2002-10-11

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from October 9 consideration of the motion for an address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, as I said in the first five minutes of my reply to the Speech from the Throne, if the Prime Minister wants to have a true legacy he has 16 months in order to act for the public good and to implement changes for the public good that will dramatically improve the lives of Canadians. I have spoken before on health care with regard to amending and modernizing the Canada Health Act, implementing a plan for a manpower strategy for nurses, doctors and technicians and also a plan I proferred the last time I spoke which would enable those people to be redistributed to rural areas to work.
On the issue of economics, if the Prime Minister truly wants to affect the poor the objective is not to throw money at the situation but to give them the tools to do the job. Certainly there are many individuals who cannot work for various reasons and those people need to be taken care of. That is the purpose of social programs. What we need to do is give people the tools so they are able to work and provide for themselves.
One thing the Prime Minister could do is raise the basic minimum people have to pay taxes on to $18,000 a year. No one in the country who is making less than $18,000 a year should be paying any tax. A person can barely survive on that.
On the issue of drugs in health care, what the Prime Minister ought to do is implement a strategy that works to prevent drug use and criminal use and also gets tough with those parasites in our society, particularly organized crime gangs, who are involved in drug trafficking, prostitution and money laundering. They are preying upon our society, using our weak laws that enable them to do it.
On the issue of foreign policy, the Prime Minister said he wants to have an African agenda. He has said some very nice words but has not backed them up with facts. He has not acted on Zimbabwe. He has not mentioned a word on the crisis in Zimbabwe, where half the population of that country, six million people, is going to die in the next six months unless the international community mobilizes against President Mugabe. Although this is not about land reform at all, President Mugabe is using the land reform issue and racial politics as a shield to hide his true objective, which is to brutalize the black population. Ninety-nine and a half per cent of the people in Zimbabwe are black and he is going to kill six million of them by depriving them of food in a politically engineered famine over the next six months. This is not on anyone's radar screen.
Another seven million are going to die in politically engineered famines in five other countries. In Angola we have a narrow window of opportunity to help that country in a multilateral effort to engage with President dos Santos and use the billions of dollars in oil money for health and education, de-mining and infrastructure. This would go a long way toward saving that country. If we do not engage in Angola in the next six months as an international community, that country will become a failed state like Somalia. The country will fracture and we will never, ever be able to pick that up again.
On the issue of AIDS, 30% and sometimes up to 50% of the population in some countries is HIV positive. This is going to wipe out half the population of some countries. The economic backbone of these countries will wither away. The Prime Minister feels that the answer is to throw money at the situation. The irony of the continent is that it is an extraordinarily rich continent. It has incredible resources in diamonds, minerals, coltan, hydro power, agriculture and timber. It has incredible resources and yet it has the poorest people on the planet.
Throwing money at the situation is not the same as having an effect. What we need to do is implement policies that are going to affect people and deal with the three major issues that are affecting the development of that continent: corruption and lack of governance; conflict; and a lack of capacitance in primary health and education, as well as of course AIDS. Affect those three, work with the resources on the continent, enable capacitance to take place, defeat corruption and have good governance, and our country would have a foreign policy that truly would be an African agenda which the Prime Minister could be proud of and would affect the lives of these people.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity this morning to talk a little about some of the initiatives in the throne speech.
It is interesting for us to follow the speeches that occur after a throne speech. Frankly, they tend to be rather general, and often somewhat negative when coming from the opposition, which is understandable. In fact, a throne speech is really about vision. It is about the vision that the government has. Some may not share that vision. Members opposite or members of the media or some Canadians may not share that vision, but clearly that is what it is.
There are a number of key points announced in the throne speech that I think deserve some analysis and some discussion. It would be interesting if we could ever do it without the partisan flavour, but I doubt that is possible, frankly.
The first point in the throne speech states that we will put in place a health care system to meet the needs of Canadians today and in the future. I think we all know that the number one issue for all Canadians is our health care system. We are also well aware that Roy Romanow is in the late stages of his cross-Canada study and will be releasing a report with recommendations.
I believe most Canadians have faith in Mr. Romanow. He actually, as we all know, comes from the seat of medicare, the province of Tommy Douglas, and I always like to give credit where it is due, of the New Democratic Party and the CCF, its forerunner, who started public medicare. They sure did. As a result of that effort, all Canadians I think appreciate the fact that Mr. Romanow is doing a very thorough analysis on the health care system.
The reality of the health care system is that when it started it was indeed fifty-fifty between the provinces and the federal government. However, what was covered in that fifty-fifty agreement was fundamentally physicians and hospitals. Since that time, provincial jurisdictions, which is their right as they are duly and democratically elected to represent their provinces, have expanded the coverage of medicare to go well beyond the initial agreement of providing fifty-fifty funding for physicians and hospitals. I do not dispute if they want to put certain services in Ontario or in Alberta. They have every right to do that. They are answerable to their constituents. That is one of the strengths of the federation of Canada.
However, it would not make sense to me that a provincial government could simply announce to its community that it is going to add certain things to the envelope of health care and then just expect that the federal government, regardless of who is in office, will agree and will again split the cost fifty-fifty. That is why the Romanow commission, in my view, will be examining the services that are provided under health care. It will be examining the ways in which health care is delivered. It will be examining, I hope, such things as people who are in beds in hospitals when perhaps they should be in beds in long term care or acute care facilities. They should not be taking up space in a hospital, which means that when the emergency room floods, when all of the people come in during peak hours in an emergency room, there are no beds for those people so they wind up on stretchers in the hall. Do we build hospitals with the capacity to run at peak in an emergency room setting 24 hours a day? I do not think anyone thinks that is necessarily the efficient way of delivering hospital care. As well, at the same time that many provincial governments have increased the envelope in terms of what is covered, they have also reduced the funding.
I do not really want to get into a battle on whether the provinces are right or the federal government is right. I hope sincerely that what the Romanow commission will accomplish for all Canadians is to once and for all depoliticize this entire health care system.
We need a system in which Canadians, regardless of their income, regardless of their age, regardless of their status, whatever it is, have access to basic primary care so that they know, when they take their injured child to any emergency room in any hospital in any community in the entire country, they will receive fair treatment. I do think there will have to be very hard decisions, and not just about funding.
I am sure that everybody's solution to health care is just that the federal government should put more money into the pot, but the reality is that we also have to examine the way we are doing things, the way we deliver community health care. Could care be better given at home in many instances? I think we all know that it is possible and that it should happen more. Could care be given cooperatively, with the Victorian Order of Nurses and others who do wonderful work spending more time going into the home or a seniors' residence and keeping these people out of the hospital infrastructure in the country?
That is not to say that they should be left to suffer in any way. In fact, we want to ensure that their treatment is first class and readily available, available in a way that is not only the most comforting way of delivering health care to them but the most economical way. Because at the end of the day, while we all wrap ourselves in the emotion of the health care system, the taxpayer has to pay for it. I think the taxpayer expects the federal government, every provincial government and every hospital board to be able to deliver services at a fair cost and certainly in an efficient manner.
My second point on the throne speech is one that is very important to me. It deals with the need to help children and families break out of poverty and ensure that all children have a good start in life. As we approach the Thanksgiving weekend, I think we all recognize, particularly in this place but across the country, that we have a lot to be thankful for. At the same time as we celebrate Thanksgiving, we have to realize that there is an anomaly in Canada. We still have too much poverty. We still have families struggling. We still have single moms without housing.
Recently I was astounded to read about a young woman who lived in a YWCA shelter. I also saw an interview with her when I was in Calgary a couple of weeks ago. The reason she was being interviewed is that she had a job. Every day she gets up out of her bed in the shelter, the people at the shelter make her a lunch to take to work and she goes off to work as a receptionist in a dentist's office. I could just see the thrill in her eyes. She was just so delighted to have a job. She does not want to be on welfare.
Let us imagine this. I was astounded to see that someone who is living in a shelter actually has a job. That is not the sort of typical image we think of when we think of people living in shelters, so I did a little more research. I found out that over 50%, an astounding figure, of the people who live in shelters in the city of Calgary go to work every day. Some of them have kids. They send their kids off to school and they go to work.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: What about Toronto?
Steve Mahoney: Somebody mentioned Toronto. I believe the number in Toronto is about 30%. The number is 60% in the Region of Peel, the community I represent.
The opposition wants to take this as an opportunity to once again bash the government. I would like to point out that there are a number of things the government is doing to attempt to address the issue of homelessness and affordable housing, but we have not done enough. If that satisfies the catcallers and the hecklers, good on them, but in my view the important thing is to recognize it, make the statement in the throne speech and then put in place the programs to try to solve these problems. If anyone here thinks we can do it with the snap of a finger or just simply by pouring money into a problem, that is pretty naive.
The reality is we have an opportunity. We have identified a segment of society living in shelters who go to work at businesses every day. They are proud individuals who do not want to take welfare, who would rather get a paycheque instead of a welfare cheque. They are willing to live in a shelter so they can save for their first and last month's rent. It is a tribute to those people.
Instead of members yelling about it, I would like to see us do something and I am convinced we will do something as a government. As a result of our statements in the throne speech around fighting poverty and investing in affordable housing, we will provide affordable housing on a much broader scale.
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has re-entered that area of social responsibility. We announced agreements on affordable housing with $680 million of federal money matched by the provinces and in some cases the municipalities. Agreements have been signed by 10 provinces and territories, including Ontario where $245 million was signed for in an agreement. By the way, it was the first time in 10 years that we have been able to sign a bilateral agreement with the province of Ontario. We have signed the deal. They have agreed to put in rent supplements in lieu of capital up front which is fine with me as long as it gets the housing, as long as it gets the shovels going into the ground.
People will say it has not happened fast enough and I agree. It is a little frustrating with the bureaucracy at any level, be it the federal level or the provincial level. Frankly, on this deal we have done our job. We have brought the money to the table, put in place the programs, negotiated with the provinces and signed the deals. It is now up to the provinces and the municipalities working in partnership to either match the money or to put in the rent supplements so that these units are affordable and to get the shovels in the ground and get the houses built.
On top of that, there is a further commitment in the throne speech that says we will add to that particular housing agreement, that we will be investing more. It has to go through the budget process now. People will ask how much. The throne speech does not say how much. Canadians understand that a throne speech is not designed to put down the actual dollar amounts; rather it sets out the vision.
The government has committed that there will be additional work done in the area of affordable housing. I have the privilege as the parliamentary secretary responsible for crown corporations to work with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and with Canada Lands Company to develop some new housing initiatives in every part of the country and that work is currently going on.
That is the first step in addressing the issue of poverty. I have heard the opposition say there is no such thing as child poverty; that the children are poor because their families are poor. I tend to agree with that but the reality is the kids are not the ones who can do anything about it. They are captive to the cycle of poverty. Very often a poor child becomes a hungry child and a hungry child is not going to pay attention at school, is not going to learn, is not going to do the homework and is going to act out in some way.
There is certainly a comprehensive need to deal with the poverty of families and children. The end result of that and the reason that vision is so vital in the throne speech is it will help build a stronger Canada with stronger families, people who can get out of the welfare cycle and the poverty cycle and create a great life for themselves.
Let me give an example of the type of thing that people yell about. We will recall in the last throne speech there was an announcement that we would increase the maternity leave from six months to one year. It is not in this throne speech; it was in the previous document. There were howls of indignation from the business community. There were howls of indignation from the benches opposite. I have to say that even I wondered if it was the smart thing to do at the time.
We all develop our ideas by the circumstances in which we live. This summer I was delighted to become the proud grandfather of two new baby boys. My two oldest sons and their wives had kids. Those moms, Karen and Kim, have the opportunity to stay at home to nurture, to breastfeed, to be with those babies in the first year of those babies' lives. Maybe I have a different attitude because my family has finally experienced that.
It was one of the best darned things the government has done since 1993. It is a very simple thing. The business community has not been thrown into chaos. Every time something changes or there is something new, it is Armageddon, “Oh, my goodness, why would you do that? It is going to cost us thousands of dollars. We are going to have to retrain. We are going to have to replace these people. It isn't going to work”. The chambers of commerce, the boards of trade, the official opposition all rant about it.
Then we see mom with the baby and what happens to that baby by having a parent at home with it. It is not necessarily the mom any more; it could be mom or dad. Being with that baby during the first year of life is critically important. I am very proud and pleased the government had the courage to stand up to the hail that ensued after the announcement was made. With kids like my grandkids, it will pay dividends 20 years down the road when they graduate from university because they had a really good solid start. The opportunity was made available to them because the government had the vision in the throne speech to make that change in the way we do business. It was a terrific idea.
It will also be seen in the throne speech that we are moving in the area of affordable housing, in the area of attacking shelters, in working with the minister of homelessness on the SCPI funding, on the renovation funding. The government is in full flight on all those issues and is dealing with them at the community level.
We only have to ask the people at the community level whether or not what I say is true. The municipalities will say they are getting terrific cooperation and they are pleased with the programs being put in place in those areas. They will also say, and I openly admit it, that it is not enough, and it never is. They will also say that it is not fast enough and it never is. But they will say that at least the federal government is recognizing the needs in these areas and they would implore their provincial representatives to do likewise. I am confident that they will across the country, because government bodies are recognizing that once and for all we have to tackle these problems and put in place the solutions to poverty, homelessness and the lack of affordable housing.
The third item regards improving the life chances for aboriginals. The classic example of our doing that was something which again caused demonstrations in the streets and in here. Parliament was held to ransom. It is just an example of how we can work with the aboriginal community. That was the Nisga'a treaty. Now that the treaty is in place, the howls of indignation have calmed down and gone away. People have recognized that it was not Armageddon and the end of the world. In fact, some very good things have happened. I hope sincerely that the vision shown by the Prime Minister in the throne speech will put in place more treaties that will be similar and will accomplish the same thing.
I have spoken before about the environmental aspects of the Kyoto accord. I understand I have only about a minute left so I cannot go into great detail, but I want to say once again, let us just calm down the rhetoric.
We have made changes. We took lead out of gasoline and there were howls. People said, “Oh, my goodness, the sky will fall. We will go broke. We will go out of business”. When we converted to metric, one of the great debates in the nation's history was that it would be the end of the world because the United States was not going metric. Yet today our kids function in the school classrooms. Even if we dinosaurs do not, our children all do.
We need to recognize that the throne speech provides a vision and a direction. It shows not a legacy but in fact what we can do to make this an even greater country for our children and grandchildren and we can leave a place that all Canadians will truly be proud of.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I will give the hon. member a chance to calm down the rhetoric himself and actually give him a chance to respond.
Specifically on his last point on Kyoto, perhaps he could actually give us an idea if the government has a plan of action as to how it will implement this. Obviously, people are concerned about the Kyoto accord. I would like to know if he and the government, instead of just going ahead with the ratification of it, actually have a plan for implementation that they can share with Canadians so they understand what the whole deal is about.
Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I quite agree it is probably somewhat strange to hear me suggesting we calm down the rhetoric and I take the member's point. However, the passion I feel about these issues is very real.
We will indeed have a plan. That plan will be put before Parliament before the vote. That has been made clear. The plan has been a long time in the making. It continues to be a living document. We continue to consult with communities and to talk with industry. That is an ongoing process. That is why it is so disturbing to have people just stand and say, “No, no, no. Do not ratify it. Throw it out”.
At some point, one has to take a stand. The stand by the government and the Prime Minister is, we want to ratify Kyoto. Work with us to make it the most effective ratification we can. That is what we are committed to.
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if I understood correctly, the member is saying that the government had the lead taken out of gas. There is no longer any lead in gas, but the government is acting like a duck hit by lead shot. The Prime Minister had a golden opportunity with the Speech from the Throne.
The member mentioned poverty. The $6 billion the government grabs each year from the employment insurance fund is not returned to the regional economy, it is not paid out to poor families. If there are poor children in Canada, it is because there are poor families. We know that the government slashed the budget for social housing.
There the government had the perfect opportunity to give those $43 billion grabbed from the EI fund back to seasonal workers, to the unemployed in Charlevoix and other ridings in Quebec, and to students.
Students who work during the summer pay employment insurance, and we know they will never be eligible for the benefits. The Speech from the Throne would have been an excellent opportunity for the government to do the right thing once and for all.
Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, the object of an employment insurance program is to provide insurance. When people buy insurance they hope they never have to cash in on it. It is like life insurance. The insurance companies are betting people are going to live; people are betting they are going to die, but are hoping the insurance companies are right. It is the same principle.
When we have an employment insurance plan, it must be supported by everyone in the country who is working. Hopefully not everyone will need it and obviously they do not.
Also, I would like to see an accounting over the last 20 or 25 years of how much has gone into employment insurance in terms of direct subsidy from the taxpayer, when the employment insurance program was running a deficit. Nobody talks about that. All members talk and yell about is that it is running a surplus.
We have reduced employment insurance premiums. They are down to about $1.25 from the $2.20 they were when we took office. We have reduced the burden on the business community and the worker. In the last budget we dramatically increased benefits for Canadian workers. They know it. It is only the folks over there who do not.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the member has referred to a vision. My question is in regard to vision and where we are going with the Speech from the Throne.
There was mention made in the throne speech about expanding the Official Languages Act in the area of health care. I would like the member for Mississauga West to explain where he sees this expansion of official languages into the area of delivering health care. Where does he see the government going with this?
Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I know that party is opposed to the Official Languages Act. I know the Canadian Alliance would trash bilingualism, if it had an opportunity. If Canadians want that, Canadians can indeed vote the Alliance into government.
My sense is Canadians do not want that. This is a fully bilingual country in every aspect. In every region both languages should be celebrated. In my view they are celebrated by most thinking Canadians.
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the government member.
Many organizations and people, like the Conference of Defence Associations, the admiral of the fleet and the chair of the defence committee, have said repeatedly that they urgently need resources for our defence forces now, if we are to play our role internationally.
The Speech from the Throne had a non-sentence referring to defence. Will the member take to his government an urgent plea for funds and support for our defence forces now? If we do not, we will be unable to play our role internationally and unable to meet our domestic needs if we have a problem here at home.
Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
Defence is an issue that is important to Canadians but it is a matter of priorities. The government has made commitments in defence. I have heard the Minister of National Defence stand here and read off a litany of issues with which we have dealt. We have increased funding for wages for our soldiers. We have purchased new equipment. Nobody wants to talk about the positive things.
Because we tend to be in a war setting in our society with President Bush rattling sabres all the time, everyone wants us to somehow pour billions of dollars a year extra into defence. The government is committed to the armed forces. The government is proud of the military and the job it does. What is so astounding to that member--
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Oh, sit down.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. One thing we do here is we give each and every individual an opportunity to speak. Sometimes our listening skills could be a little bit better. I would ask for the cooperation of member. There is still time for questions and comments.
Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate. We are absolutely committed to the military. What I find interesting is that as we travel around the world, as many of us do in the pursuit of our jobs, people tell us how proud they are of the contribution of the Canadian military.
I am quite confident that there will be some attention to the funding needs of the military. I am sure it will not satisfy those who once again insist the sky is falling and that we never do enough. I do now know that we could ever do enough to satisfy those individuals, but I believe the military is being well served.
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having the opportunity to have an intervention. You are absolutely right, when a member is speaking the rest of us should be listening. However I took exception to the member's remark that somehow the government had been supportive of the military. Obvious to all Canadians is the fact that the government has been anything but supportive to the military.
We in the Progressive Conservative Party put a supply day motion to the House which was supported by the opposition parties, with the exception of the NDP. The motion asked that we support the Canadian military and give it the dollars and tools it needed to do the job the best it could do.
That member, along with the rest of the Liberal Party and the NDP, voted against the motion. Would the member explain his position on the military vis-à-vis his vote on the military?
Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, would it come as a great shock that I voted against a motion put on the floor by the Progressive Conservative Party? That party left this government in a deficit position of $43 billion in 1993. The PC Party wants to spend now and go back to the days when it had no concern about the fiscal reality that this government has created.
Why is our economy the way it is? Why are we ahead of even the United States? Because of the strong fiscal leadership shown by this government under this Prime Minister.
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to resume debate on the throne speech. I would like members to think about all the pussyfooting, and the comments made by our great journalists and editorial writers. They said the throne speech was supposed to be the Prime Minister's legacy after 40 years of political life. They were partly right. The Prime Minister did not deny it. He was proud of his throne speech. It is the legacy he wanted to leave to Canadians and Quebeckers.
Today, I will talk about the legacy the Prime Minister, “the little guy from Shawinigan”, left to Quebec in his 40 years of political life, a legacy that is not mentioned in the throne speech, but should have been. I will talk about Mirabel airport, the biggest mistake ever made by the federal government in Quebec.
During his 40 years in politics, the Prime Minister was a member of the Liberal cabinet for a number of years. Of the 37 years of the Mirabel Airport saga, the Liberals were in power for 26. The present Prime Minister was in one or another portfolio for most of those 26 years. He was one of the cabinet members making decisions and recommendations on Mirabel airport.
This, I should point out, is in my opinion the only true legacy the Prime Minister has left in Quebec. The white elephant of Mirabel is all too typical of him. Discussions on Mirabel began back in 1966 under Lester B. Pearson. It was a major decision. There was Expo 67 and all that. Paris and New York City were building second airports. Montreal was, of course, the air entry point for Canada at that time. It was said that Dorval would no longer be able to accommodate the demand after 1985. The decision was made therefore to build a new airport. This was a political choice made by the Liberal government of the day.
Discussions were held, and a variety of concepts proposed. Would it be built on the north shore or the south? Finally, on March 27, 1969, federal minister Paul Hellyer put an end to the suspense and announced the expropriation of 100,000 acres in the Sainte-Scolastique sector, which has now become the city of Mirabel. At the time, this was bigger than the city of Laval, 10 times larger than other major world airports and 27 times larger than Dorval. More than 3,000 property owners were expropriated or moved. It was often described as the greatest population displacement in the history of Quebec, the greatest population displacement since the deportation of the Acadians.
That same day, on the way to church, Jean Marchand promised that 100,000 jobs would be created in the Mirabel sector. It must be kept in mind, of course, that in 1969 Montreal was still the aviation port of entry into Canada. After much discussion, Mirabel Airport was inaugurated on October 4, 1975. The announcement was made by then Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Everyone was of course delighted; there were 100,000 acres of land and predictions of major industrial development.
The development plan provided for completion of highways 15 and 50. A rapid train was to reach the airport. Once the work was completed there was going to be--and there still is--a place where trains would arrive. The work was done, in the sense that the airport terminal was built to accommodate trains. Plans were to go ahead and everybody was going to pitch in. The federal government was supposed to invest over $500 million plus another $300 million to complete highways 15 and 50. It was supposed to look after building the necessary infrastructure for the rapid train to arrive directly in the airport terminal.
This is not what happened. Over 25 years later, the reality is quite different. The Liberal government--I will remind members that the Liberals were in power for 26 of the 37 years the Mirabel saga lasted--was being pressured by the establishment, which is mostly controlled by Ontario. Toronto, just like English Canada, has never accepted that Montreal should remain the gateway to Canada for air travel.
What happened between 1975 when the airport was opened and 2002? We have witnessed a shift in air travel, and Toronto is now the gateway to Canada. This is what the Liberal Party establishment of the time wanted, with the support of the Montreal's West Island establishment, which has obviously never accepted that economic development might be exported outside of Montreal's West Island. That is what happened. That is not what history books will say, but it is the political reality. Those decisions were made by the cabinet of the time, of which the current Prime Minister was a member for most of the time the Liberal Party was in power.
Since the airport opened in 1975, there have been various developments, including the creation of ADM in 1996, when one independent airport administration was created to manage both Dorval and Mirabel airports. However, it is important to remember that on December 4, 1986, the federal government decided to keep both airports. Then there was the saga from 1975 to 1986, the period when Canada's gateway shifted from Montreal to Toronto. The Liberal government and representatives at that time, with the complicity of the Conservative government as well, took advantage of the situation, redistributing traffic and redirecting air traffic to Dorval.
So in the end, we have the situation that exists today, where Mirabel is but a shadow of its former self. As far as I am concerned, no matter how you read the Speech from the Throne, in English, in French, backwards or upside down, there is absolutely no mention of the development that could have been achieved with the whole Mirabel airport area.
This is an area that has experienced land grabs over the years. One hundred thousand acres of land were expropriated, and it soon became apparent that the federal Liberal government did not have the will to finish the project according to original plans. Land was returned to those who had been expropriated. In the end, more than 80,000 acres of the 100,000 that had been expropriated were returned.
Today, Mirabel airport covers some 5,000 acres. Another 11,000 acres are rented to the former owners or to new farmers. There is the potential for a further 16,000 acres to be developed, and this could very well have been mentioned in the Speech from the Throne.
While Mirabel has had an increase in job creation lately, it is not solely due to industries in the aviation and aerospace sectors like Bombardier. There is also Technicolor and other businesses that can benefit from moving to industrial parks near airports around the world.
The Government of Quebec decided to create the Mirabel international trade zone, to grant tax credits to attract businesses that would not have settled in Quebec, but that would nonetheless have set up shop near other airports around the world. These tax credits have led to the creation of 2,500 jobs since the international trade zone was created by the Parti Quebecois government.
The Speech from the Throne would have been a good opportunity for the federal government to correct the terrible mistake made with Mirabel, by giving the same tax credits in the international trade zone. The federal government could have done what the Quebec government did, and this would have given us a true duty free zone in Canada, not to compete with businesses in the rest of Canada, but with multinationals that open facilities close to airports all over the world. But we do not have such zones, whether it is in Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal.
There is nothing in the throne speech to help those who were part of the largest displacement of people on Canadian ground since the deportation of the Acadians. Mirabel Airport is the largest tract of federal lands in Quebec. Stop dreaming and thinking that there are some in your region. The largest tract of federal lands is the 100,000 acres the federal government expropriated, and that is located in Quebec. Mirabel Airport was the largest federal property in Quebec.
Now, it has become a white elephant. The Château de l'aéroport, a federally-owned hotel, closed its doors in August 2002. When we travel along highway 50 and drive by Mirabel Airport—we are told that there will still be chartered flights until next spring—we see a hotel, which is closed and whichbelongs to the federal government. ADM, the authority that manages the airport, is not looking for new tenants and is actually suing the previous tenant.
This is a saga. ADM has already been ordered to pay $17 million to the former owner for loss of revenue, because ADM deliberately reduced the number of flights at the airport. Of course, this resulted in a reduction of the number of clients at the hotel. The court sided with the owner. ADM has decided to appeal the ruling.
In the meantime, this federal property, this hotel located alongside the highway, could still attract potential clients, and the owner wanted to discuss a resumption of operations, because there will still be chartered flights and potential clients, at least until spring. But nothing is happening, because ADM is not accountable to the public, and because the federal government, through the Minister of Transport and the Prime Minister, is taking cover behind this independent authority, which is accountable to no one, except itself.
Talk to all the journalists who are trying to reach ADM for whatever reason; it does not even return its calls.
This is a federal asset which is managed by an independent authority, and that suits the present federal government just fine. I would like to quote from a statement by the Prime Minister. I think this is the worst thing that could be disclosed today:

