. It recognizes that although we have been designated the best country in the world in which to live we cannot rest on our laurels.
Vision is statesman-like foresight, sagacity in planning. It means using our experience and our knowledge together with the power to apply them critically and practically. More than that, it is incorporating the core values of Canadians. Vision and values are the key ingredients to making a difference.
The Speech from the Throne was an extraordinary example of the positive role the government can play in people's lives. The tug of war is over. No longer is it possible for Canadians to think that good social policy is bad economic policy. We are now embarking on a new age where with good social science research we can demonstrate that good social policy is excellent economic policy and those who think that tax cuts alone will cure all are horribly misguided.
The tax cuts in Ontario resulted in the doubling of child poverty. We are embarrassed internationally because of this. The cuts to social services in Ontario have not saved money. Gina Browne, the fabulous researcher at McMaster and author of When the Bough Breaks , has now demonstrated that conclusively, with the help of Health Canada. The Ministry of Health of Ontario has turned down the study twice and now seems to be hiding from its results.
I would like to outline some of the highlights of the study to show that the failure to provide appropriate social programs does not save a cent because the people go elsewhere, generally to the medical system, and cost at least as much money there.
Gina took over 700 single moms. Some were left to self-direct their support generally by using walk-in clinics, emergency departments and GPs' offices. Some were directed to a variety of support: recreation, day care, social services and employment advice.
At the end of two years the control group had 10% less on welfare generally because the Harris program had cut them off. The group that had only received a recreation program for their kids over six, which included transportation, running shoes and snacks, had twice as many moms off welfare and huge savings to the system in parole, children's aid and the use of food banks. The kids now had friends from other neighbourhoods and were well on their way.
In the group that received all the support, over 25% had exited the welfare system and demonstrated huge savings in their use of the medical system. The interventions helped to identify the mothers with depression and got them appropriate and effective help.
As Gina has said to rotary club after rotary club, the Government of Ontario is kidding itself if it thinks it is saving money by its cuts.
What is exciting now is that we can fund research to show what instinctively we have known, that good social policy is good economic policy. With the social union framework we have an exciting tool with which we as a country can begin to share best practices and demonstrate that accountability and transparency are what Canadians need in order to feel that their taxes are well spent.
The commitment in the social union for all levels of government to report publicly on the effectiveness of their social programs in effect will continue to demonstrate this reality of good social programs being good economic policy.
The Speech from the Throne articulated the commitment of the Government of Canada to work toward removing all barriers for the mobility of Canadians with respect to their qualifications, student loans and essential services for persons with disabilities. It is clear that achieving full citizenship for all Canadians is good social policy as well as good economic policy.
The people of St. Paul's are big picture people. They understand the need for balance and accountability. They understand that we need evidence based practice. They understand that strict ideology is usually bad public policy because of the need for practical solutions based on proper evaluation and changing conditions. The pure tax cutting rhetoric is just that.
I believe the Speech from the Throne has touched the core values of Canadians. As my constituent Fiona Nelson pointed out, the big cold countries at the top of the globe decided a long time ago that we would have to look after one another. The countries in the middle with the warm climate, fishing and coconuts falling out of the trees have not had to be quite so progressive. Canadians decided a long time ago that they do not want people to have to mortgage their homes, and maybe even lose them, for their cobalt treatment for cancer.
The final report of the National Forum on Health eloquently articulated that the core Canadian values will remain even when opinions can waver or be seduced by the rhetoric of more money in people's pockets solving everything.
Canadians want fairness. They want the tax system to be made fairer. They know that increasing disposable income for the lower and middle classes is a good thing. They understand that the child tax benefit has been an extremely important measure for the working poor, and that extending it to the middle class will be extremely important to their children.
Last year at the prebudget consultations in St. Paul's some of the business people expressed their concern about the use of the word “investment” as the new code for government spending. Whether we call it smart spending, results based management or investment, it is becoming clearer and clearer that we can spend a little now or a lot more later.
The Minister of Labour, who is responsible for homelessness, has declared many times that investing in kids now will help us to close prisons later and that this is now becoming better understood. There are certain expenditures that, with a proper long range view, we cannot afford not to do. Governments can no longer present a little checklist of things that can be accomplished within their mandate.
As we look to the millennium it is imperative that we look forward to our future. It is our kids. It is our planet. We need to do the right thing now. It will be our legacy.
If 25% of absenteeism in children is because of a tragic increase in asthma, we must do something about air quality now. We must help the world deal with all aspects of the sustainability of our planet.
The vision articulated in the Speech from the Throne was a broad vision for Canada. Its focus on children as we move to a knowledge based economy is one of the best things we can be doing. Dr. Fraser Mustard said that there is substantial evidence that the quality of early childhood experience has long term effects on an individual's performance in the education system, their behaviour in adult life and their risk for chronic disease in adult life.
We know that this need is universal and that in many neighbourhoods the wealthy children are not doing any better because love is not the same thing as knowing how to parent.
I had the privilege of practising next to the fabulous Children's Storefront in Toronto where I watched parents, nannies and new immigrants come. With the advice of the early childhood educators they learned about conflict resolution, positive reinforcement, attitudes toward learning, cuddling and reading. I know that it works. I know that those children are better off.