On February 9, 1996, Jean Chrétien, the Prime Minister of Canada, said he will not be sorry when one of these airports closes down, if it seems that one of them is not needed.

He knew very well what was going on. His establishment was protecting Montreal's West Island and Mirabel Airport. So he will not be sorry when Mirabel Airport closes down next spring. He will have contributed to that. During the 40 years he has been a member of Parliament, the “little guy from Shawinigan” has been a minister. During the last 37 years of the Mirabel saga, he was a member of cabinet during most of the 26 years when the Liberal Party was in power. Obviously, he had his say in the decisions made, and he contributed to the fact that the gateway to Canada for air transportation was Montreal in 1966 and has been Toronto since 1985. The Liberal government had a major role to play in the transfer of the gateway from Montreal to Toronto.
It is a real tragedy. More than 500 million dollars was invested in Mirabel Airport and the infrastructure needed for its development has not been built yet. The best way to kill the project was to make an announcement and not follow through by completing highways 15 and 50 and building the infrastructure required for the high speed rail system to get to the terminal that has already been built for it. The train could arrive at the terminal, which exists, but the tracks have not been laid and the investments required to ensure that the train reaches the airport have never been made.
This is what is happening now; this is the dream that has been kept alive among the whole population of Quebec by the Liberal government, by the ministers, by the current Prime Minister among others. It is a dream that will end next spring. As far as I am concerned, Mirabel Airport could have been the legacy of the Prime Minister, “the little guy from Shawinigan”.
I hope that every time he drives by this airport, he will think about it, because he was directly involved, with his cabinet colleagues, including the member for LaSalle—Émard, in the decisions. This member's father was a member of cabinet, and he also had a say in the decisions to close Mirabel Airport and to transfer the Canadian airline gateway from Montreal to Toronto. This is what the Liberal government did.
Ontario is probably grateful for this. Still, there is a harsh reality: we are left with a $500 million plus facility that was left unfinished, and with Dorval Airport, one of the worst airports in the developed world.
My colleagues in the House of Commons should pop in to Dorval to check the condition of that airport. It is the worst in all industrialized countries, and attempts are being made to fix it. Since 1996, over $800 million was poured into Dorval Airport, and another $500 million—for a total in excess of $1 billion—will be required to bring this airport up to modern standards. Why? Because, to do a real good job, the airport should have been shut down for five years, completely torn down and rebuilt from scratch.
Instead, the old building is being renovated, but it dates back to the 1940s. This does nothing for development. The proof is in the figures: a small increase in air traffic; a large one in Toronto, but none in Montreal. All this because the Liberal government put an independent authority, namely ADM, in charge of managing the airports, following in the footsteps of the Conservatives.
Just today, I received a letter the Minister of Transport sent me at the end of September, saying “There is nothing we can do for the Château de l'aéroport, because ADM is in charge and we trust them. They are supposed to manage in the interests of the Government of Canada”. That is not true, ADM is not managing in the interests of the Government of Canada.
At present, ADM is trying as best it can to safe face. The chairman and members of the board are replaced every three years, again, in an attempt to force bad decisions on them. The bad decision was made by the Liberal Party, which was in office during 26 of the 37 years that the Mirabel saga has been going on. For most of this 26-year period, the current Prime Minister was an influential member of cabinet.
I see that there is nothing in the throne speech about de development of the airport at Mirabel. There is every indication that the statement made by the Prime Minister in 1996, when he said that it did not bother him to see an airport close down in Quebec, will translate into reality and actually be his monument, his legacy to the Quebec government: a white elephant, like himself.

Statements By Members
Arts and CultureMs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the honour of attending the opening of the first solo exhibition of an exceptional artist from Baker Lake, the geographical centre of my riding of Nunavut.
The National Gallery of Canada is featuring Marion Tuu'luq and her wonderful wall hangings which are truly masterpieces.
This was a very poignant evening too, as Marion passed away two weeks ago at the age of 92, but she was graciously represented by three generations: her daughter, Rosie, granddaughter, Phoebe Anne and six month old grandson, Obid.
I invite all hon. members to view these amazing wall hangings as the show will run until January 12, 2003.
My thanks to all those who have worked hard to make this show possible and celebrate Marion's work.
Health CareMr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in Regina the health care strike continues. A man has died and CBC is asking if it is a result of the strike.
This tragic death of an elderly man is a symptom of the perpetual finger pointing exercise that is going on in the health care system. Meanwhile, the strike goes on. My constituents are fed up.
All levels of government must take some responsibility for the health care system and work cooperatively toward making our system more efficient.
In her recent report, the Auditor General said that Canadians do not know how much the federal government contributes to health care because the CHST is a block fund which the provinces are free to spend as desired.
By conveniently lumping its CHS transfers, the federal government is avoiding scrutiny on how much money it is really giving to health care. The government should stop hiding behind the CHST and provide Canadians with the real amount that it is giving for health care.
The Canadian Alliance is calling for adequate, stable and transparent federal funding for health care. Canadian families deserve nothing less.
Banking InstitutionsMr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in recognition of the contribution of co-operatives, credit unions and caisses populaires to the building of Canada's economic and social well-being, I rise to pay tribute to over 10 million Canadians, who are co-op members, as they celebrate National Co-op Week and Credit Union Day from October 13 to 19.
These unique and democratic organizations help to provide local solutions to local challenges in areas such as agriculture, financial services, day care, medical services and housing. Co-operatives promote economic and social development by enabling people to pool their resources, share risk and achieve common goals. Wherever citizens live, and particularly in rural and remote communities, co-operatives find ways to share the benefits of Canadian prosperity.
Co-ops play a major role in the Canadian economy and social fabric, employing over 150,000 people and accounting for over $167 billion in assets.
“Building Tomorrow's Communities” is the theme and I congratulate them on--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Miramichi.
The Royal VisitMr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with pride that I rise before the House today as Her Majesty tours New Brunswick.
I am proud to share with the House that during her Majesty's visit she will pay tribute to some exemplary Canadians who perform extraordinary tasks as she meets with the first 10 recipients of the newly created Order of New Brunswick.
On her second day in our province, Her Majesty will visit Sussex and pay tribute to the past while highlighting the promise of the future as it relates to youth, identity and enhanced prosperity. Indeed, she will begin her day by touring a new wing of an elementary school, the same school that Her Majesty opened during her visit some 40 years ago. She will meet with students who are engaged in high tech learning as well as creative programs such as music and drama.
The remainder of the royal couple's day in our province will emphasize the importance of small town Canada and how it has evolved and continues to foster a sense of belonging during an autumn family celebration in Sussex. It will also highlight our creativity in ensuring economic prosperity--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Bramalea--Gore--Malton--Springdale.
Chinguacousy Secondary SchoolMr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to recognize Mr. Michael Schultz, a social studies teacher at Chinguacousy Secondary School from my riding of Bramalea--Gore--Malton--Springdale.
Mr. Schultz has been selected by the Canadian Teachers Institute as one of Canada's best educators. Every fall, 70 teachers from across Canada are selected to participate in the Teachers Institute on the parliamentary democracy program.
Over a five day period these teachers experience the workings of Parliament by attending question period, committee meetings and meetings with parliamentarians. The teachers then develop strategies for teaching citizenship and parliamentary democracy in their classrooms.
I would like to congratulate the principal of Chinguacousy Secondary School, all the teachers and especially Michael.
HighwaysMrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, as we approach Thanksgiving weekend with thoughts of travelling to spend time with our families, residents of the Ottawa Valley will once again prepare for the inevitable traffic deaths that give Highway 17 its reputation as a killer road.
With federal tax dollars pouring into Quebec and New Brunswick, residents in the Ottawa Valley will no longer accept the excuse from the Liberals that roads are not its responsibility.
It is time for the federal government to use the billions of dollars collected in gasoline taxes for the original reason the money was intended: to maintain and expand roads in Canada. In the words of Councillor Jack Lammert of Arnprior, “federal money should be available, this is the Trans-Canada Highway!”
I appreciate the interest of Reeve Russ Havelin, Councillor Dirk Rook, Reeve Audrey Green and Councillor Lloyd Cameron, who all recognize the need for a 4-lane highway to be built from Ottawa to North Bay. The public recently had the opportunity to review the plans to continue 4-laning Highway 17 past Arnprior to Renfrew and beyond.
If one life is saved by building proper roads, this is a legacy worth having.
Citizenship WeekMs. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this year Citizenship Week will be October 14 to 20. It provides us MPs with a great opportunity to cast aside our party allegiances and take a broader view.
In general, Canadians do not have a habit of boasting about the merits of our country. We may be somewhat reticent to hold great discussions about it, but Canadian citizenship is of vital importance to us all.
So great is the desire to belong to the Canadian community that more than 2,400 immigrants will be sworn in during Citizenship Week, in ceremonies held all over Canada. In 2001, no fewer than 167,000 people became new citizens.
What is more, 85% of landed immigrants forge permanent ties to Canada by going on to be sworn in as citizens.
By taking this step, our new citizens are telling us Canadian citizenship is something to be valued greatly.
Speech from the ThroneMs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the throne speech we might have expected to find something for the workers. But once again, there is nothing.
The Prime Minister's legacy is once again to confirm that his government is going to continue to discriminate against young people, right from the first time they get a job. By refusing to exclude orphan clauses from federal legislation, he is saying no to our young people.
Another part of his legacy: telling women that healthy pregnancies and healthy babies are not a priority for his government. The fight has been going on for ten years now to allow all women the possibility of preventive withdrawal from the workplace, with a program equivalent to the one in place in Quebec. He continues to say no to women.
Another part of his legacy: he is telling workers that his government will continue to encourage the use of scabs during labour disputes.
A sad legacy, this. Youth, women, and workers can, however, count on the Bloc Quebecois to listen to them and to ensure these injustices are corrected. The voting public will keep that in mind.
Citizenship WeekSteve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, next week the Department of Citizenship and Immigration has organized a series of events to celebrate Citizenship Week.
During Thanksgiving week we should think about the fact that Canadian born citizens may sometimes forget the benefits and privileges of being Canadian. In fact, sometimes it takes new Canadians to remind us of the value of Canadian citizenship.
The chance to reaffirm our citizenship is one of the best ways for those of us who are already Canadian citizens to think again about what it means. I encourage those of us who are able to attend to attend one of the many ceremonies scheduled next week during which new Canadians will take the Oath of Citizenship and where all Canadians can reaffirm their commitment to this country.
Being a Canadian citizen means many things, but mostly it means freedom, respect and belonging, belonging to the greatest country in the world.
National ParksMr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, God has blessed Canada with some of the most magnificent scenery, environment and animals in the world. Our national park system is part of the preservation and protection of those wonderful assets. It is a shame that successive Liberal governments have presided over the demise of those parks. It has squeezed resources to the point that $375 million is needed just to bring them back to a minimum standard of facility and access.
Our parks have become preserves by default. They limit access of human beings because the roads are literally falling off the mountains. Campgrounds are becoming uninhabitable and businesses providing services for tourists are treated with breathtaking arrogance and disdain by the heritage minister.
Therefore, the promise of 10 new parks with an estimated cost of an additional $3 million to $500 million by the Prime Minister is mere sham window dressing and a joke.
Canadians will believe that the government is serious about the new parks when they see a rebuilding of relationships between top management and wardens and a return to adequate funding of the existing park system.
2002 Booker PrizeMs. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I would like to offer congratulations to Yann Martel, Rohinton Mistry and Carol Shields who have had their novels shortlisted for the 2002 Booker prize. The three novels are: The Life of Pi , Family Matters and Unless . It is truly a banner day when three of the six authors selected by the Booker Prize jury are Canadian.
The Booker Prize rewards the best literature of the Commonwealth and our authors have long been recognized as among the best.
As a true believer in the strength of Canadian literature, I am not surprised that our authors continue to receive the recognition that they so richly deserve. As readers we have always sought out those authors who can tell stories that resonate, that speak the truth about all of us, where we come from and where we will go as individuals and as a country.
I urge all Canadians to join me as I thank these three authors for sharing their stories with Canada and with the world.
Workers' RightsMr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, two days ago the Ontario Tory government showed contempt for workers' rights, for Ontario farm workers in particular and for the Supreme Court of Canada when it introduced a law the falls seriously short of allowing farm workers to form a union. An association is just not good enough.
The federal government should call on the Ontario government to respect the ruling of the Supreme Court and allow farm workers to unionize. At the same time, the federal government should get its own house in order by ratifying the international convention on the protection of the rights of all migrant workers and members of their families.
Migrant workers are brought to this country by the federal government and should be treated with respect by the federal government. Turning a blind eye to the Ontario decision, failing to ratify the international convention and continuing to collect EI premiums from migrant workers who have no chance of ever collecting it shows a lack of concern for farm workers about which the Liberals should be embarrassed.
TaxationMr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, all of Quebec reacted strongly and condemned the comments made this week by the Prime Minister on the fiscal imbalance, and his statement on the uselessness of the Quebec delegations.
Support was voiced everywhere, including in all of Quebec's political parties and the business and cultural worlds, stressing the work done by Quebec diplomats to serve the best interests of Quebec and Quebeckers.
Not only did the Prime Minister bring about this unanimous opposition, he also succeeded in showing that his government was incapable of responding with rigour to analyses demonstrating that the fiscal imbalance is real.
The Prime Minister resorted to a joke inspired by his contempt for Quebec to respond to the Quebec consensus on the fiscal imbalance, but this will not enable the government to evade its responsibilities.
The Bloc Quebecois has always been there to protect Quebec and Quebeckers. Again, I say to the Prime Minister that his statements are a source of motivation for us to continue to fight for Quebec.
Veterans' WeekMr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Parliament Hill this morning the Minister of Veterans Affairs unveiled the Veterans' Week 2002 poster. Each year we set aside Veterans' Week, November 5 to 11, to remember and commemorate those who have served our country in times of peace and war.
This year's poster features Brendan Matthews, a high school student from Yellowknife who visited the gravesites of Canadian soldiers as part of the 85th anniversary of the battle of Vimy Ridge. The poster also features Sergeant Ernest Alvia “Smokey” Smith, a veteran of the second world war and Canada's only surviving Victoria Cross recipient; Joseph Meconse, a peacekeeping veteran; and Corporal Kim Burns, a still serving member of the Canadian Forces.
More than anyone, our veterans know the tragic costs of war. It remains as important as ever to demonstrate to veterans and peacekeepers our appreciation and gratitude for their service and sacrifice so that we may enjoy the many blessings of peace and freedom. Lest we forget.
Marine AtlanticMr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, recently the Minister of Transport filled four vacancies on the board of Marine Atlantic. This service exists solely for the benefit of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a service to that province.
The minister appointed three people from Nova Scotia and one person from New Brunswick to the board but not one from Newfoundland and Labrador. Common sense dictates that those directly affected would have more knowledge and interest in the service.
The regional minister defends his colleague's political appointments by stating that we do not need Newfoundlanders on the board. It is time for the regional minister to properly represent his province. Wake up, Mr. Minister, Newfoundland has been “byrned” again.
Child Abuse Prevention MonthMr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House and the people of Canada that October is Child Abuse Prevention Month.
As members of Parliament, individuals and communities, we must act to prevent child abuse. We must intervene when we know or suspect that a child is being threatened, hurt, neglected or sexually exploited.
Neglect, physical, sexual or emotional abuse are all forms of maltreatment. They violate our children and they violate the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child to which Canada is a signatory.
The Government of Canada partners with other levels of government and non-governmental organizations on initiatives to support families and prevent child abuse. Included in these initiatives are the federal family violence initiative and community based programs such as the community action program for children, aboriginal head start and the nobody is perfect parenting skills program.
We must all do our part to protect Canada's children. They are a great asset for all of us.
Member for West Vancouver—Sunshine CoastMr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I want to extend thanks to you and your parliamentary staff for making it easy and comfortable for me to return to the House of Commons. Your collective concern made it much easier than I thought it would be.
I would also like to thank the employees who constructed the tray for my chair so that I can participate in the House.
Our security people have been helpful in finding ways to make access to the building and corridors much easier.
The pages and supervisory staff have been very generous with their suggestions and their service.
To those who step aside or offer assistance on the elevators, I want to also extend my thanks.
I can assure Canadians who are wheelchair bound and considering a career in politics that there are no obstacles to getting the job done once they are elected. All of us in the chamber and all House of Commons employees and political staff should be very proud of how this place has accommodated me.
I have one other person to thank and I could not have coped without the help of my loving wife, Yvonne.

Oral Question Period
Kyoto ProtocolMr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in recent days the environment minister has begun talking about a made in Canada Kyoto. This is more than just confusing geography. It is typical Liberal double-talk since a made in Canada solution is what opponents of the Kyoto accord want.
Will the government clarify its position? Does it intend to implement the targets actually set out in the Kyoto accord or its own Canadian version of the targets?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for some five years, the government has been talking about a made in Canada solution, which is of course something that is put together by the provinces, territories and the federal government jointly. After all, it was a reference from all 14 first ministers back in 1997 which started the process. We were disappointed that Alberta pulled out of the co-chair this summer. However we hope Alberta will come back so we can have all governments participating in creating something entirely made in Canada so we can achieve our objective.
Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, the House will note that the minister did not say whether those objectives would be the actual Kyoto objectives or some other set of objectives so it is more evading the question, more double-talk.
For greater clarity let me pick on one issue. The Kyoto accord does not give Canada credit for natural gas exports to the United States since the U.S. is not foolish enough to sign on to this boondoggle.
Will the government ratify the actual Kyoto targets or will it reduce those targets for things like gas exports to the United States?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I have long thought that the Leader of the Opposition needed a little more information about the Kyoto accord. I am delighted he is now requesting it at this stage.
The Kyoto accord in no way limits Canada in how it goes about achieving its target. Of course there are some counting rules relevant to Kyoto which are important. However we can do what we wish within Canada. That is exactly why I talk about it as a made in Canada plan that we are trying to devise.
With respect to clean energy exports, Canada believes these to be very important because they reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and we want to encourage that.
Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that we can do what we want in Canada without the Kyoto accord ratified at all.
I have one more question. The minister will know hopefully that the Kyoto accord targets only carbon dioxide emissions, not pollution. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. There is a real concern that the actions necessary to implement radical carbon dioxide reductions could result in technological switching to emissions with higher pollution.
How does the government intend to ensure that the Kyoto accord will not lead to increases in pollution?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I am simply delighted that the Leader of the Opposition is now focusing on an issue that we have been working on for some years.
Yes, there are potentials for alternative fuels, which have other aspects to them, that may not be 100% of what we want. Therefore, we are working on that. There is a heavy technical aspect.
However, I can assure him that CO
2
does have an effect upon air quality in Canada because other pollutants emitted into the atmosphere, such as nitrous oxide and sulphur dioxide, need heat to make the smog that we see so often in Canada, and that is what--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast.
EthicsJohn Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister stated that any changes to the ethics counsellor should include making that person independent. The Liberal government voted a decisive no to an independent ethics commissioner over a year ago. It voted against its own red book promise. Since then the list of the government's ethically challenged has included: the former minister of public works, the former defence minister, the heritage minister and the Solicitor General. It is clear that the government is in ethical disarray.
Will the government commit to introducing an independent ethics commissioner for all parliamentarians?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised in the red book that there would be such a package. The Prime Minister reiterated in a speech in the House of Commons just a few days ago that this would be done this fall.
I ask the member to be very patient, as he sometimes is. Of course this will be achieved, and he will not have very long to wait.
John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, the government's ethics counsellor is not an ethics enforcer but an enabler for the ethically challenged front bench.
The Prime Minister stated yesterday that there was always room for improvement, yet he has failed to offer any significant guidelines to improve the lax ethical standards that are displayed by his cabinet ministers.
Again, will the government commit to introducing an independent ethics commissioner, who is so desperately needed, and one who covers all parliamentarians?
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I said it to the member a moment ago and I repeat it. This was mentioned in the throne speech. It was also said only a few days ago by the right hon. Prime Minister in the House of Commons. Obviously we will present a document for consideration by the House. We do hope that at the same time the Leader of the Opposition and others become once and for all fully committed to transparency, particularly about electoral contributions.
Softwood LumberMr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, not only is $71 million not enough to help the thousands of workers affected by the crisis, but we have learned that not all affected workers will be able to benefit.
How does the Minister of Human Resources Development explain that most of the federal measures for workers will not apply in eight out of twelve of Quebec's regions, regions such as Lanaudière, la Mauricie, Beauce, and the Eastern Townships, despite the fact that the softwood lumber industry is vital to them?
Raymonde Folco: Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleague opposite that the regions are ranked according to their unemployment rates. In a way, regions that will not receive the supplementary funds have an advantage because these are regions where the unemployment rate is below 10%. This 10% figure is the cut-off point for receiving supplementary funds.
I would also like to remind my colleague that the Government of Quebec also receives other funds under the agreement between Ottawa and Quebec.
Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, what we are saying is that the federal measures ought to have been targeted in order to help all softwood lumber workers. Yet, this is far from the case. In addition to leaving out softwood lumber workers in more than half of the regions in Quebec, the $71 million will be shared by all of the unemployed in the Gaspé Peninsula, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, the North Shore, the Lower St. Lawrence and Abitibi.
Rather than trying to kill two birds with one stone, will the minister finally admit that employment insurance needs strenthening, and that there also need to be special measures for all softwood lumber workers?
Raymonde Folco: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we have done.
We have strengthened employment measures. We have strengthened job sharing and workforce training. We have increased participation in training programs. We have also strengthened the pilot project initiative for older workers.
I would also add that for 2002-03, we will be giving the Government of Quebec a transfer payment of $597 million through the labour market development agreement.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according to the government, the reason loan guarantees are not included in its softwood lumber aid package is that it might be contrary to the rules for international trade.
Will the Minister for International Trade explain to us how Export Development Canada manages to provide loan guarantees to exporters without, or so it would seem, violating WTO and NAFTA rules, but does not have enough imagination to make adjustments for the current situation?
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should stand up and congratulate the government for a $250 million package to respond to workers, to respond to communities, to make sure we have a competitive industry that can compete anywhere in the world. This is a program which ensures that for those workers who are affected and communities that are affected and provides for research and development. In Quebec $23 million will go toward making sure that the pulp and paper industry can be competitive. This should be applauded, not criticized, by the opposition.
Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Speaker, in committee, we asked that legal opinions be produced. They never did produce any. Why? Because they never looked into the matter.
Will the Minister for International Trade admit that, had his department looked into it, it would have realized that adjustments could be made to existing programs?
Herb Dhaliwal: Mr. Speaker, when we made this announcement, we also said this file is a work in progress. We have, in May, announced $75 for research and development and developing new markets. Then we announced another $20 million for an advocacy program. Now we have announced $250 million.
We will monitor what is happening. This is a file that is ongoing. Meanwhile we are working to make sure we do everything we can to get an agreement with the Americans, a long term, doable agreement that will benefit both the U.S. and Canada. That is what we are working toward.
Meanwhile we have to monitor the situation--
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona.
IraqBill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister stated that Canada was prepared to participate in a strike on Iraq if there is a UN resolution.
My question is the following. If there is no UN resolution and the U.S. proceeds without one, will Canada participate anyway?
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our focus has always been, first and foremost, that we get Iraqi agreement to disarm through unconditional arms inspections, but we have always emphasized that where we wanted to go is to the United Nations, to a United Nations resolution. Our concern was that a pre-emptive strike was never one that was the Canadian route and always our emphasis was to go to through United Nations.
Government ProgramsMr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday when the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Works were asked about government energy efficiencies, they provided convoluted non-responses about past initiatives and nothing about what they are doing now.
We are 10 days away from mapping out Kyoto commitments. Canadians want to know what the federal government will do to provide leadership in energy efficiency.
I have a simple question. Will the government commit to requiring 20% of green energy in all federal departments in every province and territory in five years? Yes or no.
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, our initial objective was to reach a level of emissions that was 20% below 1990 levels by the year 2005. In fact we have already reached that target. We have now established a new target to get to 30% below by the Kyoto period in 2010. We are confident that we will reach that and that further gains will be achieved, about 50%, through greater efficiency in our buildings and about 50% in improvements in our vehicle fleet.
Government ContractsMr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, in response to a question yesterday, the government stated that a cost overrun of over a quarter of a million dollars at the Greenwich development project was quite acceptable. We know that the president of the Liberal Party stands to make $30 million over the life of the deal. The minister has met personally with Mr. Banks and lo and behold taxpayers are left to foot the bill.
This is not personal. It is not about provincial prejudice. This is about responsible use of taxpayer money. With crumbling medicare, an underfunded military and crippling student debt, to mention a few, why are taxpayers of Prince Edward Island and Canada expected to pay for Tim Banks' overspending and his outrageously rich deal with the Liberal government?
Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Speaker, the first response I have to the hon. member's question is that it is absolute nonsense. First and foremost, as I said yesterday, and perhaps the hon. member was not listening, Parks Canada paid an additional $235,000 for additional things that were required by Parks Canada. It is not unusual, even in private contracts, under a building contract, when we have change orders and when we have are extras, to pay extra.
If we look at it again, what we paid in relation to the total contract was less than 5%, which is well within the construction industry norm.
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, what is outrageous is that the Liberal member responsible for P.E.I. will stand up for Liberals but will not stand in the House and answer questions.
Liberal Party president Tim Banks has been a huge beneficiary of the Liberal government. In addition to the sweetheart deal for the Greenwich development and the Confederation projects, from 1997 to 2000 one company under his umbrella, Atlantic Store Decor, has raked in over $2.5 million in grants and contributions from HRDC and ACOA.
The Premier of Prince Edward Island encourages legitimate development, and I agree, but is Tim Banks the only developer on the Island? How much more Liberal largesse granted by the Solicitor General has to be exposed before the Prime Minister sacks this minister?
Hon. Gerry Byrne (Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, while the hon. member, and I use that with discretion, states that he is for P.E.I., that he is for development on P.E.I., he continuously erodes the business confidence in the people of P.E.I. In fact, Premier Binns has noted that the reputation of P.E.I. is being slandered. By whom? By the PC Party of Canada.
He rejects the notions that have been put forward and, quite frankly, the Premier of P.E.I. would prefer a more suitable, more appropriate environment to foster growth on P.E.I. and that will be accomplished by the hon. member shutting his mouth.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Gerry Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw those last comments but I will ask the hon. member to please respect the people of P.E.I.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. We know that David Nicholson, a former deputy minister of Veterans Affairs and president of ACOA, was a special adviser to the Solicitor General in December 2000. When did Mr. Nicholson cease to be employed directly by the minister and become an employee of Everett Roche's accounting firm?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague is well aware, and I have told him many times in the House, I had a long ongoing relationship with Mr. Nicholson. His advice was very important to me and to Prince Edward Island.
He is also fully aware that I issued a release on Friday of last week that indicated in specific detail when the contract started and what the contract was all about.
Mr. Wilson is evaluating the situation. Let him do his job.
Kevin Sorenson: Mr. Speaker, the minister's pathetic rhetoric is absolutely appalling and an insult to the Canadian public.
We do not need an ethics counsellor to tell us that political interference on behalf of Tim Banks was wrong, that lobbying the commissioner of the RCMP and Correctional Service Canada on behalf of his brother's college was wrong, that violating Treasury Board guidelines for untendered contracts was wrong, and that giving a lucrative contract to his political pal and two-time official agent was wrong.
When will the Solicitor General finally do the right thing and resign?
Gerry Byrne: Mr. Speaker, we have already said and said very clearly that it is not Alex MacAulay's college. We continually recite the facts to the opposition parties but they do not seem to want to understand.
I will tell them that there is someone who says that things are going right in P.E.I. I want to quote from the Charlottetown Guardian:

--he [the Premier of P.E.I.] does know that the projects [the MP for Cardigan] was working on were in the best interest of the province...“Because of his efforts, I think we've been able to achieve some good results for P.E.I.”