As we embark on the exciting new research chairs and the Canadian institutes of health research we have an opportunity to gain better evidence as we do research in evaluating the policies and programs to find the optimal solutions.
If we look at the commitment to aboriginal health alone, we know that we have to do something about the doubled rate of low birth rate babies, five times the suicide rate and six times the death rate from injuries, violence and poisoning. We need to look at the root causes of homelessness, the role of de-institutionalization, child abuse, substance abuse, learning disabilities and FAE/FAS.
This is an extraordinary time for Canada. The prospect of a surplus will ensure our ability to be able to deliver a truly balanced approach. This is a truly Canadian thing to do. As to the promises we made to Canadians who elected us—tax relief, debt retirement and prudent investments—we can all be proud that the vision and values articulated in the Speech from the Throne will indeed build a higher quality of life for all Canadians. Good social policy is good economic policy.
We want to build a stronger Canada and provide a better quality of life to our children and grandchildren. This is the best legacy that we can leave to them.
Myron Thompson: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct two questions to the hon. member. The previous speaker talked a great deal about the importance of education, with which I agree. Being well educated people, our young people look forward to a good future in this country.
I am acquainted with many highly educated people from this land. In fact, one of them is my son, who went into a certain field, searched around and is now working in Georgia along with thousands of other Canadians who have left this country. Doing the same job down there, as compared to here, he puts $500 to $600 each month more into his pocket, savings because of taxes.
He is on a very good health program. He has benefits that exceed any that we provide to many of our employees in this land. Yet his heart is in Canada. He wants to be here, as do many of them, but because of economics and of high taxes they cannot afford not to take jobs south of the border with greater benefits, greater wages and lower taxes. When will the government recognize that quality of life does not exist here? It is fading away.
On quality of life the solicitor general, the justice minister and many of the people in the justice area have indicated that we need to empty our prisons, that we have too many people in jail. This month a multiple killer, a cop killer, walked away from a minimum security prison. There has been a 100% increase in people walking away from prison.
Is the placement of a person who has been convicted of taking a life, a police killer, into a minimum security institution from which they are walking away the right method? Is that a method of emptying our jails? It all adds up to the total incompetence of a justice system which would allow this kind of person to walk away from a penitentiary.
That is not ensuring quality of life. That is endangering lives in our land. The government's policies are allowing it. It is worse today than it ever was. Could the hon. member address these two issues?
Carolyn Bennett: Madam Speaker, I remind the hon. member that most of the people moving to the United States are moving because of opportunities. In terms of salaries that are offered there, for example, there is the fabulous Howard Hughes grant of $1 million a year to a researcher. We have trouble competing with that. There is no good evidence that these people are moving purely because of taxes. It is opportunity.
When my patients moved to New York and had to spend $10,000 a year on their health insurance they understood what comes with the taxes in our country and a reliance on a public health care system, a fabulous public education system and a huge reduction in crime.
People do not want to live in armed communities. The kind of approach demonstrated in the Speech from the Throne will actually prevent the cop killers the hon. member talks about. We will actually be able to demonstrate that we have much smaller numbers of people who require being in prison 20 years from now if we do the right thing now.
It is not that we want more cops and more prisons. That is not an approach to crime. We have to deal with people who were abused as children, who have fetal alcohol effects, who have learning disabilities that were not recognized and then ran into trouble in the school system, dropped out, got into trouble with drugs and then later into trouble with the justice system.
This is a prevention problem. This has nothing to do with what the hon. member suggests is crime and punishment. It just does not work. We know it does not work. We have to prevent psychopaths before they are formed.
Francine Lalonde: Madam Speaker, let me say from the outset that the reason I want to take part in this debate about the throne speech is to stress how this government— which has major surpluses after cuts in transfers to the provinces, with the result that ordinary people in particular have felt the impact of these significant cuts in health, education and social assistance—is using these surpluses in an arrogant way, without any concern for the very real problems experienced by individuals, problems for which the provinces now appear to be responsible.
First, why did the government postpone the beginning of the session by three weeks? Did the throne speech really justify that three week delay? During those three weeks, Quebecers and Canadians could not get answers from federal ministers, nor could these ministers be pressured into finding solutions to issues such as the major problem in the airline industry.
In Montreal, between 5,000 and 10,000 jobs could be lost, yet no one was there to explain why the government was letting things develop in such fashion or, if there is an east-west problem in Canada, to let us at least talk openly about it.
Why was the speech postponed? Citizens were deprived of an opportunity to react in a timely manner to the supreme court decision. The government saw the Marshall decision coming; it should have been ready.
Who paid the price? I would like to point out that Acadians and natives were on good terms. Many times, Acadians would say, in French, that they were sad because the reason many people were still around was because the Indians had protected them after the 1755 deportation. The government's negligence has torn this community apart. It will take time for things to return to normal.
Why a three week delay? Here is what I think. First, the government wanted to install, with great pomp, a new couple to represent the Queen of England, the Queen of Canada. The government claims it wants to help Canada enter the 21st century as a leader.
In the meantime, what are the Australians doing? They are getting ready for a referendum on whether or not to become a republic. That is a debate that might perhaps lead to the 21st century. The decisive day is November 6.
Why did the government delay the Speech from the Throne? So as not to muddy the waters for the International Forum on Federalism, which was supposed to show how wonderful Canadian federalism was. How wrong it was, because that was not what came out of the forum.
By the way, I would like my constituents in Mercier to know that I was there and glad that I was. What we saw were federations that said they were having problems and were trying to resolve them. That is not what we see in Canada.
Did the Canadians tell the forum that they were having problems, that they had imposed the Constitution on Quebec in 1982, and that it could no longer be changed, when change was what was needed? No, we did not hear that. Canada appeared as the model of a federation, but nobody was fooled, because Lucien Bouchard and Joseph Facal set out the problems. They said what we are saying in the House of Commons.
The conference revealed more than just the problems that Canada did not want to reveal. It also established that the issue of identity was important one. The speaker everyone there acknowledged as the best spoke of the importance of identity. Other federations said that they were trying to satisfy the needs of groups, specifically, the federations based on two or three nations trying to accommodate them so that together they may improve the quality of life of their citizens.
I could not ignore the fact either that the first person to point out that Canadian federalism had huge problems, was Ghislain Picard, who noted just how often native peoples had promises made to them put off.
Finally, we have the throne speech. I can't say right off that it was not worth forgoing the three weeks of session. For Quebec, this is a throne speech of a unitarian country recognizing increasingly less its mere existence.
The word is mentioned once to say that the government will be concerned with the issue of clarity, as if 94% of Quebecers who voted the last time did not know that their question was clear. Even Jean Chrétien realized it.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Yes. I think the hon. member realized that we do not name members in this House.
Francine Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I apologize; I meant to say the Prime Minister of Canada.
We have the Speech from the Throne. The mentality in it is the same as at the international conference on federalism. Canada is denying the problems. The Government of Canada is skirting the problems it itself created with the dramatic cuts to transfer payments.
I am speaking of Quebec, and I may perhaps speak as well of the other provinces, which are dealing with problems in health care and education. There are problems in postgraduate education, in helping the most disadvantaged. The government arrives and talks to us about the 21st century, applauded by the Liberal crowd. And what does it announce?
Does it announce help for the provinces in resolving their problems? No. It introduces new programs. Will it help the unemployed live during the time it takes them to find a new job? No, the government introduces new programs.
The terrible thing in this is that many people need money. These people find themselves in a situation created to a large extent by the federal cuts. They do not necessarily understand exactly how they ended up in that situation, because those who made the cuts and reduced services are those who manage the programs, that is the provincial governments. Nonetheless, the federal government will introduce new benefits for children, for example.
If children are poor, it is because their families are poor. We saw the situation of the families deteriorate, and that is the most serious problem at the moment. Middle income earners, the middle class, are those who paid most, and there is absolutely no chance they will ever get enough for their money back, since there will be no new investments in health or education nor any money to help the neediest.
I know that 1,200 new chairs were announced. I can talk about that because I was member of the industry committee. The main problem in postsecondary education comes from the context in which universities must operate. The creation of new chairs will not solve the problem. Of course, universities will gladly accept the money, but they are in dire need, like the hospitals.
If the government had had a real vision—and everybody will reach the new millennium at the same time, like Christmas and New Year Day—it would have started by working on the problems it created itself, to avoid becoming an outdated government, one that is out of touch, in spite of its desire to appear to be the best wired government in the world.
Antoine Dubé: Madam Speaker, ten minutes is a short time for a lot of people in this parliament, but especially for the member for Mercier who, obviously, had a lot more to say.
She opened a door at the very end of her speech. She had only one minute left when she raised the problem of funding for universities, a problem which was created in part by the federal government. Members will recall the drastic cuts in research and development, which had a particular impact on universities.
I would also like her to comment on the following: this morning, in a newspaper, there was an article about maternity leave. I was struck by the title of this article written by Jean-Jacques Samson, from Quebec City, with whom I do not always agree, but who really did put his finger on the problem. He pointed out that the federal government wants to show some generosity by extending maternity leave without changing UI eligibility rules but, at the same time, that we must not forget that it no longer contributes to the UI fund. Only employers and employees contribute to the fund.
Is the federal government not doing the same thing it did to the provinces, namely cutting transfer payments and using all kinds of schemes to look generous, trying to impress Canadians with other people's money?
Francine Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague for the extra time granted to me. Ten minutes go by real fast. This reaction from a well-known Quebec journalist is sound and I was recently getting to the same conclusion although in a different way. Let us take for example the issue of maternity leave. I can tell you that most of those who phoned my constituency office had the simple reaction to say that the unemployment benefits are so low that instead of having a full year off, they would much rather have a shorter leave and get real benefits that would equal to much more than 55% of their salary.
We all know that working women often do not earn much more than minimum wage. They also often do not work many hours, which means that they earn very little money. Consequently, even if we allow those low-income women to take a whole year off, if they do not have a spouse with a good salary, they will not be able to take advantage of it.