Quebec's Delegations AbroadMr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, business people expressed their support for the comments made by the Minister for International Trade on the importance to exporters of Quebec's delegations . The CEO of the Manufacturiers et exportateurs du Québec, Paul-Arthur Huot, said:

From a business point of view, having eyes and ears on a permanent basis abroad, having people in direct daily contact with the local market, gives us information on these markets that we could not otherwise have.

Are the simplistic statements of the Prime Minister on Quebec's delegations not another expression of his desire to impede Quebec's economic and cultural development in the world?
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one can see, for example, that Quebec spends about six times more than Ontario. The point here is that all provinces and all levels of government have the authority to make their own decisions.
Therefore, if Quebec wants to spend money, that is its own decision. However, we do not want Quebec to ask us for money, to ask us to pay so that it can spend in this fashion. Quebec has the authority to levy taxes.
Pierre Paquette: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister realize that by being the only one to deny the existence of a fiscal imbalance and the usefulness of Quebec's delegations abroad, he is showing that he is not only isolated, but that he is also totally disconnected from the reality of modern-day Quebec?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, I think that the reality in modern-day Quebec is that they have seen enough disputes between the levels of government. There are projects that we have to implement together, including in health.
It would not help much to agree to give one level of government all the sources of revenues, only to then have to cut spending at another level of government. We should work together. I hope the hon. member will realize this soon enough.
Official LanguagesMr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, three days ago the Commissioner of Official Languages stated that making Gatineau bilingual would be, “an important advance”.
Yesterday, she indicated in the daily Le Droit that the federal government must give its blessing to identical linguistic services, at the municipal level, for the two minorities on each side of the Ottawa River, and that the federal government must also provide the financial assistance that will enable Gatineau to achieve this goal.
Does the government accept or reject this advice?
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the member raised almost the identical question approximately a week ago in the House of Commons. Let me answer the question again.
The Government of Canada welcomes any city that wants to achieve bilingual status for Canadians. We know that and the proof of that is the support we gave to the City of Ottawa to achieve that. Members will also remember that many of us in the House wanted to congratulate the City of Ottawa for that status but the member himself refused to do so.
Scott Reid: Mr. Speaker, I am astonished.
Gatineau is forbidden by provincial law from declaring itself bilingual as Ottawa has done. Gatineau is forbidden to install bilingual signs by provincial law as Ottawa has done. Gatineau does not publish its bylaws in bilingual form as Ottawa has done.
Will the minister stand here today and say that he expects the Quebec government to take the same measures to entrench bilingualism in Gatineau that the government has demanded repeatedly that Ontario take regarding Ottawa?
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, in different words, that is almost the same question. The government has indicated and has proven its commitment toward bilingualism. It has invested--
Stephen Harper: In Ottawa.
Don Boudria: No, not only in Ottawa, in a number of cities, and we are prepared to support bilingualism where such a request is made as we have in the past. Everyone knows that.
Ethics CounsellorMr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, two Liberal members have given the Prime Minister an appropriate reminder that the ethics counsellor should answer to the House of Commons. They pointed out that any ethics-related problems in the past have involved ministers, not MPs. This is clearly seen in the sponsorship scandal, which can be traced right back to the Prime Minister.
Does the Prime Minister intend to bow to the common sense of parliamentarians of all parties and ask the House to appoint an independent ethics commissioner?
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has made a commitment, both in the throne speech and in his excellent speech in the House of Commons a few days ago, to submit a proposal to the House concerning an ethics counsellor. I trust that we shall have the support of all members for its adoption.
Need I remind the hon. member that I myself moved, last June, in this very House, to refer this matter to a parliamentary committee. I was not given the consent of certain opposition members to do so.
Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we are calling for an independent ethics counsellor. Ethical issues also concern the general public. We had an example yesterday when a high school student criticized the Prime Minister for his slowness to act on this.
Will the Prime Minister agree that it is his responsibility to allow the House to take the necessary steps to appoint an independent ethics counsellor for MPs, but also for ministers?
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to note the rather recently developed enthusiasm of the hon. member and his party toward this issue. I would have liked to have seen equal enthusiasm when the motion was proposed to the House prior to adjournment, last June.
I will tell the member opposite that he will not have to wait long for a document to be tabled in the House. We look forward to his support with this same enthusiasm.
Air SafetyRahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, customs managers at Pearson international airport are replacing experienced customs inspectors with students for pre-board screening during weekend peak periods.
The minister is jeopardizing the safety and security of Canada because she and her department are unable to settle in house a human resource issue.
When will the minister stop using untrained students to provide frontline security services for Canada?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I reject fully the suggestion that in any way we are compromising the security of Canada. We are not. It is our number one priority. We have, however, had a student program in place in the government and at customs Canada for many years. Students are trained properly for the duties they will be engaged in. I can tell the House that the evaluation is that they provide excellent service to Canada.
Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, maybe the minister should go down and see what is happening at these ports because she will hear a completely different story from the customs agents and the problems they are facing.
Ironically enough, the Minister of National Revenue stated yesterday that the number one priority for the government is security and safety for Canadians but untrained students are substituting for experienced customs inspectors on the front line of our security. The people who try to enter Canada illegally, criminals, terrorists and drug traffickers, know this. It is unfair to these students and unfair to the public that the minister is willing to put Canadians at risk.
Will the minister admit that students are being used in this way and declare that she will put an end to this dangerous practice?
Elinor Caplan: Mr. Speaker, I have to say to the hon. member that students receive appropriate training. In fact all students who have participated for many years in customs programs do an outstanding job because they are not only well trained but they are properly supervised.
I find it strange that the member opposite would not support the student program that we have which has resulted over the years in a number of students becoming full time employees and actually moving into managerial and senior positions in the agency.
Northern OntarioMr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Rural Development and Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario.
The government has made considerable progress to ensure that the people of northern Ontario share in the economic benefits enjoyed by other Canadians.
While the government has achieved considerable success in this area, due in great measure to the minister's efforts, could the secretary of state explain how the government's programs for northern Ontario communities remain relevant to the region's economic development needs?
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the recent census indicated the importance of ensuring that northern Ontario provides to our young people the hope for an economic and social future. This is absolutely essential.
FedNor has worked hard over the past few years to create an environment within which the private sector can create wealth and create jobs.
To better refine our programming we are reaching out to the citizens of northern Ontario through an engagement process. This will culminate in a conference being held in Sault Ste. Marie from November 14 to 17 where we will hear the views of northern Ontarians. From there we will develop a federal action plan in terms of the types of initiatives we want to undertake in northern Ontario.
HarboursMs. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
This week he finally committed the government to one-third of the costs for the cleanup of St. John's harbour but for some reason his government has announced that it will only contribute 10% of the cost to clean up Halifax harbour. The Halifax project has been planned for decades but needs one-third federal support to be a success.
When will he start paying the same percentage of the cost for Halifax as St. John's? When will the government deliver the rest of the money for the Halifax Harbour cleanup?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are very proud that part of the strategic infrastructure fund will go to address this longstanding issue of the harbour.
Let me also make clear that we are not only matching the provincial money, but the money we are investing is available this fiscal year. We want this project to proceed and we are happy that, with this federal investment and the investment being made by the other orders of government, we will finally get on with this important priority.
The EnvironmentMr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on November 5, 2001, the Department of the Environment said it would cooperate with the committee involved in the disposal of toxic waste in the bay of Lamèque, New Brunswick.
Some residents, including children, are ill. This is a serious problem. The New Brunswick conservation council is calling for a federal investigation.
Will there be an investigation, and what action does the government intend to take to clean up this mess in the bay, to make those affected feel better and force polluters to assume their environmental responsibilities?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, last December, we sent out a letter advising the company in question that it was violating the law. Since then, we have been working together with provincial authorities, the other federal departments and the company to remedy the situation. But, as the hon. member pointed out, the problem is continuing, and it is clear that we must intensify our efforts.
Safety StandardsMr. Rex Barnes (Gander—Grand Falls, PC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I raised the issue of 11 models of Cosco infant car seats that do not meet Transport Canada's safety guidelines because of insufficient padding around the infant's head; 225,000 of these car seats have been sold in Canada.
Despite the fact that his own officials have admitted that there is a threat to infants, the minister has failed to adequately warn consumers and recall this product. The government fails to act on the nuts and bolts of everyday safety.
Will the minister admit his mistake and demand an immediate recall of this product?
Mr. André Harvey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we share my hon. colleague's concern. Naturally, the manufacturer and Transport Canada notified all owners of the seats of the threat. Steps will be taken to remedy the problem.
FisheriesLoyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Every minister of fisheries associated with the north Atlantic clearly states that the main problem facing our fisheries today is a complete lack of scientific information.
In light of this, would the minister tell the House why the department is proposing to take one of three research vessels, the Wilfred Templeman , out of service?
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, as well as the Government of Canada, takes government science very seriously. It was highlighted in the Speech from the Throne.
We work on research on the fisheries very closely with industry and non-governmental organizations. We are also doing a planned recapitalization for the coast guard over the years to make sure that we have all the equipment necessary to do all the science for our natural resources.
Government ContractsMr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
The Solicitor General has repeatedly tried to hide behind the Treasury Board guidelines to excuse his apparent payoff to friends with taxpayer money.
Has the Treasury Board given the Solicitor General, who maybe I should call the “baron of boodle” down there, a good housekeeping seal of approval about the guideline rules? The last I heard was that Treasury Board officials were still checking into it. Were the Treasury Board guidelines followed, yes or no?
Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times in the House, Treasury Board guidelines were followed.
My hon. colleague is also well aware that Mr. Wilson is reviewing the case. He will report soon. Let us all wait until he reports.
Softwood LumberMr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, despite the minister's rhetoric, the long awaited softwood package announced this week fails on every front. No one is satisfied, not labour, not the companies and not the provincial governments.
Instead of creating common sense programs, the minister has announced spending to try to bolster his fading fortunes in British Columbia.
Workers who have already exhausted their EI benefits as a result of the softwood dispute are being told to go and collect welfare.
Why did the minister's announcement fail to deal with retaining these workers--
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Minister of Natural Resources.
Herb Dhaliwal: Mr. Speaker, let me quote for the hon. member. This is a quote from Trevor Wakelin, chairman of the Alberta Forest Products Association's Lumber Trade Council. He said:

We welcome the news. We're very pleased that the federal government has come forward to take care of our workers.

Let me give the member a quote from British Columbia. This is from John Allen, president of the B.C. Lumber Trade Association. He says:

By and large, I think it's a good start.