It is a very simple way of answering to the government, by looking at ordinary people's reaction. If the government was really taking their problems into account instead of only reacting to the plans that the government of Quebec advanced and that it has a hard time to implement because of the lack of co-operation from the federal government, the government would grant real maternity leave. Real maternity leave is not one that only a few women can take advantage of. It certainly does not generate enough income, even if it is extended. There is a lot more to say about this Speech from the throne and the generous gifts that it contains, without taking into account the real situations and the problems that the government itself is responsible for.
Paul Crête: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on the throne speech because three weeks ago the members of the Bloc who are in charge of social issues have stated that social equity should be the motto of this throne speech. When I consider this speech, I have to wonder if the government has really tried to uphold the principle of social equity.
It certainly has not found the right means to do it. We should not hide from the fact that the role of the federal government is to redistribute wealth, and it can do it through transfer payments, for example. It should also use the EI plan to make sure workers get a decent income when they are out of work. But its responsibility is not to create first line services.
That is not its turf. It has never succeeded in doing it efficiently and concretely, and it is not its constitutional responsibility to do it.
The first mistake of the federal government is that it did not limit its role. In Quebec and in Canada, nobody expected figures on tax reduction, but we were counting on clear indications that the federal government would significantly reduce the tax burden.
In order to do it, the federal government does not need to cut transfer payments or any other program. It can do so by simply stopping interfering in areas outside its jurisdiction and limiting its spending power to those areas under its responsibility, such as national defence and international affairs. If the federal government had restricted its involvement to these areas and had decided, for the two years left in its mandate, to deal only with its constitutional responsibilities, it could have freed up large sums of money that could have gone into the pockets of the middle class and the poor, on whose backs the battle against the deficit was won, and left some room for those actually in charge of important areas as health and education to levy taxes.
In this regard, the federal government decided, for the sake of visibility, to forgo its responsibilities and revert to the old habits of the Liberal governments we knew in the 1960s and the 1970s. We will have to keep a very close watch because we could very well face the same situation as before, with a federal government competing with the provinces, interfering in areas under their jurisdiction, buying off the provinces with millions of dollars, and trying to buy the silence of community groups, for instance. What we are seeing, such as wanting to provide services in the home, is totally unacceptable.
My second point is this: if the government was really interested in social fairness, it would have significantly increased transfer payments. These days the economy is booming and production is on the rise. Our problem is the distribution of wealth, and this federal government has decided not to meet that challenge. It was not flashy enough for it, not significant enough.
The Minister of Human Resources Development, who is responsible for the department with most responsibility for the impact on the provinces, and for transfers, seems not to have been heeded by this government. The measures she proposed probably did not give the federal government the visibility it wanted.
By putting visibility before efficiency, however, the federal government is not fulfilling its role, and this impacts on direct services to the population provided by the provinces. The federal government is hiding behind the fact that it is not in the front line in providing services to the population, and it is washing its hands of the outcome. Then it comes along, a bit like a white knight, to provide home services over the heads of the provinces, who were not able to provide them because the federal government did not give them the necessary funding. When it comes down to it, this attitude is close to being Machiavellian and it is something that, in my opinion, the population of Quebec and of Canada does not accept. They cannot see themselves in the throne speech that has just been delivered.
The third aspect that is close to my heart is the entire question of employment insurance. With a tour and subsequently with the Employment Insurance Act, it has been demonstrated since 1994, with well-documented files and briefs, that implementation of this act had created a great many inequities.
How is it possible that this speech contains nothing that will do away with the rule of intensity, which penalizes the seasonal workers? How can the Liberals across the way accept the fact that their government, at a time when it has $6 billion in surplus employment insurance funds yearly, is incapable of putting an end to the injustice this rule of intensity represents?
If there are some honourable members who do not know that this rule of intensity is, I will explain it to them. Each time one of their constituents uses up 20 weeks of emploment insurance, his or her benefits are cut by 1%. This means that, for a seasonal worker who works about twenty weeks each year, after three years, he or she will receive 50% of his average earnings, rather than 55%.
When people earn $9, $10 or $11 an hour, the difference between the two often represents the money necessary to make ends meet. If we were going through a terrible austerity period like the one in the early nineties, the government might be justified in saying “Everyone should do his or her share”. The government did not ask everyone to do his or her share, but it continues to make that request to people who have already done their share. People who have jobs in rural areas are not deemed to be unemployed but, in the end, they still do not have enough money to support their families. This is unacceptable. The government does not get a passing grade as regards this issue.
What does social equity mean for the government? Is it that it did not use employment insurance to help seasonal workers and young people? Only 25% of all young workers qualify for employment insurance. They all contribute to the program now. They all have payroll deductions, but only 25% can get benefits. This is unacceptable.
How can the throne speech talk about fairness and about providing funds for young people and children when the government is not giving anything more to the parents?
Most children in Canada live with their parents. It is the parents who support the family. If the government gives money only to children, it does not necessarily mean that these children will try harder to succeed in life, but it could result in the parents having an inadequate income. Children become more dependent on the state, whereas if parents receive an employment insurance cheque, it is because that money comes from an insurance program. They worked to earn that money and they made contributions to the program. The government did not at all achieve its objectives in that area.
This morning, I heard the Secretary of State for Rural Development tell us how dedicated he was to taking his responsibilities seriously. If he wants results, he should speak to the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Finance and get this scrapped. It is unacceptable. It is practically immoral that people should still be living like this in Canada, which calls itself a developed and well-off society. This is something that has to be changed.
Here is another example. There is the wonderful announcement about parental leave. The number of weeks of benefits will be increased to 52 from 26. Bravo for women with children, or couples where the man decides to stay at home. This gives them more weeks. Great.
But what we were not told was whether, in order to qualify for this leave, 700 hours would still be required when, before the EI reform, 300 hours entitled one to maternity leave? In Quebec, one woman out of five or six would qualify with the figure set at 700. That is 20%.
Try though they might to come up with the best scheme in the world, if no one qualifies, is that what we want? All that is achieved is visibility, but it is temporary, not long term, because people are smart. They are perfectly capable of seeing where this will lead.
Furthermore, we saw this already in yesterday's news on television. Women who have, or want to have, a child, couples where the father wants to stay at home, are wondering “Am I going to be entitled to this? Could it be more flexible? Could I have the opportunity to benefit from it?”
It is therefore important to settle this matter, and to have adequate parental leave.
I will conclude by addressing what was not in this speech. It is most astonishing, and if I were a private citizen and not in politics, I would say “What is going on there in the House of Commons? They have a Speech from the Throne that announces policies for two years, but they do not mention anything about airlines”. It is as if they had never heard of Air Canada and Canadian International Airlines.
There is no mention of aboriginal rights and yet the media are full of stories about native fishers. We see them daily on our TV. There is scarcely any reference to organized crime, yet there are major problems with it too.
How can they prepare a speech that is supposed to give a vision of the country for the next two years but sending the following message to people “We are talking about things that have nothing at all to do with reality. Don't bother listening. It isn't worth the trouble”.
Why this approach that is divorced from reality? Because this government is run by a federal bureaucracy that thinks for us, and decides what is right for us. It puts visibility before efficiency. That is where Canadian federalism is taking us.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for raising an issue that we have not heard enough about in the debate. We certainly did not hear any reference to it during the throne speech and we did not hear much reference to it in the subsequent follow up debate. The issue I am talking about is the national scandal that exists in our EI system. The hon. member pointed out some of its many, many flaws. I would like to comment on this briefly and then ask him how he feels about a recommendation I would like to make.
In my riding of Winnipeg Centre I have problems similar to what the hon. member pointed out. The changes to the EI system have taken $20 million a year out of my riding alone, out of one inner city riding in Winnipeg.
Can we imagine the impact when $20 million a year that used to be transferred from the federal government to my riding is no longer there? Let us look at the other side of the coin. Can we imagine trying to get a new business to come to a riding with a $20 million payroll? We would have to pave the streets with gold to try to get the business to come to our riding. The inverse is also true. We should be very alarmed when we lose a $20 million payroll just from changes to the program.
The hon. member pointed out the surplus that exists in the fund. There is a $600 million a month surplus. We are paying in $600 million a month more than we are getting out in benefits. This is a national scandal. I do not know why working people are not taking to the streets. They should be furious about the issue. They certainly are where I come from.
The Speech from the Throne talked about finally dealing with labour market training in terms of national sectoral initiatives. That is something we have been advocating for decades within the building trades and the labour movement. Finally we are getting reference to that.
The province of Quebec has a very good system for labour market training through a 1% training levy. In my industry that money is then managed through the CCQ, the Commission de la construction du Québec. It manages that money and the training in that sector.
My question and recommendation would be: Can we not use some of the enormous surplus in the EI fund for these sectoral councils and make the correct model the national model for the whole country in terms of labour market training?
Paul Crête: Madam Speaker, I like the example the member gave of his riding of Winnipeg Centre being out $20 million in EI. Where I come from, in the Lower St. Lawrence region, the amount is $83 million in a given year.
Yesterday, in Moncton, in response to a question, the Minister of Human Resources Development said that she did not think that restoring benefits would change matters, or extend the seasonal industry. This is tantamount to telling seasonal workers that they do not work longer because they do not want to.
Why are both not possible? Why could the seasonal industry's period of activities not be extended? Why could we not take an original approach to this and develop our economy and, at the same time, make sure people have an adequate income? Right now, they are being treated like economic guinea pigs. The door is going to be shut; the requirements are going to be made so stringent that they will be driven back to work. But this is not what will happen.
In Montreal, a few weeks ago, there was a job fair. I think 10,000 people turned up in search of jobs. People want jobs. What EI has done is to remove the stabilizing effect of the economy. Today, in a period of economic growth, the federal government does is not playing its role of sharing out the wealth responsibly.
There is also the member's question about the 1% rule. In fact, this allows the focus to be put on training. This is one way of preparing ourselves to compete with the rest of the world.