We agree with him. People should listen to the people who represent the lumber--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Laval--Centre.
ImmigrationMs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Canada-U.S. agreement on safe third countries has apparently received approval from the federal cabinet. Now there are only a few formalities left before this agreement comes into effect, yet it has not even been discussed in the House of Commons.
Will the minister promise today to submit the text of this agreement to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration so that we can debate it and hear what experts have to say about it?
Hon. Denis Coderre (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I commend the member. She is aware that under section 5 of the Immigration Act, after approval from the special cabinet committee, the implementation regulations will be tabled before both Houses and then referred to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.
I also agree that the regulations for implementation should be discussed. There is a process that must be respected. The cabinet has accepted it. Next, once the special cabinet committee has finished with it, we will follow the appropriate procedure.
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, given the major impact that implementation of this agreement will have, can the minister tell us if these application measures will be subject to a vote in the House, and what sort of timeframe are parliamentarians looking at?
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the member is taking the liberty of inventing parliamentary procedure during this morning's oral question period.
If I am not mistaken, she was the whip for her party and she knows the rules of Parliament quite well, and they are quite different from those she has described.
Employment InsuranceMr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, some expectant or nursing mothers in my riding who have opted for preventive withdrawal under the Employment Insurance Act end up with shorter maternity leave as a result, because they used up their EI benefits while on preventive withdrawal.
How does the Minister of Human Resources Development intend to solve this problem?
Raymonde Folco: Mr. Speaker, first of all, on September 26, the Minister of Human Resources Development announced a $1.3 million pilot project to help mothers who do not have full access to maternity and parental leave. In the next three years, this project will benefit some 400 women.
I must add that the pilot project will remedy the situation and help us bring Employment Insurance projects in line with benefits--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
ZimbabweKeith Martin: Mr. Speaker, Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe has hired thugs to rape, torture and murder innocent black civilians in his country. He has engineered a famine that is going to kill six million people in the next few months. These actions have been met with a stony silence on the part of the government.
Why has the government which likes to tout its African agenda not mentioned one word about this holocaust that is taking place in Zimbabwe?
Aileen Carroll: Mr. Speaker, we have indeed been calling for action through the Commonwealth. We were disappointed at the September 23 meeting of the troika. We continue to press as much as we can in that alliance with the Commonwealth to compel responsibility on the part of all members to bring action against Mr. Mugabe.
Foreign AffairsMr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, just last week a Lesotho court convicted a Canadian company of bribing a local official. This company is a recipient of CIDA aid. This trend shows that a total lack of accountability of taxpayers' dollars is now creeping into our international dealings.
Will the government confirm that no Canadian official was implicated in this scandal?
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I missed the name of the company that the hon. member referred to. I only know of one case that is presently before the court and about which I cannot comment.
The member did not mention the name of the company in question, I have been told by my colleagues. If he does not mention the name, it is pretty hard to answer the question.
The Deputy Speaker: As we continue question period, I fell out of rotation so I will go back to the official opposition.
I would like to give members notice that in approximately five minutes at the conclusion of question period the Chair will be dealing with a matter of personal privilege. I would ask members as much as humanly possible to remain in their seats following question period.
Aboriginal AffairsMr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, this week an internal report was released which was prepared by a former senior civil servant which found that the government was weak on big policy issues and that many existing policies do not work. This is no surprise to us and is no surprise to Canadian aboriginal people. That is why they have resoundingly rejected the government's proposals to set up 600 different new sets of laws, 600 enforcement officers, and 600 ombudsmen.
My question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Setting aside the obvious excessive cost of such duplication, could the minister explain how 600 ombudsmen appointed by chiefs would be any more effective than an ethics counsellor appointed by a Prime Minister?
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it will be amazing to see how long the member will be the critic for that party if he still does not know what the legislation says.
The legislation says specifically that through aggregation first nations can allow the tribal councils and/or larger organizations to deal with these matters. It is up to them to choose it that way. I am sure the member understands that first nations will want the efficiencies that this legislation will give them.
I recommend very strongly over the week when the member is at home that he read the legislation instead of asking questions that are very much nonsense. That is not what the legislation--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.
Firearms RegistryMr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, handgun registration has been mandatory for the past 68 years. Now Statistics Canada tells us that homicides with handguns has more than doubled in the past 28 years. On the other hand, homicides with rifles and shotguns have dropped steadily from 64% to 27%.
The evidence is clear. Registering the firearms of millions of innocent citizens does not work. When will the minister look at the facts and scrap this billion dollar boondoggle?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is quite amazing to hear the question. Obviously, the member's party is against protecting our nation. His party is against values as well.
When we made the decision on this side to proceed with the firearms registration process, it was about values. It was about making sure that we will keep building a safe society. When we look at the statistics, this is exactly what has happened with our society.
Let me report to the House as well that there are two phases: licensing and registration. At this point in time it goes very well with the registration system.
Highway InfrastructureMario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec had undertaken the impact studies for all of highway 185 and the tendering process for the draft proposal, indicating that this highway is a top priority.
How much longer will the people of eastern Quebec have to wait for the federal government to play its part?
André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government is already participating in major projects in New Brunswick, and most notably with respect to the highway between Quebec City and Chicoutimi.
In the future, I wish Bloc Quebecois members would vote in favour of bills like Bill C-49, which will provide us with the money to achieve what they are asking for.
Canadian ForcesMs. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to know that their awesome team of armed forces are able to work in the most effective way possible with our allies. Could the Minister of National Defence give the House concrete examples of the Canadian Forces' interoperability with our allies?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her very good question.
I confess I was somewhat amazed to hear the contentions of the U.S. ambassador yesterday because notwithstanding stresses, the Canadian Forces operate extremely well with our allies. In the air we have been with Norad for almost 50 years operating seamlessly with the Americans. On the high seas, Canada is the only country whose ships are fully operable with the Americans. On the ground, our troops have performed fantastically in Afghanistan.
Do not take my word for it. Listen to General Franks. Listen to a U.S. lieutenant general, a U.S. colonel or a U.S. sergeant who have said our troops are--
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The House will now deal with a matter of personal privilege with the hon. member for Perth--Middlesex.
Resignation of MemberMr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary colleagues, my dear friends, constituents of Perth--Middlesex, the service to the people of Canada has been an important part of my life, as a teacher and as a member of Canada's armed forces and the reservists. I never found to fail the involvement I had with the reservists before I came back to the House of Commons. Since 1993, as a parliamentarian there could be no greater calling for any of us.
It is with so much regret I must tell the House today that personal circumstances have led me to conclude that I can no longer serve Parliament or the people of Perth--Middlesex as I have for the past nine years. Mr. Speaker, I wish to notify you and all the members of the House of my intention to resign my seat effective immediately.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker. Also I would like to extend my personal gratitude for the support and well wishes that I have received from all my colleagues and friends, and especially my family over this trying time. I thank you all.
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, members of the House and Canadians had the opportunity to witness in the last few moments an act of personal courage that perhaps few, other than the member's own family in the gallery, appreciate fully.
The hon. member has served the House with distinction since 1993, but that was only the last phase, the most recent phase of his public service. He is known as someone who has dedicated his life to the service of the public and to public duty, as a teacher and educator as well as a member of Canada's armed forces in which he rose to the rank of brigadier general. That distinction with which he has served Canadians should be his lasting legacy as we look to him with confidence and hope that as he goes on from here, his life will continue to be one which is enriched by the love of his friends and his family and the support that he receives from them as it continues.
Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Canadian Alliance, the official opposition, I echo the words spoken by the Deputy Prime Minister.
The hon. member for Perth--Middlesex has been an outstanding servant not just of the House of Commons in the past nine years, but also of the country as a former general. As a retired general in the service of his country his efforts have been much appreciated.
He has been a man of integrity in the House. I know over the years in my earlier service here, all colleagues on this side of the House always spoke very highly of the work they did with the hon. member for Perth--Middlesex. It is unfortunate for me, having arrived here again recently, that we have not had very much time to share together because of the circumstances that have intervened.
Certainly I can tell the hon. member and the House that I know everyone in our caucus wishes him all the best in the future. We are all very much with him. Our thoughts and our prayers will be with him. We wish him the best of luck.
Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois, I would like to tell John—seeing that we may now refer to him by name instead of as the hon. member for Perth—Middlesex—that we appreciated sitting with him on various committees.
I remember in particular the very efficective job he did on the Standing Committee on Defence and Veterans Affairs. Personally, I had the opportunity to work with him on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. He was always a real gentleman.
I do not want to go on and on, but I want John and his family to know that the members of the Bloc Quebecois are behind him. We are sure the talent he demonstrated in this House as a real fighter will be put to good use and that he will win this fight.
We wish you the best, John, and good luck.
Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues in the NDP caucus, I would also like to express our appreciation to the hon. member for Perth—Middlesex for the work he has done in this chamber and for the distinguished service he has rendered to the Canadian public, not only as a parliamentarian but, as has already been mentioned, as an educator and through his career in the Canadian armed forces.
We regret that he felt he had to make the decision he made today, but we appreciate it. We recognize the personal courage it takes to make such a decision and then to come to the House.
We welcome the opportunity to wish him well. Our thoughts and prayers will be with him and his family in the days ahead and in the future.
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, it is with some melancholy and great gratitude that I rise as well to join with my colleagues. I very much embrace their sentiments in wishing the hon. member for Perth--Middlesex the very best courage and best efforts in the days ahead. He has brought much to this place and much to the work that he did on behalf of his constituents. I think the word courage is certainly one that he embodies personally.
I would also say that the decision he has taken today is perhaps the more difficult one. It is a very difficult thing to get to this place, but perhaps for all of us, a decision we might face in the future, is the decision to leave.
With that, I want to as well on behalf of my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party send to him our prayers, our gratitude and our very best wishes in the days ahead.
The Deputy Speaker: If I just might for a moment join all of you in your tributes to the hon. member for Perth--Middlesex with whom of course I worked somewhat ever closely in my previous life and as chief government whip particularly. I join you in saluting him for his service to his country, as a military person and of course as a member of Parliament.
Following this last procedural announcement I must make in his regard, I would invite all of you to join with John Richardson, the member for Perth--Middlesex, and his family for a few moments in room 216N. The Speaker has made his room available and invites us all to share a few more moments with Mr. Richardson and his family in room 216N.
VacancyThe Deputy Speaker: Mr. Richardson, member for the electoral district of Perth--Middlesex, having resigned, it is my duty to inform the House that a vacancy has occurred in the representation. Pursuant to subsection 25(1)( a ) of the Parliament of Canada Act, the Speaker will address a warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ for the election of a member to fill this vacancy.
Points of OrderBill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I would just make a brief point of order. The Chair will be aware that yesterday the Prime Minister made a major policy announcement, perhaps we should call it the Glebe doctrine, at a high school in Ottawa with respect to Canada's position on a possible war with Iraq.
Earlier this week we had a number of occasions to complain that the House of Commons was not being taken seriously and that major policy announcements, for instance the announcement with respect to softwood lumber which was made in British Columbia, were being made outside the House. Yet yesterday the Prime Minister answered a question that many people had been asking of the government for weeks and months, ever since the debate about a possible war in Iraq emerged, and the Prime Minister made this announcement outside the House. He may have had his reasons for doing that.
However, when we come to the House the next day, neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister of Foreign Affairs are here to answer questions with respect to a policy decision that has obviously now been made and announced. When the opposition raised a question with respect to that policy announcement, as I did of the Deputy Prime Minister, did the Deputy Prime Minister answer on behalf of the government? He has the ability to answer on behalf of the government. Did the Minister of National Defence, who was also present, answer? No. Instead, and I think this is a matter of procedure, we received an answer from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
My understanding of the role of parliamentary secretaries is that they answer in the absence of their ministers. I did not ask a question of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I asked a question of the Deputy Prime Minister in his capacity, presumably, as one who would be able to defend, explain, reannounce or whatever the policy announcement made yesterday by the Prime Minister outside the House of Commons. It is one thing to do it outside the House of Commons. It compounds the error and the lack of respect for the House if, on the next day when questions are asked of the government about that policy announcement that has been made outside of the House the day before, we cannot even get anything higher than a parliamentary secretary, with all due respect to the parliamentary secretary. She did her job just fine.
The fact is we the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence were here and they declined to answer the question. I think that shows disrespect for the House, and I want to register the way I feel about it.
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne's rules, starting at rule 407, establish exactly what the procedure is for answering questions in the House of Commons. The Speaker will know that members of the opposition have to ask questions of ministers about the departments for which they are responsible. The other parallel rule is that the government can choose any one of its members to answer a question asked.
In terms of a question being answered by a parliamentary secretary, the very excellent parliamentary secretary in this case does her job with distinction, Not only that, she has sworn and has a commission the same as others who are charged to answer questions in the House of Commons, as all of us know.
Finally, on the substance of the issue, the Prime Minister did not make an announcement yesterday. The Prime Minister gave a speech to high school students and answered questions from them. Surely no one here would take seriously that elected people in this Parliament can no longer address students in their schools. If addressing school students puts me out of order, I must be out of order a lot because I will continue speaking to students. I believe it is part of instilling the values of respect in this democratic institution.
John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I thank the government House leader for his explanation. I will leave the question period part alone. However, with regard to the Prime Minister's statement, I feel it was a major statement that had not been made inside the House before. I agree with my colleague from the NDP.
I can only suggest to the government House leader that this is happening more and more. Since the Prime Minister has announced that he is leaving, major announcements are made outside the House.
The Speaker did rule the other day that under our modernization committee, he had no power to control that. I appreciate that. However the government House leader should know, and we have a weeks break coming up, that if we continue to have major announcements made outside the House of Commons instead of here, the opposition House leaders will get together and slow down the operation of the House of Commons.
It is not correct that major announcements are made outside the House before they are made here.
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, just very briefly I want to voice complete agreement with my colleagues from the Alliance as well as the NDP of the growing concern felt by the opposition for the lack of accountability.
Question period, as the Speaker would know, is but 45 minutes a day in which members of the opposition are afforded the opportunity to ask direct questions of ministers of the Crown. We have seen numerous instances in the past two weeks, since Parliament resumed, where ministers have been present and sat stoney faced on the front bench while parliamentary secretaries leapt to their feet in their defence. This very much undermines the purpose of accountability, the purpose of direct responsibility to the people of Canada through members of the opposition who have every right to raise questions of those ministers when they are present. The government seems very content, although it states otherwise, to undermine the concept of accountability.
The Chair will know, as an active participant and co-author of the modernization report, that every effort was to be made and pledges were given that a greater emphasis would be put on making announcements in the House of Commons and being directly accountable to the House and therefore to the people of Canada.
Therefore we request an admonishment or at least an acknowledgment from the Chair that this should be followed and every diligent effort should be made on behalf of the government to be accountable and to be present in the House of Commons to take questions.
Aileen Carroll: Mr. Speaker, I would just make one small point. There was no divergence in the Prime Minister's speech yesterday to the young people at that school. He did not depart from the position of the government which is that we continue to support a new resolution or resolutions through the Security Council, that the onus is with the Security Council and it is in that regard that Canada views the Iraqi situation. There has been no change or divergence or major policy announcement.
The Deputy Speaker: Let me thank all members for their participation on this point of order. Of course, as you would expect, the Chair speaks with one voice. Therefore, I simply refer members of Parliament to the debates of a previous day earlier this week when this matter was raised. The answer lies with the Speaker's own comments in conclusion of that debate.
Gerry Byrne: Mr. Speaker, earlier, in response to a question during question period, I referred to Nova Scotia. The province actually should have been noted as P.E.I. at the time. I was thinking about all the positive things that are happening in Nova Scotia, about which hon. members opposite do not want to talk. Could I have that clarification on the record that my intention was to state Prince Edward Island not Nova Scotia?
The Deputy Speaker: I believe if that is at all possible that will be done. I know sometimes in our enthusiasm we get different regions of this country sometimes a little mixed up. However, as I leave the Chair, let me wish all of you and all of yours a very happy Thanksgiving.

Routine Proceedings
Ways and MeansHon. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1) I wish to table a notice of ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Act. I am also tabling a legislative proposal and explanatory notes on the same subject, and I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of the motion.
Government Response to PetitionsSteve Mahoney: Madam Speaker, just for the record, I am the parliamentary secretary responsible for crown corporations.
Pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions.
Antipoverty ActRéal Ménard: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-228, Antipoverty Act.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 86(1), I ask that this bill be given the same order of priority it had before the Speech from the Throne.
This bill adds social condition as a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act and makes other consequential amendments.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The Chair is of the opinion that this bill is in the same form as Bill C-326 was at the time of prorogation of the first session of the 37th Parliament. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 86(1), the bill shall be added to the bottom of the list of items in the order of precedence on the Order Paper following the first draw of the session.
Bank ActRéal Ménard: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-229, An Act to amend the Bank Act and the Statistics Act (equity in community reinvestment)

Madam Speaker, this bill is modeled on a piece of legislation that has been in force in the United States since 1977; it will ensure that every consumer in every region of Canada has access to credit in a timely manner and without discrimination.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Questions on the Order PaperSteve Mahoney: Madam Speaker, as the parliamentary secretary for crown corporations, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): 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.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): When resuming debate, the hon. member for Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel will dispose of 10 minutes for questions and comments.
Monique Guay: Madam Speaker, first, I want to tell the hon. member that I fully support his comments. The situation in Mirabel is a total fiasco and the federal government is entirely responsible for it, because it did not live up to its responsibilities.
Having said this, I would like to have the hon. member's opinion on another problem that is of great concern in Quebec. I am referring to the whole issue of workers, because there is absolutely nothing for them in the throne speech. There is nothing on orphan clauses and on young people who get their first job and whose working conditions are not the same as those of olders workers. There is also the issue of pregnant and nursing women.
There is so little in the throne speech that the same program was announced three times. A pilot program was announced three times in two weeks in the House. Let us be clear. A pilot program is not a permanent program; it is spread over a three year period. The government had to make this announcement three times, because it has nothing else to announce to pregnant women who, under federal jurisdiction, have absolutely no protection. It simply does not exist at the federal level.
There is also the antiscab legislation. What do we do with people who currently have no bargaining power? The throne speech is also silent on this. Workers who pay taxes are always the ones forgotten by the Prime Minister and his government. These people are often the ones who pay the most taxes; they also pay the employment insurance premiums, but they cannot even get benefits.
I wonder if the hon. member could elaborate on this and give us his views.
Mario Laframboise: Madam Speaker, I will use the example of Mirabel, because I know that the hon. member for Laurentides is, like me, the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, directly affected by the closure, among other measures, of the Château de l'Aéroport, where 160 workers were laid off.
These workers were laid off and they must live with the existing employment insurance legislation. A two-week penalty applies to all of them. I want to make a brief summary of the situation at Mirabel's Château de l'Aéroport.
Let us not forget that the Château de l'Aéroport, that is, the building itself, is owned by the federal government and is located on Tansport Canada land, which means it is federally owned.
This hotel belongs to the federal government, which sublet it to ADM. This means that ADM manages all federal equipment and goods at Mirabel and Dorval airports.
So, ADM manages the hotel according to the conditions of the lease. There is a lease and ADM had a sub-tenant, Mr. Corbeil. Mr. Corbeil took legal action against ADM because the decision to transfer flights from Mirabel to Dorval has meant a loss of traffic and a loss of clientele, which violates the lease that was negotiated with ADM. In the spring of 2002, the court ruled in favour of Mr. Corbeil.
ADM appealed the ruling, but Mr. Corbeil was awarded $17 million. The court ordered ADM to pay Mr. Corbeil. Obviously, the employees figured “As long as the case is under appeal, we are guaranteed a job until it is settled”, particularly since there were still flights in and out of the airport. The transfer still has not finished. It will be completed next year. There are still potential clients. The day the hotel closed, it had 150 guests. That is the harsh reality for the workers.
On June 26 ADM's appeal was heard. Or rather, ADM won the right to appeal. Obviously, the sub-tenant, Mr. Corbeil, asked to close the hotel for the duration of the appeal, because he was losing too much money. The court found in his favour on July 27. The court allowed him to cease operations. He announced to his employees that they would be laid off in one month's time.
These are people who, because of the delay for the appeal hearing and because of the fact that the sub-tenant had been awarded $17 million, figured it would probably take between one and two years, that there would be time to find another sub-tenant, another manager for the business. No one ever thought that ADM, the federal government's tenant, and the owner, the federal government, would allow the establishment to sit empty. That is the current Liberal government.
It does not give two hoots about employees, the men and women who work there. Less than one month later, the workers at the Château de l'Aéroport, some 160 men and women, received their pink slips and had to contend with the current employment insurance rules: the infamous two week waiting period, which is a penalty the Bloc Quebecois has been denouncing for years, since this is a program that belongs to workers.
It has been some years since the federal government stopped contributing to this fund. Only the workers and the employers pay into it and they might be prepared to make changes. Their reaction would be “If we had our own insurance, truly worker-administrated, then for sure we would not have a two week penalty period”. But no, the administrator of the fund is the federal government, which helps itself to the surplus to pay down its debt. That is what it does. That is the harsh reality our workers have to deal with.
The workers at the Château de l'Aéroport, the people of the ridings of Laurentides and of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel and of the neighbouring ridings, all have to cope with these laws. There certainly are women on maternity leave who are having to cope with them, and are not covered by the pilot project the minister has just announced, and has been announcing on and off since the start of this session. The same pilot project has been announced three times. Three different members have asked questions, members with problems in their ridings. They always ask the same minister the same question, and she always gives the same answer, “There is a pilot project in Quebec, and some day it will get to you”. That is the harsh reality.
That is the reaction, as they try to sell the public the message, “See, we are looking after it”, but they are not looking after it. An experiment is under way that will have no results for the people who need help. There will certainly be no results felt by the 160 employees of the Château de l'Aéroport de Mirabel, who were working in a federally owned building.
The federal government has put an independent authority called ADM, which is not accountable to the public, in charge of managing it. These people are not elected. They are not even taking journalists' questions, let alone those from unions or MPs. Basically, they are not answering questions from anyone.
The government is hiding. After receiving the minister's letter, I asked that a mediator be appointed. After one meeting, the workers received their pink slips and, on August 15, immediately after the decision was made, I filed a request with the Minister of Transport, saying “Call in a mediator. This is insane”.
What is even more insane is that, while there are people interested in subletting the hotel, ADM could not care less. They are in court, before the courts, appealing the trial decision. What matters to them is to challenge the $17 million they were ordered to pay by the trial court.
Meanwhile, they could not care less about what happens to the workers. They are not making any public statements or answering any questions from journalists or MPs. That is the reality. That is how this Liberal federal government is managing the facilities that it owns.
I repeat that the Château de l'aéroport, the Mirabel airport hotel off highway 50, belongs to the federal government. It is its building, its hotel complex, which it rented out to ADM, which in turn sublet it to someone by the name of Corbeil. Today, it is vacant, because of a court battle.
What is worse is that 160 men and women have lost their jobs and are subject to the current Employment Insurance Act, to which we are asking amendments be made. The federal government is handing out scraps, like the $1.3 million aid package for the workers. Once again, this is being criticized. Not that my hon. colleague from Laurentides, who is an expert in labour relations, has not been calling for it, but the pilot program that was just announced should be made permanent for all pregnant women across Canada and Quebec. That is what we are asking for.
Why implement a pilot program? To buy a bit more time in order to save a little more money perhaps, so that they can hand out more goodies to their friends. This is the harsh reality with this Liberal government: handouts to friends.
Deepak Obhrai: Madam Speaker, it is a real pleasure to rise and speak to the throne speech that opened the 37th Parliament of Canada.
My colleague from Selkirk—Interlake, who is the agriculture critic, wanted me to make sure that the desires of the farmers of Canada were made known to Parliament. As such, he asked me to read into the record a letter that came from the Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association. This letter was addressed to the Prime Minister of Canada. I will read what the letter highlights. It states:

Saskatchewan agricultural producers will remember the Throne Speech that opened up the 37th Parliament of Canada not for what it contained, but for what it lacked. It was called “The Canada we want”, but is it really? In a year of serious drought devastation, agriculture was mentioned in three short lines with no short-term or long-term answers to the desperate situation of many farm businesses.
The Throne Speech stated that the government would implement the Agriculture Policy Framework (APF). However, the agriculture industry needs rejuvenation not more regulation, which the APF will impose.
The government has also committed to solve trade disputes in agriculture. Although important, grain and oilseed farmers' returns are dedicated by foreign policy. The federal and provincial governments must continue to pursue the level playing field between subsidized countries and our own. It was this commitment that was missing from the Throne Speech.
The Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association firmly believes that the federal government, under your direction, must engage in strategies and policies that will reduce costs to producers, increase the efficiencies of our cumbersome transportation system, solve labour disputes that are disrupting grain exports at the Vancouver Port as we speak and enhance the profitability of our sector. These are the key points that were sadly missed in the Throne Speech.
What is the federal government, under your direction, doing to solve the Vancouver Port lockout situation, solve grain transportation inefficiencies and level the playing field with competitive countries such as the United States and Europe?