There was another example of that recently. The Quebec minister responsible for economic development, Bernard Landry, offered to help subcontractors obtain contracts with General Motors, to provide them with the conditions that would enable them to develop things.
The Minister of Industry reacted by saying “No, no, we must not intervene like that. We have to let the General Motors plant in Quebec close”. However, they will make sure the one in Ontario stays open.
There is no future over there. We need a government that is responsible in both social and economic terms. Quebecers realize, in addition, that they have one government too many in Canada. It leads to decisions that are unacceptable and inappropriate for the future of Quebecers.
Lynn Myers: Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Toronto Centre—Rosedale.
The residents of Waterloo—Wellington have gratefully received the throne speech and what it entails. That bodes well for us as a government and certainly as Canadians. That is important to note. I also thank my colleague, the hon. member for Windsor—St. Clair, for moving the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne and the hon. member for Laval West for seconding it.
I extend my congratulations to Her Excellency the Governor General for being installed in that prestigious position. It is one which the residents of Waterloo—Wellington think is a great position for her. We are grateful for that.
I want to look at some of the health care provisions provided in the throne speech. The government continues to be deeply committed to a universal and publicly administered health care system that delivers the highest quality health care to all Canadians, no matter where they live in this great country of ours. As reiterated in the Speech from Throne on October 12, good health and quality care are essential to the well-being of all Canadians.
The measures announced in the 1999 federal budget will improve access to quality care and help restore the confidence of Canadians in the future of medicare, but a high quality health care system depends on more than money. It requires adjustments in the way health care is organized and delivered.
At their meeting in September 1999 in Charlottetown, health ministers from all Canadian provinces and territories underlined access to quality care and its link to an appropriate supply, deployment and distribution of highly qualified health professionals. Those ministers agreed to continue to work collaboratively on health resources and the human resources necessary in planning, having noted concrete progress in this area. That is also important to note.
The throne speech puts further emphasis on the government's connectedness agenda to ensure that Canada is economically competitive in a global marketplace and to improve the quality of life of Canadians. Investments in the health infrastructure have an important role to play in this regard.
As we have noted, a modern health information system will give health professionals and individual citizens improved access to up to date information about health issues and treatment options. The government will ensure that citizens in every region of this great country have access to such information so that they too can make better informed decisions.
As part of the government's plan to improve Canada's information infrastructure, the government will reintroduce legislation to protect personal and business information in the digital world. The reintroduction of the bill, formerly Bill C-54, will have some impact on the development of the health infrastructure. Examples will include that Canada's privacy concerns are protected.
The government's intention to build on the personal gateway project to the government information and community content, www.access.ca, could tie into the health infrastructure initiatives such as a Canadian Health Network.
In addition, the government's five year plan for improving physical infrastructure includes telecommunication in health. The government will also take steps to modernize overall health protection for a changing world. Investments in the health protection branch national health surveillance infrastructure will be part of this modernization process. That too is important.
The government will also continue to address the serious health problems in aboriginal communities, for example, supporting their efforts to promote wellness and to strengthen the delivery of health services for them. The first nations health information system can help achieve this objective in a very meaningful way.
The government announced in last February's budget that it was providing $328 million over three years to start building a truly national network of information about health and health services to strengthen the health care system and make it more accountable to Canadians. All these measures are important to Canadians as core values for all of us.
Let me turn my attention to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research which are important vehicles. It will fund health research that will improve the quality of life and health of Canadians and lead to more effective health products and services and will result in the strengthening of the Canadian health care system. It will offer unique opportunities for economic development in the knowledge based economy. This initiative came from the research community which has been working closely with health officials to develop the design and structure of the CIHR.
The CIHR will integrate the wide range of approaches to health research under a single umbrella organization, providing co-ordination and support for these efforts based on a shared health research agenda. Biomedical scientists will work collaboratively with clinic researchers; researchers specializing in health services and systems; and researchers working on the health of populations, societal and cultural dimensions of health and environmental influences on health.
The CIHR will be a truly national institution, breaking down traditional barriers between disparate research sectors and different research agencies. It will establish strong, co-operative partnerships among researchers, research funders in federal, provincial and territorial governments, voluntary health organizations in the private sector and users of health research in general.
Virtual health research institutes will link researchers working on a common theme. These institutes will be guided by a strong ethical framework and will adopt integrated multidisciplinary approaches to health research as a whole. The CIHR will provide opportunities and support for Canadian scientists to participate in international collaborations for the benefit of all Canadians, no matter where they live and within the wider global community as well.
In the budget last February the government gave $50 million a year for three years to the granting councils to work toward the objectives of the CIHR. The impact of this new funding has already been felt in the research community. I look forward to the CIHR bill being introduced this fall.
I will now turn briefly to a discussion of the Canada health and social transfer, the CHST. In the budget of 1999 the Government of Canada announced an investment of $11.5 billion over five years in health care. This was the single largest new investment the government ever made. The increase in the CHST cash from the previous 1999 budget level of $12.5 billion to $15 billion by 2001-02 takes what is regarded as the health component of the CHST to as high a level as it was before the period of expenditure restraint in the mid-1990s.
The budget of 1999 also dealt with the issue of equitable distribution of the CHST to provinces and territories. By 2001-02, CHST entitlements will be distributed on an equal per capita basis. As a result provinces and territories will receive $985 per capita in CHST entitlements by the year 2003-04. This increase clearly demonstrates the government's determination to work with all our partners to provide the absolutely best health care possible to all our citizens.
The Speech from the Throne reaffirmed the government's commitment to move forward with our partners in the health care community on a common priority and common front. They include supporting the testing of innovations in integrated service areas such as home care and pharmacare, ensuring that citizens in every region of the country have improved access to up to date information about health issues and treatment options through the modern health information system so that they can make good choices.
All this underscores what we are up to as a government in terms of the throne speech and the vision that will take us into the 21st century. It is important to note that as we march confidently into the 21st century we do so by linking arms with all Canadians and not, as some would have us do, by leaving some Canadians behind.
Let us as a government on behalf of all Canadians keep our focus on the opportunities of the future in the 21st century and not on the grievances of the past. In the spirit of co-operation, fairness and equity that is precisely what we as a government are doing. We are doing it with vision, foresight and compassion.
Myron Thompson: Madam Speaker, I have a quick question for the member.
Emphasis on health and the importance of health is always right up front in the minds of many Canadians. This government has been in power since 1993. The report has just come out that one in six children across the country are going to school hungry. It is three times worse now than it was in 1993. Homelessness is double what it was in 1993. Poverty is up 100% from what it was in 1993. There is squalor and third world conditions on many reserves. It is far worse than it was in 1993.
Would the member please give me the government's excuses for allowing this to happen in the last six years?
Lynn Myers: Madam Speaker, I do know there are ongoing problems that we as Canadians face and that certainly we as a government face. It requires a concerted effort on the part of all parliamentarians and all Canadians to address those problems. We need to attack those areas that need attention. I think the member heard that in the throne speech, if he was paying attention and I hope he was. We are on the cusp of doing great things with respect to our children's agenda for example, and issues related to the homeless and poverty.
We will as a government do the kinds of things that are necessary to put in place initiatives to ensure that those problems are eradicated. Canadians expect no less of us and that is what we as a government will be doing. We will be doing it with vision and foresight, unlike the party opposite which instead of uniting Canadians in a common cause to eradicate problems seems determined always to take extremist views that pull people apart, that pit region against region, people against people and group against group.
We on the government side will have no part of that agenda. Mercifully and thank God that we do not. We know what we have to do. We will do the right thing in terms of all the issues noted. We will do it with vigour and with the compassion that Canadians know only we can provide.
Lorne Nystrom: Madam Speaker, the member talks about doing the right thing. I want to ask him about a very big crisis facing our country, namely the farming crisis on the prairies, the drop in farm income. Farm income is going down to negative levels. It is the biggest crisis since the 1930s.
We now have in Saskatchewan and Manitoba a joint alliance between all the political parties. For example, in my province of Saskatchewan all three political parties and the farm groups have gotten together and are requesting of the federal government an additional $1 billion in terms of emergency farm aid for our province. I am not talking about the AIDA program that is there now. I am talking about an additional $1 billion minimum of farm aid and farm assistance.
It is the largest farm crisis since the 1930s. People are going bankrupt. People are under stress. We have many letters here from children who have written about the stress in their families and the financial pain they are facing.
It has united all three political parties. It has united the farm groups and the chamber of commerce. It is a crisis like I have never seen because unlike the member, I was not here in the 1930s. It is a long time ago.
I want to ask the member whether he is open to helping us put pressure on the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to use some of the several billions of dollars of surplus that are now accumulating to help farmers stay on the land.
I remind him that every time a farmer is better off in this country, we are all better off. When the farmer is better off, there are more jobs in the towns, cities and villages across the country. When the people have more jobs and the economy is stronger, there is more money for health care, there is more money for tax cuts and there is more money for education.
Whether the member will help us in that lobby is my question.
Lynn Myers: Madam Speaker, I really do not need to be lectured by the member opposite about the importance of farmers. I still live on the family farm and we settled in 1827. I know the importance of what the family farm means. I am still on it. I still live it.
I was part of the tour that went to Saskatchewan and Manitoba this summer. I know firsthand the kinds of heartache those farmers are facing. It is very real and it is very disturbing. We as a government, as the minister of agriculture mentioned today, along with our provincial partners have committed the kinds of resources that are necessary to do the right thing in that very important area.
Bill Graham: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on debate in response to the Speech from the Throne. I would like to echo the words of the member for Vancouver Kingsway and the member for Waterloo—Wellington who congratulated the Governor General on her appointment and on the Speech from the Throne.
The Governor General's words were particularly welcome to those of us in Toronto Centre—Rosedale because the Governor General and her husband John Ralston Saul live in Toronto Centre—Rosedale. We are all very proud to see her installed as our new Governor General. We are proud of what she represents to this country, looking forward into the future of the 21st century, representing what is the best of Canadians and Canadian developments in the 20th century.
They also represent Toronto's bicultural dimension and its bilingualism, anglophones who speak French and who have incorporated our country's French element into their culture and into Toronto's multiculturalism.