The association is looking forward to the response from the Prime Minister.
Having said that, I would now like to turn to the part of the throne speech that deals with my portfolio, which is international cooperation and foreign aid.
Before I begin I would like to advise that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Vancouver Island North.
Following the G-8 summit, which was touted as a development summit and at which the issue of foreign aid became the focus point of the Prime Minister, as many would like to say, for him to leave his legacy behind, in the throne speech he mentioned in passing his commitment to foreign aid. What he said was that the foreign aid budget would be double the amount by the year 2010.
It is fine for the Prime Minister to say in the throne speech that for the next 10 years the government will double the foreign aid commitment. The only problem is that he will not be in office. He will be leaving in the year 2004, as he has stated. Why the commitment to foreign aid for the next 10 years when another government may or may not keep it? One has to wonder whether this is a genuine commitment, and it is probably not.
Let me talk for a minute about the previous record the government had before it went to the G-8 and started talking about leaving a legacy for third world countries or for giving foreign aid.
Under the government, in 1999 dollars, Canada dropped its total amount of aid by 25% in the 1990s. The government has been doing a very good job of manipulating, through its spin doctors, and leaving the impression among Canadians that foreign aid has increased and that we are doing well with foreign aid. However, the reality is totally different.
From 1989 to day, Canada, on an average of OECD donor countries, and it is the rich countries of the world that form OECD and give out dollars, gives a full third lower aid than the OECD average of .39% of GDP.
The action in the past has not matched and will not match the future, or the rhetoric that the government is talking about in foreign aid, which is its commitment over the next 10 years to double the amount when the principal architect of the Africa plan, the Prime Minister, will not be in office.
In 1998, most disturbingly, the government reduced the percentage of total official aid going to sub-Saharan Africa from 45.3%, in the 1990s to 35.5%.
Let me repeat that because this $500 million that was given for the Africa fund, that is touted about giving aid to sub-Sahara, Africa, is now on the agenda. There is also the NEPAD issue, which the government likes to tout, but its record in the past has been that it has reduced aid from 45.3% to 35.5%.
The government has a terrible record of giving aid. It ties its aid so that its friends and companies owned by its friends benefit from this foreign aid while it goes around the world touting that it is giving aid.
My friend on the other side should listen to the statistics. The statistics do not lie. Canada has the second worst record of tying official aid, second only after Greece. Canada has tied 75% of its aid to purchasing Canadian goods and services. The World Bank has stated that tied aid is 25% more inefficient. That is the record of the government.
In the throne speech, the government stated that the plan is to increase foreign aid by double the amount and honour the commitment it made in Monterrey of an 8% annual increase. So here it is, talking something, as usual, and doing something else. That is what is in the throne speech.
What I would like to point out is that we in the official opposition want to ensure that the foreign aid dollars that are currently earmarked are properly used for the advantage of the people, not used as this tied aid is indicating, for its friends, and trying to pretend that we are doing goods things. Let us do it. Let us stop the rhetoric.
John Duncan: Madam Speaker, I will respond to the throne speech as the international trade critic for the Alliance Party. I will start by saying that the government just does not get it.
In terms of our international trade relationships under the government, our relations with our major trading partner, the partner for 85% of our trade, and that is our trade with the U.S., has gone backwards.
When we are trading with the United States I think we have to recognize that it is the most self-sufficient and developed nation in the world. It can and does focus very much on what kind of imports it is importing because it can afford to do that. It also has the strongest domestic trade legislation in the developed world.
It is also true that the World Trade Organization and NAFTA rules are strengthening and that has become a more effective way for a nation such as Canada to offset the strong domestic trade legislation of our trading partners. This is largely a consequence of the fact that the U.S. itself has found WTO and NAFTA legal routes a very effective way to go as well.
Canada must remain a reliable partner that pulls above our weight in terms of the international community. Under the present government, we have seen nine years of neglect. Canada pulls below its weight when it comes to our armed forces and that affects our diplomacy, our trade relationships and many other things in a negative way.
I would like to spend some time talking about the softwood lumber dispute which is the major trade dispute between Canada and the U.S. I also want to make reference to the steel dispute. This is an area where the U.S. has made a very good decision in exempting Canada from tariffs on steel. Here we have our very own international trade panel recommending that Canada put tariffs on U.S. steel entering Canada. Our cabinet has to make a decision. I do not understand why this has been so drawn out when it makes so much sense to just reverse that decision.
When we heard the throne speech, the major and most significant trade dispute in Canadian jurisdiction, remembering that Canada is the most dependent on trade of any developed nation, was not given a mention beyond the fact that the government would continue to behave as it has been behaving in terms of the softwood dispute. There was no mention of a financial assistance package in the throne speech in order to maintain Canadian resolve for our workforce in the forest industry, Canadian resolve for the companies and resolve within the broaden communities involved so heavily, the 200 and some forest dependent communities throughout Canada.
Finally, last Tuesday I was able to extract a promise from the trade minister that there would be a financial assistance package forthcoming. That financial assistance package was announced and it fails on all fronts to address the mission statement, which is to ensure Canadian resolve and morale is bolstered and supported so we can maintain a unified position until we resolve the softwood dispute with the U.S., which we will surely win with all our legal challenges because we are on the right side and all legal advice says so.
The current federal government inaction in our softwood lumber dispute with the U.S. is making Canada vulnerable to U.S. divide and conquer tactics. The minister's failure to provide leadership at the national level has led to the situation where we now have B.C., Quebec and other provinces holding direct discussions with the U.S. commerce department. Canada is in jeopardy of losing in two ways. We could lose the legal underpinning of our federally organized WTO and NAFTA challenges if one province makes a deal and we could lose like we did back in 1996 when we agreed to a deal that would turn out to be continually subverted by U.S. lumber coalition special interests and by the U.S. Congress.
All of this might make some sense if Canada were losing on the legal front or if Canada's forest policies and practices were unfair, but of course we are winning at the WTO and we will win at NAFTA. That is exactly why U.S. Department of Commerce Undersecretary Aldonas is currently attempting to lead softwood discussions in a different direction.
For 20 years Canada and the U.S. have fought over softwood. Some U.S. producers have lobbied the U.S. government for trade actions against Canadian producers, alleging that the Canadian product either harms their industry or is heavily subsidized through artificially low stumpage rates on publicly held forest lands.
As a result of all of this, the most recent trade actions by the U.S. lumber coalition have now provided a textbook example of the law of unintended consequences. Though the Canadian lumber industry has suffered greatly since the imposition of countervail and anti-dumping tariffs just this past May, the U.S. industry has not benefited. The price of lumber has actually gone down in the U.S. because of two factors. Some companies have increased production in order to reduce their unit costs to ensure that they beat the anti-dumping tariff formula. In addition, exports to the U.S. from Scandinavian and other sources have increased sharply.
Consequent to these trade actions, Canada launched multiple appeals at WTO and NAFTA . In July the WTO preliminary finding was that the U.S. had misrepresented and miscalculated its finding of Canadian subsidies. This was no surprise to us. I conclude that the U.S. Department of Commerce has concluded that Canada is likely to win subsequent decisions and consequently is trying to undermine these downstream decisions by co-opting the provinces into endorsing another path.
The U.S. commerce department will prepare forest stumpage policy bulletins for the provinces this November, with the understanding that the provinces will be able to somehow show compliance and have their tariff rates reduced. What a recipe for disaster it would be to have a Canadian consensus broken in that way. The U.S. commerce department would then be able to tell NAFTA and WTO panels next spring that there is no need for the U.S. to comply with legal rulings because they have a separate arrangement endorsed by the provinces.
While this U.S. strategy is playing out, guess what, the Canadian trade minister with responsibility for trade issues is missing in inaction and his department is sending only observers to the U.S. commerce department meetings with the provinces. What is the time line for all of this? Most optimistically, the commerce undersecretary's proposals are for a year and a half. This is not significantly different from what it would take us to pursue our legal options or challenges.
To conclude, the federal government should lead all softwood discussions and negotiations. It needs to immediately implement not what was announced this week but an effective forestry assistance program and it needs to relentlessly pursue our legal options to their ultimate conclusion. Canada requires free trade in order to secure the future for our softwood lumber and value added industries, for our workers, for our communities and for our companies.
Keith Martin: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. friend two questions that relate to Vancouver Island and by extension the country. The first deals with the softwood lumber issue. I would like him to describe roughly the actual numbers of individuals who have been affected by this, who have lost their jobs, in contrast to the government's position and claim that very few people, if any, have lost their jobs over this. Second, on the same area in relation to softwood lumber, because of government inaction the damage has already been done to our softwood lumber industry. I would like him to tell us what we can do, what the government should have done, and more important, what we need to do now to give our softwood lumber industry the chance to save peoples' jobs and to get back on its feet and be competitive.
The second question deals with the transport issue and the airport tax. The government has levied a $24 airport tax that is destroying smaller communities across the country. It is impeding economics because people are not flying. They cannot afford it. The money has gone into general revenues, not into security. I ask the hon. member whether he would agree with the notion that the airport tax should be cut down to a more reasonable $8 to $9, which is in keeping with what there is in the U.S. That tax is directed right toward security, including for security personnel on the front lines, for equipment, for training and for wages. Lastly, I wonder whether the member is going to make an initiative with other political parties to get that airport tax down to $10 so we can save the economies of small rural communities, not only in B.C. but across this country, and of the airlines, which are having a very difficult time enduring this airport tax.
John Duncan: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from southern Vancouver Island. I am from the northern part.
The actual number of people unemployed is a somewhat difficult number to calculate. The IWA, the Industrial, Wood and Allied Workers union, as of this week estimates that there are 6,033 people unemployed as a consequence of the dispute, 8 sawmills closed and 20 on reduced operations. That is in British Columbia, northern Ontario and part of Quebec where they have certification and jurisdiction. Certainly that number on a national basis, expanded by people from other certifications or by people who are not certified union workers, would mean that we have a very large number of people out of work because of this softwood dispute.
The main difficulty I have with the government announcement on financial assistance is that it deals with none of the nuts and bolts of what was being asked for in common sense support in order to retain people in the industry and keep companies in the game in terms of being able to export. There are two things. One is an expansion of employment insurance. Already there are people whose employment insurance benefits have expired. They have been told that their only option is welfare and social assistance. This government program did not deal with that issue whatsoever. It needs to deal with that.
On the other issue, the main thing that could be done, particularly for small and medium sized companies, is a loan guarantee program so that the tariff liability until such time as it will be reimbursed can be covered with government guarantees. That is something we have been putting out there in conjunction with industry since last spring. That is what has been promised by the Minister of Natural Resources since June. The government still has not delivered on that very specific proposal.
Yes, there are many government actions that are hurting our small communities, the airport tax in particular.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to enter this debate on the Speech from the Throne.
I want to talk to the House and those people listening out there today about capital markets. Some people will ask what that has to do with the Speech from the Throne. This is an area of the Speech from the Throne that possibly has not been talked about a lot in the House, although we have had a few questions from the Bloc on this issue.
A very interesting aspect of the Speech from the Throne talked about Canada's fragmented securities regulatory structure being “inadequate and an obstacle to growth”. I think that is a very bold statement, because I can well remember when I first came to this place back in 1993 that I was very concerned about having a very fragmented registration system for securities across this country. I thought it was very much an impediment to our growth as a nation. I did some initial research and discovered a humongous roadblock called federal-provincial relations.
As most of us know, our country was founded in Confederation by the British North America Act back in 1867, which was a very long time ago. Some of the innovation occurring in our marketplaces today moves at the speed of light. In this city, as a matter of fact, we have a huge high tech industry that is doing some tremendously interesting and innovative things. Most of us are aware of Canada's investment in the space program. In fact my own son is involved in some of these things, so I am particularly interested in what Canadians can do and in the opportunities that are available to them.
When I look at this whole issue of capital markets in Canada, to me it is a statement about our inability as a country to work together for the best interests of all the people of Canada. When we talk about capital markets, the stock exchanges and so forth, some people have an aversion to it and think we are just making some kind of intellectual or economic comment, but in reality the movement of capital and the concept of innovation are very much part and parcel of the same thing. If we have capital and innovation, we can create great things in this country. We have done that in the past.
Up to the 1970s, Canadians were great savers. That was historically what Canadians did. We had a conservative approach to things. We put things in banks and for that reason our banks and our banking structure were very important to us. We spent a lot of time in this place and in others ensuring that our banks were solid, had a good regulatory framework and were national in scope, that they had the ability to protect people's savings. People had some confidence in putting capital into those banks. Of course banks then were able to do things like loaning mortgages and so forth, basically creating an alchemy of innovation and capital for the benefit of all the people of Canada.
Since 1970 Canadians have gradually moved from being savers to being investors. Indeed, one out of two people in Canada today has some form of investment, whether it is in pension systems or in direct investments in the stock markets, teachers' pensions, et cetera. Indeed, I am a member of the baby boom generation. I am very much at the forefront of that. I was born in 1946. The baby boomers are now talking about retiring. Retirement plans are very much related to their ability to invest so that those investments will return cash flow in their retirement. Canadians are now investors, but the reality is that in Canada we have a tremendously fractured capital market. What I mean by this is that because it is a provincial domain each province and territory has its own regulatory framework for controlling investments for stock markets.
The result is a tremendous amount of overlap and duplication. Canada is a very small country when it comes to the whole aspect of a capital market. We only represent something like 2.07% of the world's capital market. Therefore, in some ways we are a small player but having said that, the Toronto Stock Exchange is the third largest stock exchange in North America.
On a comparative basis, we can look at what other countries have done. Canada is one of the very few countries in the world that does not have a national securities administration. When I say that, I think of countries like Australia. It has recently realized that with only about 1% of the world's capital market, it was unable to have a fractionalized capital system and still provide the opportunities for investment, to attract investment capital and to create jobs in that country with a fractionalized system. Australia had the wherewithal to think ahead and create a national securities commission.
We all know that the United States has a national securities administration. The European Union is going through a consolidation in many of its industrial areas, not the least of which is the fact that it has come to the recognition that it must have a national securities administration. In Europe there is a two tier system; one is a national security administrator, but it allows the individual states to still do the enforcement and so forth.
I would suggest that is not a bad framework for Canada. Imagine at the same time that Canada is dragging up the rear with 13 different regulatory environments and with politicians getting involved in the process. We do not want the big, bad federal government getting involved in the regulatory framework and so forth. That may not be the model we are looking at, but it is clear we need to move forward on this file.
People talk about the regulatory framework in Canada. For instance, I believe a member of the Alberta Stock Exchange said it takes 17 months to change one regulation. That is the average in the province of Alberta and it is probably the same in every other province. The Toronto Stock Exchange just went through a changeover to a different trading system. It took four years to implement that.
Different provinces are all going off on different tangents on this. Of course, the province of Quebec does not want to be part of anything that looks national in scope. It wants to have a regulatory regime that includes all financial sectors under one umbrella. The capital markets of Canada are simply too small to fractionalize. The countries that do fractionalize, in the final analysis, are not thinking of the best interests of their own people. They are not thinking of the ability to innovate and create opportunities for their own people. They are putting their politics in front of the best interests of their people.
National governments do national things. In all the time we have spent debating in this country there has been a great theory of devolution of power from the federal government to the provinces. The fact of the matter is this is one particular file where it is time that everyone in the country came to the recognition that there is a purpose for a national regulatory system.
I am going to digress for a moment to talk about some of the things that have really had a tremendous negative impact on investor confidence. I was visited recently by people in my own profession, chartered accountants. They were telling me they have to react to some of the very negative things that have happened in the United States and other capital markets, the Enrons, the WorldComs and so forth.
As we look at the stock markets today, people are fleeing from them. They do not trust the institutions that exist there today. This is going to have a negative impact eventually because small entrepreneurial companies are starting up in a very difficult time to raise capital.
Once again I think of the infrastructure that exists in this city and in Quebec, Vancouver, Calgary and other parts. I think Saskatoon has a tremendous emerging high tech sector. The government is going to make it more and more difficult for people to get access to capital, to turn those good ideas into commercial products, to turn those good ideas into something that not only the local people but all the people in the country can take advantage of. We can export that kind of technology.
To diverge a bit once more, we have been talking about the importance of Kyoto. One of the important aspects of Kyoto is that Canada be a leader, that we take advantage of some of the technology that we can evolve if we are there first. If industry is going to be there last, the person who is into this game last will pay the highest price and will be the least competitive. Many of our corporations realize that.
Suncor and others in Alberta and other parts of Canada realize the importance of being there first. I heard DuPont Chemicals say the other day, “We subscribe to Kyoto. We are going to be there first because our production costs will be lower than anybody else's dragging up the rear taking their time to get there”.
Any benefits that we could get from the technology sector in Kyoto will be mitigated if we do not find a better way to raise capital and if we do not find a better way to harmonize and modernize our capital system.
I said it was costly. There is an example of a company that wanted to raise $600,000 for a mining operation in Alberta. The cost to that company to raise $600,000 by going through the capital markets was $300,000. That was partly for registration and so forth in the various security exchanges, but it was also for all the legal work, the lawyers and accountants and so forth. In other words, the bottom line is it is prohibitive. Nobody is going to do it for small amounts of money. Even for larger amounts of money it is questionable whether a person would go to the Canadian capital markets today.
I have heard many people in the corporate sector say that if they are serious about raising money, they go to the United States. The U.S. has a robust system. It is possible to get things registered there. It is quicker to get on the securities market and it is possible to raise more money and do it faster.
There is a problem with that philosophy and it is possible to study the history of this file. If the company's stock is being issued on the U.S. stock exchange, inevitably the company will become an American company. The control of the company will be in the United States. The people making the decisions will be in the United States and Canadians will simply be working for those other people who are calling the shots. That has been somewhat the history of our country; we have let other people call the shots because we did not have the capital to do it.
But Canadians do have the capital. We have to unlock that key to our capital markets by creating a robust system. That is why I was very happy to see in the Speech from the Throne that the government was very interested in finding a way of doing this. Discussions have gone on with some of the provincial governments on this. I say discussions because since 1993 I have been interested in this file and those discussions have been going on all that time.
It is time to act. It is time to put some meat on the bone. The people in the provincial capitals should park their baggage for a bit. They should stop worrying about how to devolve power from the federal government and start saying “This is an issue that requires a national regulatory regime and we are prepared to stand up to the plate and do that and work with the government”.
It does not mean we would have some huge regulatory regime or governmental regime here in Ottawa or Toronto. Different models could be used where this two tier system of regulatory framework could be achieved and which everyone could agree on. The enforcement could be taken on by the provincial administration. The object of the exercise is to reduce costs to make this an efficient, vibrant, securities administration.
Earlier I used the example of Australia, but imagine that the Nordic states, all of Scandinavia, have come together to create one stock exchange. I am talking about Norway, Sweden and Denmark. These are independent countries that have come together to make an arrangement. They realize that without that ability, without the opportunity of scale that they will not be able to attract capital and they will not have the opportunities that other capital markets will have.
Those countries have realized that, yet here in Canada we continue to lag behind them. We continue to not be a part of the solution, but part of the problem. We continue to argue back and forth between provincial capitals about who should be on side and who should not.
As a matter of fact, we have had supporters go in and out on this file. The CEO of the Toronto Stock Exchange, Mrs. Stymiest, has been a great advocate. I have been a follower of her career to some extent. She has been a great promoter because she realizes this is something that is mitigating Canadians from realizing their potential.
Without this we are going to continue to subjugate Canada as a junior market and a junior business environment. We are going to ensure that Canada's productivity will decline. We have to catch up. People talk about our productivity deficit. We have to catch up to the United States.
The mathematics is we have to be 1.6% more productive than the United States every year to catch up and to make ourselves competitive. The only way we are going to do that is by squeezing that last ounce of efficiency out of our business system. The only way we are going to do that in this area is to stop the duplication, create greater harmonization and have a single focus as we go out to parade a national securities administration.
I have talked at long length on this issue, but if we were sitting at home today looking at the stock market pages, we would see that the stock markets continue to ratchet downward. Some say a lot of people are not affected by that and too bad for those who are, but the reality is we have a significant lack of confidence in our capital system in North America today.
This is not about the rich and the famous. It is about the workers of the country who have their money invested in their own companies. The workers have their money invested in pension funds. It is somewhat of a disconnect and a lot of people cannot relate the connection between those capital markets and the best interests of their families, but the reality is that we are all impacted by this. Without the opportunity for capital formation effectively, without the ability to instil that capital in new burgeoning innovative technologies, Canada and those families are being put at risk.
We have to work together as a federal government with our counterparts in the provinces to park the baggage of where we are going on this issue. We have to do away with the rhetoric that has occurred in the past.
The people who run the Vancouver Stock Exchange see it as quite a different stock exchange from some of the others in the country, but some people will have to park their baggage. We have to have a regulatory framework.
The accounting bodies are trying to get voluntary compliance to ensure there are ethical standards. We are big on ethical standards around here, but the problem is the business sector has a huge ethical problem itself right now. We need to find a way to do that. I do not think voluntary compliance is going to work. We need a regulatory environment that works. Canada has a great opportunity to do that. I am very much in favour of the throne speech which talks about moving in this general direction. I hope all of us will support that when whatever legislative framework comes up in the future.
Mr. Joe Jordan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken place among all parties and I believe you would find consent for the following order:
That at the conclusion of today's debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, all necessary questions to dispose of the main motion be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to Tuesday, October 22, 2002 at 3 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is there agreement?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Brian Fitzpatrick: Madam Speaker, I found the member's speech interesting. It is a topic that is well worth pursuing.
I have often thought that the federal government is preoccupied with trying to find ways to invade provincial jurisdiction, things like health, education and social services and abandons other areas that it has clear constitutional power to deal with. Section 91 gives the federal government the power to deal with trade in commerce and any conflict in constitutional law between that and provincial property and civil rights is usually won out by the federal government.
Why does the government not take the bull by the horns and take the initiative on the capital market question and create one national security system and help build a vibrant growing economy that works east and west, not just north and south?
Alex Shepherd: Madam Speaker, under the British North America Act, as I understand it, we do have trade in commerce or interprovincial trade priorities. The reality is that commercial law is a provincial jurisdiction. That has been set out I think from 1967 onward and is where the evolution of these exchanges has occurred.
The irony of course is that while they are a provincial jurisdiction, it is not uncommon that a corporation that has all its business in the province of British Columbia will list on the Toronto Stock Exchange solely and therefore be governed entirely by the Ontario securities administration. There is a lot of irony that exist.
It is clear that the provinces still covet their position in the area of commercial law to the point that they feel it is their jurisdiction to regulate securities within their borders. That in fact is the big constitutional issue.
I do not believe that the federal government has the jurisdictional authority to simply create a national securities administration. I believe we have to get the provinces on side, but we need some leadership in this. We have to impress upon our provincial legislators that it is time to move on and to go forward with this file.
However, I thank the member for his suggestion. I can see that he supports the idea of creating a more robust capital system in Canada.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this throne speech debate today. I want to begin by saying that I am sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Dartmouth.
In the current throne speech, it says that:

Canadians want their government to be open, accountable and responsive to their diverse and changing needs...the government will provide clear guidelines and better enforcement of the ethical standards expected of elected officials and senior public servants.

These are words, obviously, and not deeds. On Wednesday, in this House, I asked about political interference by some ministers of the Crown on the matter of riding boundaries and I want to elaborate on that before this packed chamber this afternoon.
The Prime Minister was one of the few current MPs who was actually here in 1964, when key progressive changes were made by the 26th Parliament regarding the distribution of federal ridings and new boundaries.
In the current review of boundaries, we are now aware that at least three political ministers managed to get their grubby, little fingers into the process and compromised the independence and impartiality of those commissions.
In his response on Wednesday, the Prime Minister chose to say that I was attacking the position of the Speaker. I want to say most emphatically I was not. I happen to have a very high regard for the position of Speaker and even higher regard for the present incumbent who we elected following the 2000 election. However the Prime Minister was half right. It was an attack on a government that has grown too comfortable in office and grasps at every bit of additional power, leverage and influence that it can. That is what I was attacking and it needs to be done, because the changes in the way that we proceed with boundaries was fundamentally reformed in 1964, after 90 years of blatant gerrymandering.
I spent an invigorating evening reading the debates that went on in 1964 involving such parliamentary luminaries as John Diefenbaker, Tommy Douglas, Jack Pickersgill, Allan McEachern, Gordon Churchill, Stanley Knowles and Gilles Grégoire. It is crystal clear that these members of Parliament in that minority government were working hard, labouring to reach an accommodation and an understanding that would end these decades of partisan gerrymandering and make the process fair for all political parties and, equally important, for all Canadians.
They were trying, in other words, to put into practice what Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent had said in 1952 on the topic of redistribution. He said that it was not a matter of executive policy, that is the treasury benches, but it was a matter and responsibility for the House as a whole.
Then there was the intervention of Dr. Norman Ward, a well known political scientist, who said that the government pays lip service to this idea of fair redistribution. Then he went on to say that:

This doctrine, resting as it does on the premise that ministers can forget they are ministers whenever redistribution comes up, and that their supporters can forget it too, put an increasing strain on the credulity of opposition members as the debates wore on.

Is that not exactly the position that the public works minister finds himself in now, where his office conceded that the two people appointed in Saskatchewan were indeed recommendations of that individual?
Jack Pickersgill, who was the transport minister in 1964 and who led this debate in the House, had some excellent opinions on this matter of fair redistribution. He said:

The first and by far the most important of these was that we should not follow the pattern that had been followed in the first 90 years since confederation, of having the readjustment of representation in this place done in this place by its members directly, but that it should be done by somebody which would be as impartial as we in our collective ingenuity could provide and who would be as competent as we could find means to provide through legislation and subsequent appointment.It was also agreed that in the process the government should have no more voice than any other part of the house, because this was a business that was peculiarly the business of parliament, of all of parliament, where we all have an equal obligation and, I hope and think, an equal desire to see that the people are fairly represented.

Mr. Pickersgill went on to say:

--I should like to say parenthetically that there is a real problem in getting people who will not only be fair but who will appear to everyone to be fair.

For the record that I have nothing personally against the two individuals who were appointed to do the boundary redistribution in Saskatchewan. I do not know them. They are probably terrific at their day job. They may even write a brilliant report. However that is not the point. The point is one cannot have a partisan way of selecting two of three commissioners and then try to convince the residents of Saskatchewan that, even though they were appointed by a political minister, they have suddenly become impartial and non-partisan from here on in.
The Pearson government in 1964 understood that and understood it well. This bunch over here today, 38 years later, has totally forgotten it.
Again, Mr. Pickersgill said:

--in order to insure what after all is the most priceless of all our constitutional rights in this country, the right of all our citizens to have as nearly as possible an equal voice in the government of this country.

He went on to say that none of these appointments would be made by the government. He was in debate with someone at this point when he said:

--that is the point the hon. gentleman does not seem to grasp. Under this bill, no appointments would be made by the government at all...

That was precisely the thing to which Mr. Pickersgill objected during the debate two or three years before. He said that they were not going to transfer redistribution from Parliament to the government. He said:

I have never varied from that view, and it is for this reason that in this bill we have been very careful to have no appointments made by the government but to have appointments made by parliament or officers of parliament.

The debate began with the assumption that the chief justice would appoint the chair of each boundary commission with the prime minister and leader of the opposition appointing the other two. However Stanley Knowles and others pointed out that would not be fair necessarily to other Canadians who never voted for either of the old-line parties.
They proposed a Manitoba model that had a university professor, the chief electoral officer and the chief justice of the province. There were some problems with doing it that way in the parties because some provinces had more than one university and there were discussions about presidents and which one would be chosen.
To make a long story longer, on November 10, 1964, there was a compromise. Again it was Mr. Pickersgill, the transport minister, who recommended that the other two people, other than the appointee of the chief justice, would be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Commons. He said at that time who better to trust than his hon. the Speaker to do the sensible thing and not to put any strings upon him except the obvious string that these appointments must be made from persons resident in the province. That was passed November 12, 1964.
Stanley Knowles, in conclusion of that debate said:

--we are dealing with the subject matter which for nine decades or more has been a most explosive one. I suppose few issues have generated as much ill-will in parliament as has the question of the redistribution of the seats in the House of Commons.

Mr. Olson, who I believe was from Alberta, said:

--the passage of this bill to set up this commission will indeed be a red letter day and a proud day for parliament.

It was a red letter day. It did end 90 years of gerrymandering and it makes great reading.
Far more important, I urge, I demand, the treasury benches across the way to heed and take heart from what was done in 1964 and agree that the clumsy, unfortunate and totally inappropriate way in which some boundary commissions have been appointed this time, in New Brunswick, Alberta and Saskatchewan in particular in 2002, will never be replicated.
Wendy Lill: Madam Speaker, the issue the member for Palliser has raised is a very disturbing one because it goes right to the heart of public confidence in the democratic system.
In my riding, the proposed boundary will be changed in a very significant part of my community called North Dartmouth. It is a community of interest and has historical voting patterns that date back to Confederation, yet the proposal is to change the boundary right down the middle. I have had meetings with people and during the summer we talked about this issue and actually made presentations to the boundary commission. One of the comments made by somebody in those early days struck my heart. It was “What does it matter, because this is just the way it is and this is going to happen anyway”. I was struck by the fact that these people in my community had no confidence that this was an unbiased and fair process.
I want to ask the member for Palliser how he feels. How much damage is done when certain boundary commissions that have been struck seem to have quite a strong connection to the government? How do we redress this damage?
Dick Proctor: Madam Speaker, my colleague does raise an interesting point. There is no question that harm is done to democracy when people throw up their hands and say “Oh, well, the government will do whatever the government wishes”.
It is particularly disturbing, as I tried to indicate in my earlier remarks, because successive parliaments following Confederation in 1867 went back and forth on this issue. Whoever was in power had a tremendous opportunity to control the boundaries. The minority Parliament in 1964 dealt with that. I stand to be corrected, but I believe that since 1964, until these latest proposed boundary changes following a census, it seems to have worked fairly well. There has not been a lot of criticism. It looked like the 26th Parliament had done its job well and had eliminated the most blatant aspects.
Now all of a sudden we seem to be going backward. I think that people do wonder what the point is of getting involved in politics. It is the approach of “it does not matter who is elected, the government always wins”, like the old Irish proverb.
We in this caucus still think democracy matters. More important, we think this Parliament and this government ought to understand that it matters a great deal and make sure that what has happened in the boundary changes this time is never again allowed to occur.
Garry Breitkreuz: Madam Speaker, I have just a brief comment. I appreciate what the member had to say in regard to the redistribution process in Saskatchewan.
One of my concerns is that the decisions that were made in regard to electoral boundaries did not follow the natural historic patterns of following municipal boundaries and natural divisions such as rivers. That has had a very negative effect upon the whole process and people's attitude toward it.
I agree with the previous comments. This is very detrimental to the participation of people in the political process. We need to encourage people to participate. What has happened here really flies in the face of that because it is destroying community cohesiveness. Because the commission has gone away from boundaries such as municipal boundaries, this really rips communities in half. It is using highways as a division. Many of these highways go right through the centre of a community so we have one part of the community in one riding and one in another. That just will not work.
The question I have is this: Is it true that out of the 14 ridings in Saskatchewan the only ridings that retained their names were the ones that are held by Liberals?
Dick Proctor: Madam Speaker, sad to say, it is true. There are 14 ridings in Saskatchewan. The ridings of Churchill River and Wascana are currently held by Liberal members. They are the only two names that have been proposed to stay the same. Maybe it is an accident and maybe it is not, but when people are appointed on the recommendation of the political minister from Saskatchewan it is inescapable not to draw the conclusion that it is partisan.
Wendy Lill: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to have the opportunity today to address the House with some comments about the Speech from the Throne that opened Parliament on September 30.
Throughout the summer months I have talked to hundreds of people in my riding about issues that concern them. I talked to them at barbecues, on the ferry, on fundraising walks and in my office. Over and over again I heard about the critical state of our health care system. I heard about the dismay and fear caused by waiting lists in emergency rooms, for MRIs, for mammograms, for appointments with specialists and for necessary operations. I heard from people who have lost loved ones and are left to ponder the terrible question, what if they had received the help they needed when they needed it? That is a terrible question to be left with.
In my riding almost daily I also hear about education issues, about the lack of speech therapists and teachers' assistants and social workers. Although I know that these issues are considered provincial issues, I always do whatever I can to move them ahead because investing in young people is of course a national issue. Providing a level playing field for young persons with disabilities is absolutely a federal responsibility and a charter of rights responsibility.
This summer I also heard a great deal about the high cost of post-secondary education from young people, and from their parents who have invested years in their children's schooling. I heard from young people who have dared to dream about future professions and who now are facing incredible costs for post-secondary education. With the federal government's abandonment of its support for post-secondary education, tuition fees have gone up by 135%. Nova Scotia is leading this shameful example.
This summer, with the extreme weather events across the country and across the globe, I also heard concerns about our environment: water quality, air quality and of course our sewage treatment problems.
I have heard from people in North Preston who said they can wait no longer for the three levels of government to come together and help them build their much needed recreation centre.
I have heard much about poverty and substandard housing as well.
At the Battle of Britain ceremonies and at the jetties to meet returning ships, I heard concerns from veterans and many people in the armed forces about the fact that the government continues not to put in the necessary money for the equipment they need to do their job.
So it was with great interest that I listened to the throne speech in hopes that there would be some long awaited good news for the people of Canada.
To begin with, as I just asked the minister a question about this today, I would have to say that unfortunately and outrageously nothing was said in the throne speech about a significant federal commitment to the Halifax harbour cleanup. What is needed and what the NDP has been pressing for since the beginning is for the federal government to commit one-third of the money for such a large environmental infrastructure project, which is what it used to do in the past. That would be about $110 million. Instead, the government followed the lead of the provincial government, the ham-fisted provincial government, with only a token $30 million investment, leaving our city scrambling and our citizens wondering what it is they can expect from the federal government other than lofty words.
Unfortunately, the throne speech was full of lofty words and promises but alarmingly short on how-tos and whens. The unfulfilled promises from the Liberal red book of 1993 and 1996 have reappeared on everything from child poverty to urban renewal.
The throne speech indicated that the Liberals will finally ask Parliament to ratify the Kyoto accord. It was in one slim paragraph, very short on details, with no plan as to how they are going to do this. That is a crime. Because of Liberal stalling, greenhouse gas emissions today are 14% above 1990 levels, about 20% above our Kyoto target. By Health Canada's own admission, 16,000 people die prematurely every year due to environmental pollution.
New Democrats are fighting for action now on Kyoto, not vague promises. We need a solid implementation plan now to reflect the environmental impact on and the technological capability of our economy in terms of the environmental problems we are facing. We need to fight for a ratification plan that is fair to affected regions and to the workers in those regions. To make Kyoto work we need good ideas and legislation and federal commitments now.
The NDP is calling for the legislated creation of a market for ethanol and biomass fuels and for the mandatory conversion of coal-fired energy plants through the enforcement of clean air standards. As well, we are calling for the creation of a national alternative energy strategy, based upon proven capability in wind, solar and tidal production, and, in partnership with the provinces and municipalities, for the federal government to support transportation waste diversion and municipal infrastructure programs that promote energy efficiency and the use of non-fossil fuels. Of course this includes the Halifax harbour cleanup.
Not surprisingly, the throne speech called for much needed work in the health care system. New Democrats welcome a strong and renewed commitment by the federal government to our beleaguered public health care system. We will be watching carefully to make sure that this promise is not broken again. Privatization, long waiting lists for surgery, and woefully inadequate home and long term care: this is the Prime Minister's legacy so far.
The Romanow report due in November is expected to provide a blueprint for a renewed federal role in health care. We believe that this renewed role must include a significant increase in federal funding to the provinces and enforcement of the Canada Health Act to stop the growth of private clinics and hospitals. We also believe that we have to see an introduction of the long promised national pharmacare and home care programs. We will be fighting for those measures and will oppose any “rob Peter to pay Paul” proposals for funding the federal increase to health care transfers.
So far we have seen trial balloons about increasing the GST or further cutting employment insurance to pay for increases in health care funding. Such moves would be unfair and unacceptable. If the Liberals need more revenue for health care and social programs, they should look first at the ill-advised tax cuts contained in the former finance minister's 2000 budget, tax cuts that benefit mainly the banks, the big corporations and the wealthy.
Canadian content was sorely missing in the throne speech and in the Prime Minister's legacy. There was no mention of increased investment in the Canada Council or the CBC. Deep cuts to the CBC have destroyed the public broadcaster's ability to fulfill its mandate for Canadians. For all intents and purposes, CBC regional television news programming has ceased to exist under the Prime Minister's government. Despite all of the recent Liberal rhetoric about redressing the democratic deficit, the throne speech is silent about the critical need for media concentration legislation.
Nor does the throne speech give any comfort to military families that our Sea Kings will be replaced, or to the homeless that there will be affordable housing started before the snow flies.
There are many more people who will be sorely disappointed with the government's direction, but perhaps none more than persons with disabilities. Even as the throne speech puts forward a couple of measures to address disability issues, the finance department is ripping away other much needed income supports. It is instituting unfair and punitive measures to cut people off from the disability tax credit. Canadians with disabilities deserve respect and equal citizenship from their government, not harassing bureaucracies and punitive legislation.
In closing, I would urge the government to follow the calls from the courts, advocacy groups, the medical profession and the disabilities subcommittee and provide humane and compassionate tax relief to our most vulnerable citizens. That would be the most significant and genuine legacy of all.