Toronto Centre—Rosedale is an extremely diverse riding in the middle of downtown Toronto. St. James town has 20,000 people living in it. Fifty-seven different languages are spoken there. Those languages are spoken by people who live and work here in Canada together because we have established a country which has as its base a certain notion of tolerance and a willingness to work together. We have certain Canadian values that make that work.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: What about the value of equality for all the people?
Bill Graham: That is why those people are there. They have a sense of the value of equality.
My riding also happens to have the largest gay and lesbian community in Canada, which the hon. member opposite knows something about because his party is already trying to make sure they are not treated as equals. As members will recall this House adopted measures in the last parliament to ensure that that community will be properly treated. We now wait for legislation which will bring into effect those values of equality. We will see how the opposition party treats those matters when they come before the House when we talk about equality.
We can look at the businessmen in our ridings. We are aware of the economic requirements of a modern economy, or the cultural dimension of my riding in Cabbagetown, or the universities and community colleges. We are proud to have in our riding the University of Toronto, Ryerson university, George Brown community college and Collège des Grands Lacs.
We are proud to have mixed communities like that of St. Lawrence where an enormous number of co-ops are contributing to the way in which we manage our relations in a complex urban environment today.
The Speech from the Throne responds to the needs of this community as it responds to the needs generally of Canadians. It addresses the needs of children. It addresses the need for investment in science and technology so that our universities and researchers can grow and make this a stronger country.
The throne speech addresses the issues of the environment, health and agriculture in spite of some of the comments that were made in the House today. The north is very important for this country and is seldom mentioned. It was important for us to see mention of the north and our arctic in the Speech from the Throne.
It also addresses the needs of the business community to see tax reductions. We heard today in question period of $16.5 billion projected for the future with possibilities of greater reductions to come.
It is a balanced approach, exactly what I would have expected of the government. It focuses on the needs of Canadians generally to ensure that those in society have a good government that furnishes them with the services they need and at the same time ensures that we have a healthy and vibrant economy that is able to deliver those services.
The Speech from the Throne had another very important dimension to it, which I think members of the House would be equally interested in, and that is the international dimension. The Speech from the Throne spoke of the role of Canada and Canadians in a world that is evolving. It recognized that we cannot be prosperous or healthy in a world that is not prosperous and healthy.
The government understands that Canadians live in an integrated world and that activities outside our borders affect us on a daily basis. We are adapting ourselves to world conditions in a responsible way and in a way to ensure that Canadian values and interests are protected in that world.
If we look at the area of trade and economics, we see that the policies that are being adopted by the government, both in the WTO and the FTAA, are responsive to Canadians' concerns. When the foreign affairs committee travelled across the country there was an intense interest from Canadians on this subject. They were determined to have human rights, labour standards and the environment put at the forefront of our concerns at the WTO.
Canadians are also concerned that globalization is forcing changes on us which we do not wish to accept. Our determination therefore is to ensure that the institutions in which Canada is represented abroad will both protect and advance our values and interests. As the member for Peace River reminds me, that includes the interests of agriculture which will certainly be at the forefront of the discussions in Seattle as he well knows, and which our government will make sure is made a priority point for the government in those negotiations.
It also recognizes that state sovereignty is changing in the world today. The people's needs have to be put ahead of those of states. That is why we have our peacekeepers in places like Bosnia, Haiti and East Timor where the safety of women and children has become a preoccupation of governments and where the international control of drugs and crime is a focal point of what our government is doing.
In short, it is what our foreign affairs minister calls the human security agenda. It is the agenda of ensuring that individuals are more important than states as we go into the 21st century in a world in which borders and state sovereignty is being eroded in favour of individual protection and the need to ensure that everybody is guaranteed a better standard of living throughout the world.
Canadians are a generous people. We recognize that in helping our neighbours we help ourselves. In that respect, the member would be happy to recognize that the Speech from the Throne spoke of an increased need for Canadian aid to underdeveloped countries. We will rebuild our need for aid to underdeveloped countries.
We rejoice in today's announcement that Médecins Sans Frontières has been named for a Nobel prize this year. As members know, there is a Médecins Sans Frontières in Canada. We have young doctors from Canada and non-doctors who work with that organization outside our borders. They all contribute to the well-being of the world in exactly the same way as our modern NGOs do in providing a different type of world, a different type of international arrangement within which we all participate. The Speech from the Throne spoke directly to that and it is an inspiration for us all to enable us to be more effective with our global responsibilities.
From the perspective of the people in my riding, and I believe from the perspective of all Canadians, the Speech from the Throne demonstrated a balance between what we need in terms of providing services for Canadians and a sense of what our society needs, both in the present and in the future. This was evidenced by our increased funding for universities and our increased funding for health care, which are concerns for Canadians. It focused on the needs of today's Canadians and on the needs of Canadians in the future.
This will be accomplished in the broader context of a world in which Canadians will play a role. As we go into the 21st century we will make sure that our interests and values are secure here at home and secure in the world. The Speech from the Throne demonstrates the ability of the government to achieve that.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11:00 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)