Routine Proceedings
Committees of the HouseMs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Madam Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move:

That the membership of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be modified as follows: Guy St-Julien for John Richardson; Werner Schmidt for Garry Breitkreuz; and that the following member be added to the list of associate members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs: Garry Breitkreuz.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
[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.
Rahim Jaffer: Madam Speaker, I listened quite attentively to the hon. member's comments. I appreciated a fair amount of what she had to say.
There is one question I want to ask her with regard to the Kyoto accord, which she spoke so passionately about. Clearly there are some concerns on all sides of the House. I think many people want to see an improvement in air quality and want to find solutions to be able to move in that direction for environmental reasons.
However, if it seems that the Kyoto accord is going to have really negative impacts on the economy and on the future for Canadians, especially for jobs, would the hon. member at least explore the idea of having a made in Canada solution? Hopefully it could solve environmental problems by using technologies and looking at other methods for clean air quality and perhaps not necessarily go ahead with the Kyoto accord, especially since we do not have any real facts and figures coming from the government as to the actual costs and the implementation plan that it has in place. I would like to hear her comments on that.
Wendy Lill: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has raised a very good point. For all of the time that this issue has been discussed, we are still without facts and figures and real work done on the implications that environmental work would have across the country and in different regions.
The NDP is of the belief there are hundreds of thousands of jobs available in the whole area of environmental cleanup, in diversification of our energy sources. We have to move ahead and realize that we are our own worst enemies if we are stuck in the past around the issue of what is now existing in terms of jobs. There are jobs in the future. We can see many conversion jobs in the future. We should move ahead with the rest of the globe on this issue.
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, Lib.): Madam Speaker, my colleague from Dartmouth has invested a great deal of effort, as has my colleague from Halifax West, with regard to the cleanup of Halifax harbour and the federal government playing its role.
Was she as astounded as the members on this side were when the Halifax harbour project was not identified as a priority in correspondence from the premier of that province? Certainly, it came as a great shock to the Nova Scotia members of the government. I would like her comments on that.
Wendy Lill: Madam Speaker, the Halifax harbour cleanup project has been ongoing for 15 years, I believe. It has had different faces to it. The structure now involves four cleanup facilities around the harbour.
For as long as I have been an MP there has never been the kind of commitment at either the federal level or provincial level that was necessary. I have seen the city struggling along trying to pick up the slack from both levels of government. It is a project that is much too big for a municipality.
I have to say that both provincial and federal levels have really dropped the ball. It is a tradition with large infrastructure projects such as this, of course, that a municipal tax base cannot carry it and that those two governments pitch in half and half. They have both let us down.
Andy Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the debate today. In looking at the time and realizing that we are in day six of the debate, we are close to the conclusion of the House's consideration of the motion in respect to the Speech from the Throne.
We have heard a lot of information, many points of view from all sides of the House about the Speech from the Throne and about the vision the government is putting forward to Canadians and about where we want to take the country over the next several months. It would be appropriate to take a moment to recap what was in the Speech from the Throne and to remind Canadians of the commitments and the ideas that were put forward in that document.
I should begin by making a point which perhaps has been lost a little bit, at least in the parts of the debate that I have heard. That was the commitment in the Speech from the throne to fiscal responsibility.
When the government came to office nine years ago, the country was in debt to the tune of $42 billion. Through the hard effort of Canadians from all walks of life, from all parts of the country, we now operate in a fiscal surplus. We have been able to pay down our debt.
One of the commitments that was made in the Speech from the Throne is that we would not go back into deficit, that we would not take the efforts that Canadians have put forward in all of those years and toss them aside. Yes, there are significant issues that we need to deal with as a government, significant issues that we need to deal with as a country, but we are determined to do it with the same fiscal prudence that has earmarked this government's administration over the last nine years.
I want to say to all Canadians that they can be assured that through the leadership of the Prime Minister, through the leadership of the Minister of Finance, of cabinet and of caucus, we will adhere to that principle.
There were a number of commitments and a number of important issues raised in the Speech from the Throne that we need to deal with as a nation and as Canadians.
Something which I believe will seize Canadians with debate in the not too distant future even more than it has over the last little while is the issue of health care. The Speech from the Throne talked about the issue of health care. It made some very important commitments. It talked about the process Roy Romanow has been undergoing for some time to make some suggestions about how we should reform health care, how we should make sure we have a health care system that is responsive to the needs of Canadians in the 21st century, and the types of things we need to do as the federal government, as provincial governments, and simply as Canadians to reform our health care system.
There were two very important commitments in the Speech from the Throne with respect to that. There was a commitment by the Prime Minister that he would bring together the first ministers from all the provinces and territories shortly in the new year after Mr. Romanow tables his report. They will discuss the actual content of the report and the types of strategies that ought to be undertaken to reform health care. That is the appropriate way to do it.
Health care is the responsibility of the provinces. Also there is a federal responsibility involved in it. Quite frankly, from Canadians' perspective, from what I have heard in my community and as I have travelled around the country, Canadians want all governments collectively to work together to resolve health care.
There was also another very important commitment in the Speech from the Throne. The Prime Minister said that after those consultations and those discussions with the provinces, we will make the necessary investments in order to have a sustainable health care system in the 21st century. That is something Canadians view as a priority and it was in the Speech from the Throne.
The second pillar that was discussed in the Speech from the Throne was Canada's place in the world. That is an important issue for Canadians. It is an important issue for the family of nations.
One of the commitments was that we would continue to work as we have in the past year in response to the tragic events of September 11 a year ago and that we would deal with security issues as we have in the last 13 months. We will work with our American allies both in terms of multilateral issues around the globe, but also in our bilateral issues dealing with issues on the border.
The Minister of Finance in his role with respect to security relationships with the United States signed a border protocol with Governor Ridge. It outlined many important steps that we would be undertaking in order to ensure not only that we have a secure border, because that is important, but also that we have a border that is effective in terms of the commerce that takes place between our two countries.
In talking about our place in the world an important component of it is the commitment to increase international assistance as a member of the family of nations. We are one of the family of nations that is fortunate in terms of the wealth we have been able to achieve as Canadians. We have a responsibility to others in the world who have not been as fortunate. Through our international aid program we are exercising that responsibility. I was pleased to see in the Speech from the Throne a commitment to continue to do that and in fact to continue to do it at increased levels.
The Speech from the Throne also spoke clearly to the issues surrounding the Africa agenda and making sure that we move forward with that.
The third pillar was in terms of the environment and a commitment to deal with those environmental challenges we face as Canadians. This is an important issue for all Canadians. It is a particularly important issue for rural Canadians as they deal with many of the issues as stewards of our natural environment. I was pleased to see the commitments. I was pleased to see the Prime Minister commit to the Kyoto accord.
We heard the opposition say that we need a made in Canada solution. I think I heard one of the members from Alberta say, “Kyoto isn't in Canada; it is in some far away country”.
We may have arrived at the objectives collectively as a group of nations. We may have met in Kyoto to come to the conclusion as to what those objectives will be. However the made in Canada part, the part that is essential, is how we go about achieving it in our nation. That is a made in Canada solution that will be made by the government. It will be made collectively in the House by Canadian parliamentarians through consultations and input from the provinces through consultations and input from business, from other organizations in society. Indeed it will be made collectively as Canadians.
It will be a made in Canada solution to achieve an objective and a goal that was collectively arrived at by the family of nations. That is an appropriate approach. Any suggestion that what we are going to do is something that is not a Canadian initiative is simply not accurate.
Also included in the Speech from the Throne was the issue of dealing with our children and those children who live in poverty and the importance as a government to take steps to alleviate child poverty.
One of the unique things the government has done was the creation of the national child benefit. That instrument has been very successful in alleviating poverty among children. It has not been eliminated. There is much that still needs to be done. There is more that needs to be accomplished, but it is a good initiative.
I was pleased to see in the Speech from the Throne that we are going to continue to build on that initiative. We are going to enrich the child benefit to make sure that even more and more Canadians have an opportunity to utilize and take advantage of that program. There are also commitments in terms of access to additional child care benefit and increasing it.
I was pleased to see in the Speech from the Throne, and I think I am probably joined by all members in the House, a commitment to increase criminal penalties for those who would abuse our children. I am sure that as that legislation comes forward from the Minister of Justice all members in the House will see that as an important legislative commitment that we need to deal with.
The Speech from the Throne also dealt with the issue of communities, the importance of having strong communities and the importance of ensuring that Canadians, whether they live in urban communities or in rural communities, have an opportunity for an increased standard of living and an improved quality of life. That was a clear and concise commitment in the Speech from the Throne. We are determined as a government to bring forward measures that will help us accomplish that objective. Some of those measures were suggested in the Speech from the Throne.
I was particularly pleased to see the commitment to a new national infrastructure program, a 10 year commitment to infrastructure for communities in things like transportation, environmental infrastructure and telecommunications infrastructure. All of these are critical.
As I have travelled around the country in my role as Secretary of State for Rural Development, one of the things that municipal leaders have said to me was that although they were very appreciative of the government's infrastructure programs in the past, that it was absolutely necessary to have some certainty and some sort of clarity so they could see how they should budget in the future and how they should do their commitments.
That is why I think it is particularly important in the Speech from the Throne to see a 10 year commitment to an infrastructure program so we can work in partnership, where the opportunities present themselves, with provincial governments and the municipalities to do some long term planning and deal with some of the infrastructure deficit that exists in the country. I was particularly pleased, in my role as Secretary of State for Rural Development, to see a commitment to do some of this infrastucture in the rural parts of the country.
I should also say that I was pleased, in looking at the Speech from the Throne and hearing the Speech from the Throne, to see some very specific commitments in respect of rural Canada and the needs of rural Canada.
First, we saw a commitment to implement the agricultural policy framework and the related measures that would give rise to that policy framework. That is something that I know members on this side have worked hard to develop. It was something that I know members of the opposition have often said that we need a long term vision in agriculture and that we need to know where we are going in agriculture.
I was pleased to be with the Prime Minister this past June when he announced the $5.2 billion toward the agricultural policy framework and related measures, and particularly pleased to see in the Speech from the Throne a commitment that we would continue to implement that.
I was pleased to see the discussion about regional development agencies and the importance of changing the programming in our regional development agencies in a way that will deal with the knowledge-based economy, with innovation and with learning. I think that is an appropriate approach for our regional development agencies. That is particularly important for the rural components of the country. I am so pleased to see a commitment to deal with our regional development agencies.
The infrastructure program, as I mentioned, is one that will also have very significant and positive impacts on rural Canada.
One of the smaller mentions in the Speech from the Throne, but a very important one from a rural perspective, is the work on two very large projects in rural Canada that will create or have significant job creation opportunities and also add significantly to the economic well-being of the country. In the east, it will assist with the development of Voisey's Bay to make sure that we have an opportunity to see that project move forward, to see the wealth that will be created in an area of the country that has historically had some challenges in creating wealth, and to see the jobs that will flow out of that wealth creation. I am pleased to see that commitment in the Speech from the Throne.
I am pleased to see the commitment toward assisting with the development and construction of our northern pipeline. This will help create jobs and wealth in a part of the country that historically has had more difficulty in creating that wealth.
Another pillar in the Speech from the Throne is the commitments toward our aboriginal communities, something to which the government has long had a commitment and something to which I know the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has had a lifelong commitment. This is important, not just for Canada as a whole, but it has a particular resonance in rural Canada where many of our aboriginal communities are situated. We need to provide assistance and the legislative framework.
I was pleased when the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development tabled a bill last June in terms of governance, which will be brought back into the second session of Parliament. I think that is an important issue.
The Speech from the Throne also talks about rural issues and rural commitments. It is important for all members to understand, and I believe they do, that the challenges rural Canada faces are different than those faced by urban Canada, which is why it is particularly important that we see specific initiatives that are undertaken in respect to rural Canada.
If we think about those challenges, we have the issue of geography. One of the realities is that when we operate in rural Canada there is a great deal of geography. This is one of the reasons that many of us live in rural Canada. However that does create some challenges in terms of delivering government services and private sector services. Therefore programming has to be delivered in a rural context differently than in an urban context to deal with the issue of geography.
In terms of rural Canada we tend to have low population densities as compared to some of our large urban centres. That is an important difference. In a large urban centre where there are high population densities, the private sector may be willing to make those infrastructure investments totally on their own.
That same investment will happen in a rural area, particularly in terms of infrastructure, which all Canadians should have an opportunity to have access to. It is critical sometimes to have a private-public sector partnership to see those kinds of investments take place. That is why it is really important that we take into account that particular difference between our urban and rural areas and that we develop a policy that reflects those differences.
There is the whole issue of distance from markets. When we operate in a rural area very often there are larger distances to go to our marketplaces. I know members on the other side have talked about this, but when we want to encourage value adding to our natural resource industries we need to make sure that the distance to markets can be overcome so that these types of value added industries can be created in our rural communities.
So we often need to undertake policies in respect of, for instance, infrastructure to make sure we can overcome those distances. The initiative that the Minister of Industry announced not too long ago, the broadband initiative, will help ensure that there is broadband high speed Internet access to our rural communities.
Mr. Gerry Ritz: It is already there.
Andy Mitchell: The chap across the way says that it is already there. Well, I know he has to challenge sometimes to keep up with things so I will give him a hand with that. I imagine our television audience would also want to know this. I want to inform the House that there are 4,100 rural communities today that continue not to have access to high speed Internet. That diminishes their access to important things such as health care, education and lifelong learning and a competitive business environment.
That is why it is so important to have a Liberal government that understands there are differences between urban and rural Canada, that understands that if we are to be successful as a nation we need to have both a strong urban and rural component because we cannot move forward unless both parts of this nation are strong. We in rural Canada depend on urban Canada and urban Canada depends on rural Canada.
That is why I believe the Speech from the Throne paints a vision that would be good for Canada and good for Canadians.
Gerry Ritz: Madam Speaker, it is hard to follow up 20 minutes of rhetoric with a minute of questions, but I will do my best. I hate to see people out there left with this sour taste in their mouths after six days of throne speech debate, so I will try to get some clear thinking going here.
The member touched on high speed Internet for everybody. There is not a community from Tuktoyaktuk to Timmins that does not have a satellite dish or the availability of satellite television or cable television. Programs are already there. This is a huge duplication. That really concerns us on this side of the House, and a lot of the backbenchers over there too. There are no nickels and dimes attached to this huge wish list that the government calls a throne speech. That is the biggest problem with this type of directive. Where is the budget? How will the money be allocated for all these glorious, wonderful nine years of a wish list that has been put together? It cannot be done.
Andy Mitchell: Madam Speaker, to continue in this vein, there are 4,100 communities. The way it works is this. We have a Speech from the Throne and we outline our objectives. That is followed by a budget. In that budget we will see exactly how we will pay for it, in a balanced way.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): It being 2:15 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, every question necessary to dispose of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne is deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, October 22, at 3 p.m.
(The House adjourned at 2:15 p.m.)